Speaker 1: Wow, what a newsday. This is turning out to be.
Speaker 1: Glad you are with us right down our toll free
Speaker 1: telephone number. You want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: I don't know why those other parents didn't follow the
Speaker 1: role of Felicity Huffman and thirteen others and fall on
Speaker 1: the sword if they're guilty in this college thing, because otherwise,
Speaker 1: you know, they may get a big mistake anyway. But
Speaker 1: there's no truth to the lie the Trump is looking
Speaker 1: to bring back child separation. Can I just say that
Speaker 1: for everybody? Well, the polls in Israel have just closed.
Speaker 1: What we're hearing it could be very very very tight.
Speaker 1: Nobody knows how this is ultimately going to end up.
Speaker 1: I'm just hoping that bb net and young who gets
Speaker 1: to form the next government, because what they did to
Speaker 1: him before this election I've never heard of. You're indicting
Speaker 1: somebody for cigars, just ridiculous. We'll get to that. Also,
Speaker 1: there is now a tremendous amount of pressure being brought
Speaker 1: to bear on Kim Fox, the attorney in Chicago, even
Speaker 1: though the I guess Rainbow Push coalition had her. Bobby
Speaker 1: Rush claims now of racism, etc. We'll get to all
Speaker 1: of that. In the course of the program, we have
Speaker 1: other news breaking on the deep state that is extraordinarily revealing.
Speaker 1: Doug Collins now is giving us more closed door testimony
Speaker 1: as it relates to in this case, the the head
Speaker 1: counsel of the FBI undercall me the general Counsel, and
Speaker 1: that would be James Bakers. We have a lot to
Speaker 1: get to. We're gonna unravel all of this. We have
Speaker 1: it all the Attorney General appearing earlier today and going backwards,
Speaker 1: I guess sometime this afternoon, Bill Barr at a hearing,
Speaker 1: just describing in detail. I'll go over a couple of
Speaker 1: these will play more later in the program. But where
Speaker 1: he goes over the four air is of the Muller Report,
Speaker 1: which will be redacted. Now, remember it was people like
Speaker 1: the Cowardly Shift, you know, excoriating how dare Devin Newness
Speaker 1: released things where it's possible that sources and methods will
Speaker 1: be released. That is just basic common practice. Now, if
Speaker 1: you go back to the Independent Council Statute that was
Speaker 1: in place when Bill Clinton got impeached, it was the
Speaker 1: Democrats that wanted this law fixed and changed, and they're
Speaker 1: the ones that at that time there's seventeen Democrats, including Naveler.
Speaker 1: They didn't want the Star report released, and then they
Speaker 1: changed the law and now we've got a special Council
Speaker 1: which gave more control to the Attorney General and Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. And anyway, well, they're saying who put the
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm not sure I believe it. They haven't
Speaker 1: even counted the votes yet. That Gantz has beaten net
Speaker 1: in Yahoo with the larger number of seats, claiming that
Speaker 1: exit poles, released late in the evening would show that
Speaker 1: he's said, well, okay, exit poles in Israel as reliable
Speaker 1: as they are here. The poles just closed. So I'm
Speaker 1: not taking that to mean anything, because you still got
Speaker 1: to count the votes EXA poles, exit poles. In two
Speaker 1: thousand and four, Member five fifteen, on this radio program,
Speaker 1: I got the eggs of poles. John Kerry was going
Speaker 1: to be the next president. John Kerry defeated George W. Bush.
Speaker 1: Big problem with that didn't happen. At five thirty five
Speaker 1: Eastern time that afternoon, Dick Cheney called this radio program
Speaker 1: and he was pushing hard for Ohio voters in Florida
Speaker 1: Panhandle and Southwest Florida voters to get out and vote.
Speaker 1: Those are the two states they had to win to
Speaker 1: win reelection, and they did handily. There was no recount
Speaker 1: or dimpled or pimpled or swinging or hanging or you know,
Speaker 1: broken chads, no double votes. So I'm not taking any
Speaker 1: I'm taking all this with a grain of salts. One
Speaker 1: actually there's two poles actually that now have come out
Speaker 1: of Israel. One has a tide, one has gams up
Speaker 1: by four. But in twenty sixteen, well when I got
Speaker 1: the eggs of Poles, I got him. Every election year
Speaker 1: at five fifteen while I'm on the air somehow I'm
Speaker 1: on the air and I'm trying to navigate reading it
Speaker 1: and you're not allowed to report it. But all these
Speaker 1: people on TV, you can tell by their attitude they
Speaker 1: were giddy, could giddy. They'd all go on the air
Speaker 1: at five thirty onwards on election night. They're so happy
Speaker 1: because they read the eggs of Polese. You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to release some of the information, or the majority of
Speaker 1: information and the eggs of pose until later. Okay, so
Speaker 1: they're giddy. I read the same eggs of Polese. I
Speaker 1: happen to talk to Donald Trump. I said, I called
Speaker 1: him in the first break. I said, you're gonna get
Speaker 1: somebody walking into your office and drawing straws right now,
Speaker 1: who's gonna get Who's gonna be picked and have the
Speaker 1: duty to walk in and tell you bad news is coming?
Speaker 1: I said, don't believe it. Then I told him to
Speaker 1: Dick Cheney's story. Well it happened again, because according to
Speaker 1: the eggs of Poles, in twenty sixteen, Donald Trump had
Speaker 1: lost North Carolina, he had lost Pennsylvania, he had lost Michigan,
Speaker 1: he had lost Wisconsin, and he had lost with Ohio,
Speaker 1: he had lost Florida. He lost it all. It was
Speaker 1: barely you know, we couldn't even see if he was
Speaker 1: gonna win any states. The eggs of Poles are notoriously wrong. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's going to be the case today,
Speaker 1: but I certainly hope so. I certainly hope so. But
Speaker 1: with all the shenanigans, you talk about a witch hunt
Speaker 1: in America, this is a witch hunt against Prime Minister
Speaker 1: net Yahoo. If you look at the residence of the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Israel and you compare it to any
Speaker 1: other head of state, it's like the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: two better an apartment in New York City. It is
Speaker 1: not ostentatious. It is not presidential for not frankly fitting
Speaker 1: the office of a prime minister. And the idea that
Speaker 1: cigars and maybe a bottle of wine somehow results in
Speaker 1: an indictment five weeks before the election is absurd. This
Speaker 1: guy who's had more and moral clarity on the world
Speaker 1: stage when others have had none, as we saw nine
Speaker 1: to eleven and the dangers were facing all right, let
Speaker 1: me get back to what's happened. So Bill Barr, let
Speaker 1: me go over what he said about the Muller report first,
Speaker 1: and then we'll get into Judicial Watch now has uncovered
Speaker 1: discussions in the latest production of emails, matter of fact,
Speaker 1: hundreds of them, suggesting the entire collection could be classified
Speaker 1: and basically a cover up of FBI documents four twenty
Speaker 1: two pages of FBI documents showing evidence of cover up
Speaker 1: discussions related to the Clinton email system within the Platte
Speaker 1: River Networks. That was the place that held Hillary's secret
Speaker 1: server in the Mom and Pop shop bathroom closet. They
Speaker 1: were a vendor that managed the Clinton email system. The
Speaker 1: documents now show Intelligence community people Inspector General Charles McCullough
Speaker 1: forwarding concerns about the classified information on her emails. New
Speaker 1: documents uncovered by Judicial Watch contain Clinton's two thousand and
Speaker 1: nine classified information nondisclosure agreement bearing her signature and anyway,
Speaker 1: so we'll get to that today. And now we have
Speaker 1: Doug Collins striking again with the General Council of the FBI.
