Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. Were cleaning before
Speaker 1: half of the Great Queen. You've found hands, downt of
Speaker 1: thus of space, no mask, no Metro need one. We
Speaker 1: have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our part
Speaker 1: to keep the DC area moving. Find out more at
Speaker 1: well mata dot com. Slade doing our part. Point at
Speaker 1: that press conference and Trump Tower, didn't you or anyone
Speaker 1: on your campaign have any contact with Russia? And the
Speaker 1: denials were adamant. So it's it's with stories like this,
Speaker 1: with movements like this, that we have to go back
Speaker 1: and look at the narrative that they've been laying out
Speaker 1: over the last two years on this. Absolutely, but let's
Speaker 1: also be clear, take one step back here and say,
Speaker 1: still no evidence that President Trump was involved in this?
Speaker 1: Right is talking about Trump campaign officials, etcetera. And number two,
Speaker 1: no indication yet that there was any direct contact with
Speaker 1: the Russians. That's Dan Abrams, legal analyst on ABC News,
Speaker 1: stepping in to rescue his co a legal analyst who
Speaker 1: did what people do all the time, and did it.
Speaker 1: I are doing it on this story today. She that
Speaker 1: that woman there, she said we I asked the president directly,
Speaker 1: has anybody in your campaign had any contact with Russian
Speaker 1: And they said no, that's not what we're talking about today.
Speaker 1: We're talking about wiki leaks. He's being accused of talking
Speaker 1: to wiki leaks. You just conflated wiki leaks in Russia
Speaker 1: as if that's a given, and it's not. If it
Speaker 1: turns out to be, that's a story, but that's not
Speaker 1: known at this point. But even then, what kind of
Speaker 1: story is the question? Sure? David Drucker cover as well.
Speaker 1: He covers everything that's important in the capital for the
Speaker 1: Washington Examinaries, the senior political correspondent, and joins us Now,
Speaker 1: David never dull moment, huh know, I uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm out west and I woke up and my phone
Speaker 1: was pulled up alerts and uh you know, here we
Speaker 1: go again with the story. Never does I want to
Speaker 1: I want to glimpse into David Drucker's life. So you
Speaker 1: you wake up, you look at your phone like I
Speaker 1: did you see all the news bulletins that came across
Speaker 1: Roger Stone arrested. Did you sigh, did you get excited?
Speaker 1: Did you put your head in your hands? What was
Speaker 1: your reaction? In my reaction was is this going to
Speaker 1: get in the way of other stories I find more interesting?
Speaker 1: Even though this is this could be a very important story,
Speaker 1: good one. I mean, I think I think we're all
Speaker 1: pretty much used to this at this point. Although I
Speaker 1: will say the story in and of itself, the indictmon
Speaker 1: of Stone, Um, the fact that we think the individual
Speaker 1: he was communicating with, the Steve Bannett, I think that's
Speaker 1: a pretty big deal. So the senior Trump official who
Speaker 1: told him, hey call Wickily allegedly, hey called wiki leaks
Speaker 1: and see what they got was the correct? Okay, all right?
Speaker 1: Fair enough? Um. And as always, the question that we
Speaker 1: try to ask to help clarify things for our listeners is,
Speaker 1: you know, does this go to being rude? Does it
Speaker 1: go to being clearly unethical? Does it go to violating
Speaker 1: campaign laws? Does it go to committing felonies? You know,
Speaker 1: on cable news they try to whip it up that
Speaker 1: everything is a felony. But if Stone called wiki leaks
Speaker 1: and forget about the lying for now, because it's not
Speaker 1: clear to me why you would have liked. But if
Speaker 1: you called Wiki leaks and said, hey, we understand you've
Speaker 1: got some dirt. What kind of dirt you got? Was
Speaker 1: that a crime? Well, I'm not a legal analyst, so
Speaker 1: I'm not going to tell you it is or is
Speaker 1: not a crime because I'm not exactly sure, and I
Speaker 1: think it's a little complicated. I do think the political
Speaker 1: ramifications could be serious, depending on what more comes out.
Speaker 1: But I mean, let's think about this, right, somebody who
Speaker 1: is close to the Republican nominee for president, who is
Speaker 1: working on behalf of if not directly before the Republican
Speaker 1: nominee for president, is talking to foreign a foreign adversary
Speaker 1: of the United States, which Wiki leak is, and was
Speaker 1: it continues to be that, yes, we did, because Wiki
Speaker 1: leaks had already during the Obama administration leaked very sensitive materials,
Speaker 1: classified information that was very embarrassing and damaging to the
Speaker 1: United States and its work around the world diplomatically and otherwise.