Speaker 1: So we have two big pieces of news we've got
Speaker 1: to sift through in the course of the program today.
Speaker 1: But let's go to bars testimony, which was supposed to
Speaker 1: be about the budget over at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: But he of course was asked repeatedly about the Muller Report,
Speaker 1: and he says that, well, here are the areas that
Speaker 1: have to be redacted, and he says that it will
Speaker 1: be released, likely to the public within a week. But
Speaker 1: I am relying on my own discretion to make as
Speaker 1: much a public as I can now. In my letter
Speaker 1: of the March twenty ninth, I identified four areas that
Speaker 1: I feel should be redacted, and I think most people
Speaker 1: would agree. The first is grand jury information six E material.
Speaker 1: The second is information that the intelligence community believes would
Speaker 1: reveal intelligence sources and methods. The third or information in
Speaker 1: the report that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions. You will
Speaker 1: recall that the Special Counsel did spin off a number
Speaker 1: of cases that are still being pursued, and we want
Speaker 1: to make sure that none of the information in the
Speaker 1: report would impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors
Speaker 1: to prosecute acute the cases or the fairness to the defendants.
Speaker 1: And finally, we intend to act information that implicates the
Speaker 1: privacy or reputational interests of peripheral players where there is
Speaker 1: a decision not to charge them. Right now, the Special
Speaker 1: Council is working with us on identifying information in the
Speaker 1: reports that fall under those four categories. This process is
Speaker 1: going along very well, and my original timetable of being
Speaker 1: able to release this by mid April stands and so
Speaker 1: I think that from my standpoint, within a week I
Speaker 1: will be in a position to release the port to
Speaker 1: the public, and then I will engage with the chairman
Speaker 1: of both judiciary committees about that report and about any
Speaker 1: further requests that they have. And by the way, Barr
Speaker 1: said that he didn't expect or anticipate that there would
Speaker 1: be any use of executive privilege which would be open
Speaker 1: to the White House, which I think they probably should use,
Speaker 1: but whatever. And he testified and said that the ig
Speaker 1: Horowitz and the FISA investigation that may be done by
Speaker 1: mayor June, that's going to be huge. And he was
Speaker 1: in fact reviewing the conduct of the summer twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: investigation and as it relates to the individual leaked the
Speaker 1: FISA order against Carter Paige. Barr said, if there is
Speaker 1: a predicate for an investigation that it will be conducted,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't answer whether the White House has seen the report.
Speaker 1: And so we move forward from here now. Barr did
Speaker 1: say during his testimony that by the way, this is
Speaker 1: the Appropriations Committee, this is supposed to be about money anyway.
Speaker 1: Barr explained that the Justice Department Inspector General has his
Speaker 1: pending report. He also confirmed he's personally reviewing the investigation,
Speaker 1: and he said more generally, I'm reviewing the conduct the
Speaker 1: investigation and trying to get my arms around the aspects
Speaker 1: of the counterintelligence investigation Crossfire Hurricane that was conducted in
Speaker 1: the summer of twenty sixteen, and that came after the
Speaker 1: ranking member Devin Uness said over the weekend that he's
Speaker 1: preparing these criminal referrals that will be coming out this week.
Speaker 1: Let me just go over the quick list. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be getting those criminal referrals. We're gonna be getting the
Speaker 1: IG report, We're going to be getting the investigation into
Speaker 1: leaks by John Houber. We're going to be getting more
Speaker 1: closed door testimony like we got from Baker today. We're
Speaker 1: going to be getting more fis of requests. We're going
Speaker 1: to eventually get the fies of warrants. We're eventually going
Speaker 1: to get the three O two's, the conversations and ass
Speaker 1: and remarks between people like Or and Christopher Steele. We're
Speaker 1: also going to get the Gang of Eight information and
Speaker 1: much much more. And what this is going to end
Speaker 1: up doing is I believe you're going to see not
Speaker 1: only criminal referrals, but indictments of those that abuse their power.
Speaker 1: And that's why he's investigating you know what is FBIDO
Speaker 1: J missconduct in all of this. Mark Meadows said today
Speaker 1: that about the criminal referrals that the right move from
Speaker 1: Devin Noon has more criminal referrals are to come, and
Speaker 1: certainly more deserved. Overwhelming evidence shows multiple FBI DJ executives
Speaker 1: abuse their power to undermine a duly elected president. They
Speaker 1: will all be held accountable. He's absolutely right, and it
Speaker 1: even gets deeper than that. I'll get to that in
Speaker 1: the next segment and a lot more information. We're also
Speaker 1: watching the results out of Israel. We have any new information,
Speaker 1: will pass that on to you. We have Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: and David Show going to be checking in today. Kimberly
Speaker 1: Strassell checks in with us today. We'll get a lot
Speaker 1: of your calls in at some point in the program. Hey,
Speaker 1: if you're one of thirty four million Americans that smokes,
Speaker 1: you know what a hassle that can be for me.
Speaker 1: I'm out playing golf and a comebacks like cigars, it's
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: nicotine for a satisfying transition. Now, when I found Jewel,
Speaker 1: it was a complete game changer in my life. I
Speaker 1: don't smoke any cigars any longer. And Jewel was designed
Speaker 1: by smokers for smokers, to be an alternative to whatever
Speaker 1: it is you're smoking. So, if you're one of thirty
Speaker 1: four 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. So this information
Speaker 1: gotten by Judicial Watch is pretty devastating. You got an Augus,
Speaker 1: you got Platte Rivers Network. This goes back to December
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, an email between redacted parties quote, it's all
Speaker 1: part of the Hillary cover up operation. I'll have to
Speaker 1: tell you about it at the party. And in August
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, email from Platte River Network says, so does
Speaker 1: this mean we don't have offsite backups currently? That well,
Speaker 1: that could be a problem. If someone hacks this thing
Speaker 1: and jacks it up. We'll have to be able to
Speaker 1: produce a copy of it somehow or we're going to
Speaker 1: be in deep And also, whatever came of the guys
Speaker 1: at Data about the old backups, do they have any
Speaker 1: way of getting those back after we were told to
Speaker 1: cut it to thirty days? And in March of twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: Platte Rivers Networks again the mom and pop shop, bathroom
Speaker 1: closet server or Hillary specifically discussed the security of the
Speaker 1: email server. You know redacted is going to send over
Speaker 1: a list of recommendations for us to apply for a
Speaker 1: additional security against the hackers. He did say that we
Speaker 1: should probably remove all Clinton files, folders, info all for
Speaker 1: our servers on an independent drive. Had written notes that
Speaker 1: appear to be from Platte Rivers Networks in February twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen mentions questions concerning the Clinton email system and backups,
Speaker 1: and the documents show that that Platte Rivers Networks used
Speaker 1: bleach bit on the Clinton server. The bleach bit program
Speaker 1: was downloaded from a vendor called source Forge at eleven
Speaker 1: forty two am March thirty first, twenty fifteen, according to
Speaker 1: a computer event law by the way, just as she's
Speaker 1: trying to run for president and over the next half hour,
Speaker 1: and that was used to delete the files on Hillary server.
Speaker 1: Documents also contain emails handwritten notes in June and July
Speaker 1: of twenty fifteen from the Office of Intelligence Community Inspector
Speaker 1: General discussing concerns over classified information or dacted sender from
Speaker 1: the State Department official Peggy Grayfeld that an inadvertent release
Speaker 1: of State Department equities when the collection is released in
Speaker 1: its entirety, the potential damage to foreign relations of the
Speaker 1: United States could be significant. Need you plugged in on this?
Speaker 1: Now it gets worse? You know? This is now June
Speaker 1: twenty seven, twenty fifteen. Working with the inspector, I have
Speaker 1: personally reviewed hundreds of documents in the Hillary Rodham Clinton collection.
Speaker 1: I can now say without reservation, there are literally hundreds
Speaker 1: of classified emails in this collection, maybe more. For example,
Speaker 1: there were comments by Department staff and emails related to
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks, unauthorized disclosures. Many of the emails relating to
Speaker 1: this actually confirmed the information in the disclosures. The material
Speaker 1: is the subject of a Freedom of Information Act litigation
Speaker 1: and emails will now have to be found, reviewed, upgraded. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about the inadvertent release of these equities and
Speaker 1: this collection is released tirety, it would damage national security
Speaker 1: all right? Twenty five Now to the top of the well,
Speaker 1: what did I just say, you know, for the Jerusalem
Speaker 1: Post to come out as quickly as they did. Um, Okay,
Speaker 1: Now we have both Prime Minister Nitt Yahu and his
Speaker 1: challenger claiming victory. There are mixed eggs and poles. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's how reliable eggs and poles are. So you have
Speaker 1: Channel twelve Israel has the Aslakud losing thirty seven thirty
Speaker 1: four tied with the Blocks meaning the right left coalitions
Speaker 1: and by the way, they were wrong by six points
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen, just in case history matters a little bit.
Speaker 1: Then you have Channel ten has everybody tied thirty six
Speaker 1: thirty six, but the right coalition is sixty. This is
Speaker 1: a parliamentary system. It's very complicated. There's there are so
Speaker 1: many different groups on the ballot and tied between the
Speaker 1: Black sixty sixty. If you got sixty sixty, well that
Speaker 1: means well, that would mean if be If it's tie
Speaker 1: thirty six thirty six the Blue and White Party and Lakud,
Speaker 1: that means BBI wins by a lot because that means
Speaker 1: the right versus left coalition in Israel will have won
Speaker 1: sixty six fifty four. That means Bbie will be prime
Speaker 1: minister again, which is what we want. That's why they
Speaker 1: ran out there as quickly as they could. Are we
Speaker 1: won four minutes after they exit. Right after the Polls
Speaker 1: Club for four minutes, it just sound like Democrats. Here.
Speaker 1: I have somebody that's really smart and important on the
Speaker 1: ground that has been there for all of these elections
Speaker 1: of Prime Minister net Ya who just said we're gonna win.
Speaker 1: He says, we have it. So we'll be watching, just
Speaker 1: passing on information, all right. So we've got all these
Speaker 1: other stories we're covering here. We have Judicial Watch has
Speaker 1: been able to get these cover up discussions as it
Speaker 1: relates to the Clinton email server Platts Rivers network. I
Speaker 1: just read to you how they actually describe in detail
Speaker 1: the use of bleach bit to a race. You know
Speaker 1: that says quote documents showing the use of bleach bit
Speaker 1: on Clinton's server, and the bleach bit program was downloaded
Speaker 1: from a vendor called source forge at eleven forty two
Speaker 1: am March thirty first, twenty fifteen, according to the computer
Speaker 1: event log, and over the next half hour, they used
Speaker 1: bleach bit to delete the files on hillary server. Documents
Speaker 1: also containing emails, handwritten notes written in June and July
Speaker 1: of twenty fifteen. Now, remember twenty fifteen is the primary season.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody's out there trying to get into the debates,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. Anyway, the red sender rights to
Speaker 1: a State Department official named Margaret Peggy Greifeld that the
Speaker 1: inadvertent release of the State Department's equities. When this collection
Speaker 1: is released in its entirety, the potential damage to the
Speaker 1: foreign relations of the United States could be significant. Mccaullof
Speaker 1: forwards the concern saying well, you need need you plugged
Speaker 1: in on this all right, so then you know that's
Speaker 1: all sent. June twenty seventh, now twenty fifteen. While working
Speaker 1: with the inspector, I have personally reviewed hundreds of documents
Speaker 1: in the Hillary Rodham Clinton collection, meaning in her off
Speaker 1: site server, which is illegal. I can now say without reservation,
Speaker 1: there are literally hundreds of classified emails in this collection,
Speaker 1: maybe more. For example, there are comments by department's staff
Speaker 1: and emails relating to the Wiki leaks unauthorized disclosures. Many
Speaker 1: of the emails relating to this actually confirm the information
Speaker 1: in the disclosures. Now the material is subject to FOIL
Speaker 1: litigation Freedom of Information Act litigation, and the emails will
Speaker 1: now have to be found reviewed and upgraded. An upgraded
Speaker 1: means oh, oh, you're no longer classified and under the
Speaker 1: Executive Order one three five two six, it would be
Speaker 1: in our right to classify the entire Hillary Rodham Clinton
Speaker 1: collection at the secret level because of the mosaic effect.
Speaker 1: So they all of this was done by her illegally,
Speaker 1: all of this was done to avoid congressional oversight. And
Speaker 1: then it goes on to say, while there may be
Speaker 1: in equities in this collection, including private classified information, I'm
Speaker 1: very concerned about the inadvertent release of the State Department equities.
Speaker 1: When this collection is released in its entirety, the potential
Speaker 1: damage to foreign relations of the United States could be significant.
Speaker 1: This is interesting. Now we have another email to June
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, twenty fifteen. Need you plugged in on this,
Speaker 1: need to coordinate with States WB person. August twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: classified memo prepared by the FBI Counterintelligence Division regarding the
Speaker 1: findings with respect to Hillary's email server. The FBI noted
Speaker 1: that the ICIG had found that an as sampling of
Speaker 1: over only forty of Hillary's thirty thousand emails, four classified
Speaker 1: emails were found out of forty. A subsequent letter sent
Speaker 1: to Senator Richard Burr and to DNI Director Clapper regarding
Speaker 1: the sample of Clinton emails, noted that they were all
Speaker 1: classified at the secret level. Okay, let me stop there.