Speaker 1: And they they obtained the information basically illegally, and they
Speaker 1: used it simply to damage the United States. This is
Speaker 1: not like me having a whistleblower type source in the
Speaker 1: United States government. They bring the information. I set it.
Speaker 1: I talked to government officials about what this all means.
Speaker 1: There's a purpose here. You know, I've uncovered you know,
Speaker 1: some wrongdoing or some you know, you're not being honest
Speaker 1: about North Korean missile sites and all this sort of
Speaker 1: the thing. This was just cables and information of a
Speaker 1: sensitive nature between our Secretary of State and other officials
Speaker 1: and foreign officials and made it harder for us to
Speaker 1: do business overseas. It damaged the United States. So that's
Speaker 1: what Wiki leaks has always been about. And so Roger
Speaker 1: Stone is working with an adversary of the United States
Speaker 1: that might have obtained information from another adversary of the
Speaker 1: United States, and he's using it specifically to damage the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee for president. Now, there's nothing wrong with using
Speaker 1: opposition research to damage the the opposition. We do all
Speaker 1: do that, I mean mean political operatives, both parties. Um,
Speaker 1: there's nothing new and nothing wrong with doing it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, other than some people have the ethical problems
Speaker 1: with it, but it's perfectly within bound. But it's unusual,
Speaker 1: to say the least, to take information that may have
Speaker 1: been illegally obtained from a foreign entity and with and
Speaker 1: then use that wield that against the opposition, especially when
Speaker 1: when adversaries don't you know, it's not about you know,
Speaker 1: winning an election, it's about damaging the United States from
Speaker 1: the point of view. Wiki leaks, yeah, and putin if
Speaker 1: he was involved. David Drucker of the Washington New Saminar
Speaker 1: is on the line. I've just been trying to figure
Speaker 1: out this out. So if People Magazine, if if they
Speaker 1: found out People Magazine had some dirt on Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: and Bannon told Roger Stone, Hey, you know the guy
Speaker 1: overt People Magazine, call him up and say, say, what's
Speaker 1: the dirt and when you're going to release it? The
Speaker 1: difference is People Magazine is not a hostile actor, correct,
Speaker 1: And People Magazine wouldn't say. I mean, I get calls
Speaker 1: all the time from you know, political operatives. What do
Speaker 1: you have on my opponent? Am I going to tell
Speaker 1: you what I have? Unless I need you to comment
Speaker 1: on this? When are you going to release it? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not a member of your campaign. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to strategically coordinate with you to defeat your opponent. You'll
Speaker 1: see what I've got when I publish it. If I
Speaker 1: need your comment, because that's part of my job. As
Speaker 1: a journalist, I will call you say I have information.
Speaker 1: I want you to comment. That's how this works. I
Speaker 1: will also give my the subject I'm writing about an
Speaker 1: opportunity to comment. Well, let you, trusting my question would
Speaker 1: have what's it working? It's not journalism. I just want
Speaker 1: to make that clear. Look was not to journalism, right right?
Speaker 1: Fair enough? So, but again it goes, is that just unusual?
Speaker 1: Is it unethical? Is it illegal? Or what? So? I
Speaker 1: very unethical and possibly illegal, but I do not know,
Speaker 1: and so I do not want to give you information
Speaker 1: that could be wrong. Fair enough, Yeah, absolutely so, just
Speaker 1: out of curiosity. What we're what's a story you do?
Speaker 1: You have a great deal of enthusiasm for today that
Speaker 1: you'd really I'm not gonna in my world, it's fun,
Speaker 1: but I'm not gonna tell you just in case. You know,
Speaker 1: Roger Stone is listening from jail and then tells my
Speaker 1: competitors and then they beat me to it. Also, it's
Speaker 1: lurks here, but I will alert you guys next week.