Speaker 1: That means she committed violated the Espionage Act. That's a
Speaker 1: felony eighteen US three seven nine three. And the FBI
Speaker 1: knew about it right here and then in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: That's what this means a year later they would exonerate
Speaker 1: her a year because we knew the investigation was rigged.
Speaker 1: We now know that according to the closed door testimony
Speaker 1: of Page and Struck that they were saying as much,
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. They're all Democrats. Of course she's getting off,
Speaker 1: and she did, and Struck it would be almost a
Speaker 1: year later before Peter Struck interviewed her in the interim
Speaker 1: in May of twenty sixteen. Remember we're now in August
Speaker 1: of twenty fifteen. In May of twenty sixteen, they began
Speaker 1: writing the exoneration investigation had hardly begun of Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Comie even denied it. So he's in trouble there anyway.
Speaker 1: So they were able to take a small s ampling
Speaker 1: forty emails for the forty had classified information on it.
Speaker 1: In an August twenty fifteen internal FBI memo, the FBI
Speaker 1: noted Hillary had signed a June twenty eighth, twenty eleven,
Speaker 1: Official correspondents advising all State Department employees quote, due to
Speaker 1: recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries, State
Speaker 1: Department employees should avoid conducting official department business from their
Speaker 1: personal email accounts. So she knew that it was dangerous,
Speaker 1: she did it anyway, She just continued. Same FBI memo
Speaker 1: noted that Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy
Speaker 1: had sent a memo to all senior State Department officials
Speaker 1: on August twenty eighth, twenty fourteen, including excerpts from the
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs Manuals, said classified information must be sent via
Speaker 1: classified email channels only. It's another warning that she had,
Speaker 1: and she's giving out warnings. And what Judicial Watch found
Speaker 1: is a lot of infighting between the Department of State
Speaker 1: and the Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and the ic IG
Speaker 1: over the processing of potentially compromised Clinton email communications. Is
Speaker 1: a June fifteenth, twenty fifteen memo for the record prepared
Speaker 1: by the ICIG regarding the State Department review of Hillary's emails, indicating,
Speaker 1: among other things, that retired Foreign Service officers that the
Speaker 1: State was using to review Hillary's emails were not optimal.
Speaker 1: Evaluation of other agencies equities is not optimal. State Department
Speaker 1: is currently relying on retired senior Foreign Service officers to
Speaker 1: review for other agencies and for Freedom of Information Act requests.
Speaker 1: For example, a review of the first set of two
Speaker 1: hundred ninety six emails received from former Secretary Clinton and
Speaker 1: released to the State Department Freedom of Information Act website
Speaker 1: identified material that would have been referred to the I
Speaker 1: see Freedom of Information Act officials for review prior to release.
Speaker 1: Recommendation recommend State Department FOIA office request staff support officers
Speaker 1: to assist with the identification of intelligence community. They wanted
Speaker 1: their own people in there to cover it up as
Speaker 1: what that means. That's what that means. And they have
Speaker 1: the Freedom of Information Act personnel, you know, looking at
Speaker 1: this from the standpoint now of how can we protect Hillary.
Speaker 1: It's unclear whether the Department of Justice is reviewing the
Speaker 1: emails before four year release. Former Secretary Clinton's emails of
Speaker 1: the subject of numerous Fourier requests, multiple FOIL lawsuits, and
Speaker 1: it may be prudent to integrate the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: into the four year process review to ensure or redactions
Speaker 1: can withstand potential legal challenges of not already being done.
Speaker 1: Recommend State Department fo your office incorporate the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice into the Fourier process to ensure the legal sufficiency
Speaker 1: review of exemptions and redactions. Oh, they're talking about reductions too,
Speaker 1: nassinating and the FBI and State Department I G. Stephen
Speaker 1: Lennock mentions an incident in May thirteenth, twenty eleven to
Speaker 1: twenty eight am Uma Aberdeen, Phil Rain potential hack. I
Speaker 1: guess it's Phil. I get whatever philipe rains. I guess anyway.
Speaker 1: Clinton's IT technical technician Brian Pagliano sent to Bill Clinton's
Speaker 1: a Justin Cooper a bill indicating that on July twenty eight,
Speaker 1: twenty nine, twenty twelve, that Pagliano had to address the
Speaker 1: issue of mailbox corruption of Hillary Clinton's email server, spending
Speaker 1: a total of five point five hours on the problem.
Speaker 1: Other invoice items show he had to fix corruption in
Speaker 1: Justin Cooper's mailbox, to have a conference call with the
Speaker 1: security team, block spammer with a Viagram message and this,
Speaker 1: and it goes on from there, and then they talked
Speaker 1: about clean up the virus from the BlackBerry profile, multiple
Speaker 1: route force attacks against Hillary server, requiring him to reset
Speaker 1: the password they got into the server it was hacked.
Speaker 1: Document show Pagliano was paid forty grand over four years
Speaker 1: to clean up that mess. Pagliano repeatedly invoked his Fifth
Speaker 1: Amendment rights in a deposition with Judicial Watch. And you
Speaker 1: have a twenty fifteen letter from the Secret Service to
Speaker 1: the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI addressing a request regarding
Speaker 1: preservation or records in connection with Clinton's email system, also
Speaker 1: cites Judicial Watts litigation concern preservation of her email records.
Speaker 1: Secret Service rights that its searches did not reveal any
Speaker 1: responsive documents. We already had done that and the National
Speaker 1: Archives request for information from the State Department. And it
Speaker 1: goes on from there as a November twenty twelve classified
Speaker 1: email from Jake Sullivan, Clinton's top policy adviser, discuss a
Speaker 1: report of arrest possible Benghazi connection with her. So it's
Speaker 1: all in her connect That's why she never wanted to
Speaker 1: be on the system. The request for traveled. November twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: FBI dispatched special agents to Spain in Bahrain to conduct
Speaker 1: interviews in the midyear exam regarding sensitive investigative matter. David Kendall,
Speaker 1: Clinton's lawyer that's included in the letters. Kendall writes the
Speaker 1: State Department Inspector General ig that the State Department is
Speaker 1: in possession of Clinton's work related emails. He continues, Hillary's personnel.
Speaker 1: We will continue to retain a preservation copy of the
Speaker 1: file containing electronic copies of those emails on a thumb
Speaker 1: drive that is stored in a secure safe at the
Speaker 1: offices of William and Connolly. You get what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and now uncovered a cover up of records on the
Speaker 1: illicit Clinton emails scandal system. That's the whole point here.