Speaker 1: So you're working on a story that you think is
Speaker 1: bigger than there's Roger Stone thing, Well, that's worth paying
Speaker 1: attention to. I said, it's more important to me. It's
Speaker 1: more fun for me. Okay, I'm in this. I'm in
Speaker 1: this for myself. Is it? Is it? Kamala Harris uh
Speaker 1: being an item with Willie Brown back in the day,
Speaker 1: will I am willing to stipulate that I am not
Speaker 1: writing about the personal life of any Democratic presidential Canada,
Speaker 1: at least not at the moment. Fair enough. David Drucker
Speaker 1: The Washington I'm struck by the fact that CNN had
Speaker 1: cameras at Roger Stone's house. Did the FBI leaked to CNN, Hey,
Speaker 1: We're going in get your cameras there. Kate Bennet of
Speaker 1: CNN and tweeted that the report one of the reporters
Speaker 1: they have monitoring covering the Muller investigation noticed, uh, some
Speaker 1: activity at the courthouse or that got the brand jury
Speaker 1: or something yesterday and just kind of inkling and decided
Speaker 1: to jet down to Florida. And I will say, the
Speaker 1: CNN has a very, very being reporting staff and a
Speaker 1: lot of good reporters, And it totally strikes me if
Speaker 1: you're covering this every single day and this is your job,
Speaker 1: that these sorts of things sometimes do strike you, and
Speaker 1: you you do these sorts of things so it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily um on you you know crazy that um a, look,
Speaker 1: border had a good feeling it was in the right
Speaker 1: place at the right time. Okay, all right. David Drucker,
Speaker 1: senior political correspondent in Washington Examiner. Thanks, David, good to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Good luck on that big expose you're
Speaker 1: working on. Then the you know the thing. So, I
Speaker 1: think Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States.
Speaker 1: I've thought that for a long time, yes, but all
Speaker 1: of the media hasn't thought that for a long time. No. Indeed,
Speaker 1: when when, when he was exposing various things that a
Speaker 1: lot of the left leaning media doesn't like exactly, he
Speaker 1: was a hero there for a while, truth seeker right,
Speaker 1: helping out poor Bradley Manning for instance. Yeah, yeah, well yeah,
Speaker 1: place James Comey made the points so beautifully that if
Speaker 1: you're helping him, helping out the left and their media,
Speaker 1: you're a hero. And if you're hurting him, you're a
Speaker 1: villain who every motive must be questioned, and if it
Speaker 1: changes next week, you're a hero again. So I just yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but yeah, Wiki Leaks is obviously an anti American organization. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but they're not. They're not. Are they on a list
Speaker 1: somewhere as a I don't know, that's an interesting respversary
Speaker 1: or something. Yeah, I don't. I will tell you this.
Speaker 1: I will repeat this since it's really in the nutgraph,
Speaker 1: as we say in the news business, it's the beginning
Speaker 1: of what you ought to know. Roger Stone was indicted
Speaker 1: only for lying and allegedly tampering with a witness, not
Speaker 1: for anything to do with hacking or talking to wiki
Speaker 1: leaks or reporting that John Podesto is an ass or
Speaker 1: you know, or any of that. Just lying, okay, And
Speaker 1: you'd think if they were going to go to his
Speaker 1: house and somebody, at least somebody local tiptop CNN. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I love David, but I do not buy that it
Speaker 1: was just a dogged reporting. Wait a minute, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of action at the courthouse in d C. I
Speaker 1: wonder if they're going down to Fort Lauderdale. Let let's
Speaker 1: pond thousands of dollars to send a CNN crew down
Speaker 1: to Florida. Well, I have a feeling they have a
Speaker 1: stringer who just watches Roger Stone's house. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: because they are such an avowidly anti Trump network. But anyway,
Speaker 1: it wasn't. What was I gonna say? Oh, as long
Speaker 1: as the FBI and the Justice Department went to the
Speaker 1: trouble of gearing up and and pounding out his door
Speaker 1: and dragging him out of bed and his you know,
Speaker 1: his uh, his T shirt and thong that he sleeps in. Um,
Speaker 1: you'd think that go ahead and indict him for whatever
Speaker 1: else was illegal while they were there. Um. So it
Speaker 1: could be it's just lying where this ends. Nobody knows. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm exhausted by it, but he saw the hell done
Speaker 1: wells Fargo is waving fees for furload federal workers trying
Speaker 1: to get a good little pressed. We haven't forgotten. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: nicely to do that. Glad you're doing it. Nice thing
Speaker 1: to do. You're you're still a criminal organization in my opinion.
Speaker 1: If you wave those fees for the next seventy five years,
Speaker 1: maybe that would equal the fees on various accounts for
Speaker 1: cards that I never have to have open for awesome
Speaker 1: our text line four nine five k f TC. You're
Speaker 1: listening to the Armstrong and Getty show, I'm strong and
Speaker 1: get good conscience. When you're ready to ride metro, we
Speaker 1: want you to know we're ready for you. Here are
Speaker 1: just a few of the people at Metro to tell
Speaker 1: you how we're doing our part to keep riders safe.
Speaker 1: Were cleaning like novel before the Great Queen. You have
Speaker 1: found half sound of thousand Stasistro. No masks, no Metro
Speaker 1: need one. We have a few extras at Metro. We're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep the DC area moving. Find
Speaker 1: out more at well mata dot com slash doing our
Speaker 1: part