Speaker 1: And you get to and I'll get into this in
Speaker 1: the next hour with Greg Jarrett and David shown. But
Speaker 1: now we have also today a full breakdown of the
Speaker 1: testimony behind closed doors of James Baker. James Baker we
Speaker 1: now know was arguing that in fact Hillary violated the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act, which, of all things all days, we now
Speaker 1: have judicial Watts report that confirms that they picked forty
Speaker 1: emails randomly of the thirty three thousand and four of
Speaker 1: them had classified top secret information on them. And then
Speaker 1: this effort. They literally described the time and the date
Speaker 1: the bleach bit was used. Add that. But they protected
Speaker 1: her because they hated Trump and they wanted her to
Speaker 1: remain the candidate to be Trump. That's why they used
Speaker 1: her phony dossier with Russian lies that she paid for.
Speaker 1: That's why they backdoor to spy on the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: lying to and committing a fraud to the FISA court.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the FISA court that in fact Hillary
Speaker 1: paid for the Russian lies Brusse or warned everybody she
Speaker 1: paid for it, it was not verified or corroborated, and
Speaker 1: that Christopher Steele hated Trump. But yet it was still
Speaker 1: the bulk of information used in the FISA applications to
Speaker 1: get a backdoor into all things Trump world as part
Speaker 1: of an insurance policy to bludgeon him. This is worse
Speaker 1: than I ever thought. Do you realize what's coming out?
Speaker 1: Gonna get three h two's, we are gonna get Gang
Speaker 1: of eight, We are going to get more of these
Speaker 1: closed door testimonies. We are going to get the FIES applications.
Speaker 1: We are going to get the Inspector General report, We're
Speaker 1: gonna get John Huber's report, and then we're going to
Speaker 1: get these criminal referrals from Devin Newness. Let me just
Speaker 1: tell you this. They're going to jail. The evidence is gathered.
Speaker 1: It's just a matter if somebody's smart enough to put
Speaker 1: it all together. It's going to happen. All right. When
Speaker 1: we come back, we're gonna break down just released closed
Speaker 1: door testimony the number one lawyer, the General Council, the
Speaker 1: FBI under James Comey, Jim Baker who thought Hillary should
Speaker 1: have been indicted for violating the espionageac which, by the way,
Speaker 1: is obvious. We'll continue, all right, colladi with us and
Speaker 1: right down our to free telephone number. You want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, I gotta send a
Speaker 1: note to somebody have been and now there you go.
Speaker 1: I got it out anyway, eight hundred nine one. Let
Speaker 1: me just go over what I was saying at the
Speaker 1: end of the last hour. Now we have a number
Speaker 1: of things that have come out today. One judicial watch
Speaker 1: uncovering the cover up as it relates to the production
Speaker 1: of emails with the Clinton email server. The battle to
Speaker 1: cover this up was as goes far back as twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: but mostly in twenty fifteen, and they actually give the
Speaker 1: exact date that bleach bit was used to wash clean,
Speaker 1: acid wash that hard drive because they wanted to get
Speaker 1: rid of it. Now, we have people within the FBI
Speaker 1: and Justice Department just took a small sampling of some
Speaker 1: of the emails. They took forty out of thirty three
Speaker 1: thou thirty some one thousand of the forty four they
Speaker 1: found have top secret classified information in it. Mark classified.
Speaker 1: And that's the clearest violation of the Espionage Act. Ever.
Speaker 1: You know, you listen to the Democrats, well, okay, you
Speaker 1: might have been clear to collusion, but you know it
Speaker 1: was Barn Rosenstein that made the decision on obstruction. They
Speaker 1: don't care about obstruction of justice because if they did,
Speaker 1: they would care about Hillary Clinton's what conduct. And to
Speaker 1: have obstruction of justice you would need something called intent.
Speaker 1: So when Hillary decided to race the thirty three thousand
Speaker 1: subpoenat emails and then acid washed the hard drive and
Speaker 1: beat up the devices with hammers and remove sim cards,
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty clear the intent was to hide
Speaker 1: the evidence that she had violated the Espionage Act. Okay,
Speaker 1: so they don't care about that. Then today we have
Speaker 1: Doug Collins, Congressman Georgia. He keeps releasing the closed door testimony.
Speaker 1: We've got Struck in Page, Bruce Orr, and Nelly Or
Speaker 1: and a bunch of other people. What's his name, pre Step. Well,
Speaker 1: now we got James Baker's testimony today and it's very revealing.
Speaker 1: We're going to go through the context of this and
Speaker 1: the contents of it in just a minute. We've got
Speaker 1: Devin Nunez, who was on with me last night. This week,
Speaker 1: he will be releasing the first of what I believe
Speaker 1: and he believes to be a series of criminal referrals. Now,
Speaker 1: Congressman Mark Meadows of the Freedom Caucuses, their chairman, said
Speaker 1: more criminals referrals to come, certainly well deserved, overwhelming evidence
Speaker 1: showing multiple FIDJ executives abuse their power to undermine a
Speaker 1: duly elected president, and they will be held accountable. This
Speaker 1: is just the beginning. Now we have Bill Barr, the
Speaker 1: new Attorney General, and they went before the Appropriations Committee
Speaker 1: today supposedly to talk about issues involving the budget of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, but he had a lot of
Speaker 1: questions about Muller. He talked about the four things that
Speaker 1: would be redacted. He thinks that will be released in
Speaker 1: the next week. For example, grand jury material that's illegal.
Speaker 1: You must redact that in that report. You can't release that.
Speaker 1: You can't release sources and methods in the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: That would be a bad idea ongoing investigation. That would
Speaker 1: be a bad idea. And he went on to say
Speaker 1: that it would be released to the public within a week.
Speaker 1: And he also said that there has been no call
Speaker 1: for executive privilege up to this point. Well, they have
Speaker 1: the right to do that anyway. Let's go to the
Speaker 1: transcript of and this I think is really interesting of
Speaker 1: James Baker. James Baker is the top lawyer at the
Speaker 1: FBI under Jim Comey, and he admits that he was
Speaker 1: arguing with everybody else why Hillary Clinton in fact should
Speaker 1: have been indicted, joining us as the author of the
Speaker 1: bestseller The Russia Hoax, The illicit scheme to clear Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton framed. Donald Trump has proven more right every day.
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett and David Shone, criminal Defense and Civil Liberties Attorney,
Speaker 1: welcome both of you. All right, let's start with bar
Speaker 1: and of course this testimony that was released, This is
Speaker 1: important what I'm reading of James Baker's closed door testimony. Oh,
Speaker 1: it is because it lends sustenance to the notion that
Speaker 1: this was a political move by the FBI to clear
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Baker determined initially that she committed crimes, and
Speaker 1: he argued vociferously until James Comey and Peter Struck in
Speaker 1: Lisa Page and then the Department of Justice told him, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to prosecute. We're setting a brand new
Speaker 1: standard that we are inventing that does not exist in
Speaker 1: the law, an intense standard for gross negligence. And so
Speaker 1: it's abundantly clear from his testimony the fix was in
Speaker 1: to clear Clinton. Add one out of the point, and
Speaker 1: that was Page and Struct's testimony behind closed doors that
Speaker 1: was revealed thanks to Doug Collins, and we learned in
Speaker 1: that case, Uh, we're not making any decisions. All of
Speaker 1: these decisions on Hillary being made by the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch, and we all know that their Hillary supporters,
Speaker 1: and nothing's going to happen. Lisa Page said every decision
Speaker 1: they made in the Hillary Clinton case was being dictated
Speaker 1: to them by Loretta Lynch's Department of Justice in the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, and Peter Struck said the same thing. YEA,
Speaker 1: beyond that, by the way, you have that side of
Speaker 1: the equation. You have all of the unbelievable things that
Speaker 1: were done, decisions made with respect to Hillary Clinton. But
Speaker 1: what Baker's testimony also gives you the other side of
Speaker 1: the equation as to the complete anti Trump bias that
Speaker 1: was going on around the office. Part of some of
Speaker 1: the things that are so important in his testimony are
Speaker 1: his description of the mood around the department that so
Speaker 1: many higher ups were concerned that the firing of Comy
Speaker 1: could constitute obstruction of justice, let alone any separation of
Speaker 1: power arguments never occurred to them, or that Comy served
Speaker 1: as the president's discretion. And beyond that, we know from
Speaker 1: Baker now that there was serious talk about the invocation
Speaker 1: of this twenty fifth Amendment, this absolute circus idea to
Speaker 1: get rid of Donald Trump, that the taping of the
Speaker 1: president was a real thought and this is all discussed
Speaker 1: by McCabe and others, and that it was a serious thing.
Speaker 1: Despite what Ron Rosenstein now says he talks about Clinton
Speaker 1: election bias, He's asked a very important question I think
Speaker 1: about on the face of it, it appeared that there
Speaker 1: was some language that could be interpreted very pro one candidate.
Speaker 1: This is the question to James Baker very anti another Candida,
Speaker 1: that would be bias that you took the initiative. It's
Speaker 1: my understanding to request the FBI's internal inspection mechanisms take
Speaker 1: a look at the Midyear case, the Hillary case, to
Speaker 1: see what might be right with it wrong with it?
Speaker 1: Could you elaborate that's something we haven't heard a whole
Speaker 1: lot about. And he said, yeah, I'm looking at the
Speaker 1: Inspector General report right now in front of me, and
Speaker 1: there's discussion in there. So when I heard about those
Speaker 1: texts meaning struck in page, I only read a few
Speaker 1: of them they would described to me, and I became
Speaker 1: immediately quite alarmed. And so my thinking was, well, from
Speaker 1: you know, okay, I don't know. I know that I
Speaker 1: knew that Inspector General was looking at him, but I
Speaker 1: knew they would address them, and so I knew that
Speaker 1: there was a process in place. Where he goes on
Speaker 1: to say, and what I was concerned about is whether
Speaker 1: any decision had been taken or not taken in the
Speaker 1: Midyear case, and whether they were driven by political bias
Speaker 1: of any sort. I was quite worried about it. I
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure that we as an institution, the
Speaker 1: Bureau as an institution got on top of this extremely quickly.
Speaker 1: I suggested the leadership former committity sensitive sense and a
Speaker 1: sensitive so he saw what was the favoring of one
Speaker 1: candidate over another? Oh? Absolutely, And you know Baker's testimony
Speaker 1: is blockbuster. It reveals not only pro Hillary Clinton bias
Speaker 1: at the FBI and the Department of Justice to absolve
Speaker 1: her of the many crimes she committed, but also that
Speaker 1: in the Russian investigation of Donald Trump, that it too
Speaker 1: was being driven by this hate Trump bias in the
Speaker 1: media exhibited at the FBI, rather exhibited by Peter Struck
Speaker 1: and Lisa Page's text. It was abnormal. Protocols were not
Speaker 1: being followed. And I must tell you that the headline
Speaker 1: for me today from William Barr is that he testified
Speaker 1: he will and is personally reviewing the Trump Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: the origin of it, and the conduct of the people involved,
Speaker 1: meaning James Comey, Andrew McKay, Peter Struck, Lisa Pays, James Baker,
Speaker 1: as well as the five individuals at the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice who signed off on this phony wire tap warrant
Speaker 1: lyne to the court, what's your I mean, what do
Speaker 1: you say to that David I mean. And then you
Speaker 1: add to the fact that he was asked very specifically
Speaker 1: whether or not he thought Hillary and our campaign committed
Speaker 1: a crime on the email server. He said yes, and
Speaker 1: then and then did nothing about it. Quite frankly, this
Speaker 1: man was General Counsel at the FBI, very high important responsibility.
Speaker 1: He had an obligation that if he saw action had
Speaker 1: to be taken, and no action were taken, he had
Speaker 1: to go to the Attorney General of the Attorney General
Speaker 1: wouldn't act. At a minimum, he had to report this
Speaker 1: to the Inspector General at the time, but he probably
Speaker 1: had an obligation to go even to the President maybe
Speaker 1: to go someplace else, he had an obligation to affirmatively act.
Speaker 1: In this case, he could go to Congress. That he
Speaker 1: could go to Congress. Absolutely there's an oversight opportunity to
Speaker 1: go to there. That door is open. But he didn't,
Speaker 1: and so that speaks volumes. But again it's part of
Speaker 1: this atmosphere. It was this hate Trump and playing politics
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice like we've never seen and
Speaker 1: carried to its full extension. What some clearly had in
Speaker 1: mind was for the first time that I'm aware of
Speaker 1: in history. This attempted coup, an actual attempted coup in
Speaker 1: this use of the twenty fifth Amendment, and Baker says
Speaker 1: it was serious talk. And you know, one step further,
Speaker 1: there are whistle blowers statutes in place to protect somebody
Speaker 1: like Baker. He can go to Congress, he can blow
Speaker 1: the whistle on the corruption at the FBI and the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. He has a legal obligations general counsel
Speaker 1: to do that. He would be protected. He didn't do it,
Speaker 1: which makes him complicit in the corruption. Right doesn't that
Speaker 1: you agree with that? Oh? Absolutely? I mean that's had
Speaker 1: the obligation to do it and he didn't do it. Listen,
Speaker 1: the opportunity to have mister Barr in there is what
Speaker 1: you know people have said they've been waiting for here.
Speaker 1: There was nobody at the helm before. It's his obligation
Speaker 1: now to take these things seriously and to take seriously
Speaker 1: referrals from Congress. Mister Newnez and others have thought carefully
Speaker 1: about who to refer and why to refer them, and
Speaker 1: they backed it all up with evidence. No one's guessing
Speaker 1: here about what happened. It has to be investigated, and
Speaker 1: bar will do it. I am absolutely confident. This is
Speaker 1: what makes second time he said he will do it.
Speaker 1: So you think now this is a whole new ball game.
Speaker 1: It is totally new ball game. Bar is an honest
Speaker 1: and honorable man who cares deeply about the rule of law.
Speaker 1: And when he says, give me the predicate, the reasons,
Speaker 1: that facts, the evidence to launch a full scale investigation
Speaker 1: of alleged corruption at the FBI and the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: I believe he will do it. All Right, we'll take
Speaker 1: a quick break, we'll come back well more on this.
Speaker 1: We got Devin Newness, Well, that means we've got criminal
Speaker 1: referrals coming this week. Okay, everyone's going to get the
Speaker 1: full Muller report that's coming within a week. Then we've
Speaker 1: got a cascade of information that we will be getting
Speaker 1: more closed or testimony like this blockbuster testimony we got
Speaker 1: from James Baker today, like Struck and Page that we've
Speaker 1: already had many more people. Then we've got the three
Speaker 1: O two's, we got the FISA applications, we got Gang
Speaker 1: of eight information. On top of that, you've got the
Speaker 1: Inspector General Horowitz his investigation into FISA abuse and whatever
Speaker 1: John Uber is doing. It, I guess is anybody's guests
Speaker 1: at this point supposedly looking at the leaking, but you know,
Speaker 1: nobody's heard from him in months. I don't know if
Speaker 1: he's maybe on a sabbatical or waiting breathlessly for his report.
Speaker 1: All right, as we continue, all right, so we got
Speaker 1: criminal referrals, Muller report, coming, Gang of eight three zero
Speaker 1: two's buys, the applications, and now we're getting more and
Speaker 1: more of these depositions and the Freedom of Information Act
Speaker 1: requests this information. Though today between Bars testimony and the
Speaker 1: James Baker testimony that was released by Congressman Collins, I'm
Speaker 1: looking at this and he's basically saying, Yeah, I had
Speaker 1: to argue with the FBI and the I'm the General Council,
Speaker 1: the top FBI lawyer about how Hillary broke the law.
Speaker 1: He knew she broke the law, he knew the statute,
Speaker 1: and he knew that Lauretta Lynch and Obama were forcing
Speaker 1: the dj to instruct the FBI to ignore the law
Speaker 1: and create a new legal standard to exonerate Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Isn't it in her esting Sean that almost every day
Speaker 1: new information emerges that that tells us more and more
Speaker 1: about the level of corruption that took place here. That's
Speaker 1: how cover ups work. The evidence is slow to emerge.
Speaker 1: And what are your thoughts on the fact that all
Speaker 1: of this was able to take place, and everybody at
Speaker 1: the highest levels of the FBI knew, for example, about
Speaker 1: the Hillary bought and paid for, you know, Russian dossier
Speaker 1: and that they used that They all knew that that
Speaker 1: was not a valid document. It was unverifiable, David shown
Speaker 1: it should be shocking to absolutely everyone. And by the way,
Speaker 1: this stuff was only uncovered through your offices, quite frankly,
Speaker 1: and we're only starting to get the information I think
Speaker 1: you want to know even scarier thought and earlier FBI
Speaker 1: General counsel with Andrew Weissman. Can you imagine if he
Speaker 1: had been general counsel here as bad as Baker was,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's what set the tone over there and
Speaker 1: get the message around. I want to say one last thing,
Speaker 1: if I may, about the bar testimony. Congressman Nather is
Speaker 1: pulling a scam on the American public by positioning this
Speaker 1: thing as if Barr or anyone else is trying to
Speaker 1: withhold something unduly from him. He keeps writing these letters
Speaker 1: and saying these generalities, that Congress is always entitled to
Speaker 1: this and has gets sensitive information all the time. There's
Speaker 1: a fundamental principle in the law that the statute overrides
Speaker 1: the other. This report by statute is we gotta to
Speaker 1: be confidential. I'll read more of this on the other side.
Speaker 1: We'll continue all right, twenty five till the top of
Speaker 1: the hour, eight hundred and nine for one seawn. If
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of the program, all right,
Speaker 1: let's stay on this testimony that's been going on with
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, the Attorney General. First, he's saying that the
Speaker 1: Muller Report will be released in a week. I'll play
Speaker 1: that for you. He goes over in detail the four
Speaker 1: areas of the Muller Report which will be redacted, which
Speaker 1: I think is important. He goes on to say and
Speaker 1: talk about which I thought was very key, that the
Speaker 1: Horowitz Fies investigation should be done by may or June.
Speaker 1: That's important. And remember we have the criminal referrals on
Speaker 1: top of this. He makes a point of saying that
Speaker 1: whoever leaked the Fiser order against Carter Page, he said,
Speaker 1: you know, if there's a predicate for an investigation, it
Speaker 1: will be conducted. He wouldn't answer whether or not the
Speaker 1: White House has seen the Muller Report. And he's testifying
Speaker 1: on the fact that he has no plans, meaning the
Speaker 1: President the executive branch, to claim executive privilege on any
Speaker 1: part of the Muller Report. So let me let me
Speaker 1: just bring you up to speed. It got dramatic at
Speaker 1: times today. And by the way, you also acknowledge that
Speaker 1: he can't release the full Muller Report because of a
Speaker 1: recent court decision, which, by the way, this is what
Speaker 1: the Democrats wanted. Let's not forget after the ken Starr Report,
Speaker 1: they got rid of the Independent Council for that reason.
Speaker 1: All right, let let's play this. This process is going
Speaker 1: along very well, and my original timetable of being able
Speaker 1: to release this by mid April stands, and so I
Speaker 1: think that from my standpoint, by the within a week,
Speaker 1: I will be in a position to release the port
Speaker 1: to the public, and then I will engage with the
Speaker 1: chairman of both judiciary committees about that report and about
Speaker 1: any further request that they have. But I am relying
Speaker 1: on my own discretion to make as much a public
Speaker 1: as I can now. In my letter of the March
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, I identified four areas that I feel should
Speaker 1: be redacted, and I think most people would agree. The
Speaker 1: first is grand jury information six E material. The second
Speaker 1: is information that the ICE the intelligence community believes would
Speaker 1: feel intelligence sources and methods. The third or information in
Speaker 1: the report that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions. You will
Speaker 1: recall that the Special Counsel did spin off a number
Speaker 1: of cases that are still being pursued, and we want
Speaker 1: to make sure that none of the information in the
Speaker 1: report would impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors
Speaker 1: to prosecute acute the cases, or the fairness to the defendants.
Speaker 1: And finally, we intend to redact information that implicates the
Speaker 1: privacy or reputational interests of peripheral players where there is
Speaker 1: a decision not to charge them. Right now, the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel is working with us on identifying information in the
Speaker 1: reports that fall under those four categories. My question is,
Speaker 1: now that President Trump has been exonerated of Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: is the Justice Department investigating how it came to be
Speaker 1: that your agency used a silacious and unverified dossier as
Speaker 1: a predicate for a FIZA order on a US citizen.
Speaker 1: The Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation
Speaker 1: of the FISA process in the Russian investigation, and I
Speaker 1: expect that that will be complete in probably in May
Speaker 1: or June. I am told so hopefully we'll have some
Speaker 1: answers from Inspector General Horowitz on the issue of the
Speaker 1: FISA warrants or Gen. Goad more generally. I am reviewing
Speaker 1: the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my
Speaker 1: arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that
Speaker 1: was conducted during the summer of twenty sixteen. Are you
Speaker 1: investigating who leaked the existence of the FISA order against Quarterpage? Who? What?
Speaker 1: Are you investigating who leaked the existence of a FISA
Speaker 1: order against quarter Page. I haven't seen the referrals yet
Speaker 1: from Congressman Nunyez, but obviously if there's a predicate for
Speaker 1: an investigation, it'll be conducted. Did the White House see
Speaker 1: the report before you released your summarizing letter? Has the
Speaker 1: White House seen it since then? Have they been briefed
Speaker 1: on the contents beyond what was in you a summarizing
Speaker 1: letter to the Judiciary Committee. I've said what I'm going
Speaker 1: to say about the report today. I've issued three letters
Speaker 1: about it, and I was willing to discuss the historic
Speaker 1: information of how the report came to me in my
Speaker 1: decision on Sunday. But I've already laid out the process
Speaker 1: that is going forward to release these reports, hopefully within
Speaker 1: a week, and I'm not going to say anything more
Speaker 1: about it until the report is out and everyone has
Speaker 1: a chance to look at it. Are you going to
Speaker 1: claim that you have a right to withhold any of
Speaker 1: that report based on a so called claim of executive privilege?
Speaker 1: Any claim of executive privilege would have to be asserted
Speaker 1: by the president, and as I said, as I said
Speaker 1: in my letter, which sort of speaks for itself, he
Speaker 1: has said that he's leaving the decisions up to me. Okay,
Speaker 1: are you going to claim executive privilege to keep any
Speaker 1: of that report back? As I said, there's no plan.
Speaker 1: I have no plan to do that. Okay. Do you
Speaker 1: believe that executive privilege applies to any broader range of
Speaker 1: communications and specific direct communications from the president? You know,
Speaker 1: I would have to review the latest opinions from OLC
Speaker 1: about the precise scope of it, but it's not relevant
Speaker 1: to me right now. And as far as you know,
Speaker 1: does it apply to any communications by the president before
Speaker 1: he was president. As I say, I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: the learning is in the Department of Justice on that.
Speaker 1: A quick question about subpoena, I'm not on the Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee understanding as though they've issued a subpoena to you
Speaker 1: to release the full report, would that put you in
Speaker 1: violation of federal law if you were to comply our
Speaker 1: in situation, I don't think I have the latitude to
Speaker 1: release sixted material. As to the other categories, as I said,
Speaker 1: I'm willing to discuss those with the Judiciary committees. I
Speaker 1: want to satisfy, try to accommodate and satisfy their interests,
Speaker 1: but at the same time uphold the law. And right now,
Speaker 1: and there's been a recent case decided in the District
Speaker 1: of Columbia just I think within the last week on this,
Speaker 1: the sixted material is not releasable, all right, as we continue.
Speaker 1: That was Bill Barr from earlier today, and we'll have
Speaker 1: more as the show continues. Its look, it's happening in
Speaker 1: real time, as we've been saying. So glad you're with us.
Speaker 1: Let's get to some of our calls here. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of you been very patient Penny is in Virginia. Penny, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you glad you called him? You know, in
Speaker 1: listening to all of the Democrat candidates put out there
Speaker 1: these crazy, ridiculous, very socialist ideas, I believe that the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party doesn't expect any of these candidates to have
Speaker 1: a chance at winning against Donald Trump. But they're all
Speaker 1: throwing themselves, They're sacrificing themselves on the the you know,
Speaker 1: on the spike of these crazy ideas, because that moves
Speaker 1: the whole socialist ball forward. Listen, you see a party
Speaker 1: now that has lost all touch with the American people,
Speaker 1: and I mean on a new level of extremism. I
Speaker 1: never really thought they'd be this transparent, in this obvious
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, you now have all of these states
Speaker 1: now fighting for during birth abortion. I mean, it's it's nuts.
Speaker 1: And you know, all this support of the New Green Deal,
Speaker 1: which is real for them, you know, all of these
Speaker 1: radical moves. Let's let felon votes, felons vote in prison,
Speaker 1: you know, let's let's let's go to the electoral college
Speaker 1: and get rid of that so New York, California, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: and Illinois can pick all of our presidents. Because that's
Speaker 1: what's going to happen, exactly what our frame has warned
Speaker 1: about and exactly what they purposefully avoided to have a
Speaker 1: United States of America. You know, let's let's also stack
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, but only when we get the chance
Speaker 1: to do it. Now, there's ways they can do these things.
Speaker 1: But you know, remember they want this for them is
Speaker 1: all about power, that's it. It's it's not about that
Speaker 1: they are not legislating in a way that is benefiting
Speaker 1: the American people. And the greatest strength of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: as we now begin a process heading into twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: is his success if it's Biden, who's you know, at
Speaker 1: or near the top. Biden still has a record to
Speaker 1: run on top of his insane statements and his creepy behavior.
Speaker 1: And then of course the corruption as we have been
Speaker 1: pointing out with Ukraine and his son and him bragging
Speaker 1: about getting the prosecutor that was investigating his son fired
Speaker 1: by leveraging American tax dollars in the process, and then
Speaker 1: of course the money with China son flying on Air
Speaker 1: Force two of them to China. All of these issues
Speaker 1: will be vetted. The American people will understand them as
Speaker 1: deeply as this audience does. Before all is said and done,
Speaker 1: it gets out. It takes a while a little bit
Speaker 1: of repetitiveness needed at times to get there. Anyway, good call,
Speaker 1: appreciate it, Penny, Thank you. All right, quick freak, welcome back,
Speaker 1: MORERIR calls straight ahead and our news round up, information overload,
Speaker 1: some of the other issues we've been missing today. Right
Speaker 1: as we continue back to our busy phones, as we
Speaker 1: say hi to Jonathan Is in Austin. Jonathan, Hi, how
Speaker 1: are you glad you called? Hey? Hey, Sean, I'm great,
Speaker 1: Thanks very much, thanks for having me on. What's going on? Hey? Listen?
Speaker 1: So I was calling about the struck Page insurance policy
Speaker 1: and how that ties into the FISA warrant from the
Speaker 1: Unholy sixteen. So, you know, they kept talking about this
Speaker 1: insurance policy that they had. And I saw Michael Caputo
Speaker 1: on Fox a couple of weeks ago, and he was
Speaker 1: talking about how he was approached by a Russian asset
Speaker 1: that was a seventeen year FBI informant, and it made
Speaker 1: me start thinking he was actually approached by him in May.
Speaker 1: And he said there at least a dozen other FBI
Speaker 1: informants or Russian assets that were approaching people in the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. This is before you know, the investigation started
Speaker 1: or anything. And I started thinking, why in the world
Speaker 1: would you go to the trouble to get a FISA
Speaker 1: warrant and doctor up a dossier and all this stuff
Speaker 1: if you didn't know darn well what you were going
Speaker 1: to find. And I think what they were hoping was
Speaker 1: they were going to trap the Trump campaign people to
Speaker 1: accepting information from these Russian assets. So then when the
Speaker 1: FISA warrant shows up and they go, ah, we know
Speaker 1: we're looking for in Low and Behope, we found it
Speaker 1: because we put it there. But the problem is the
Speaker 1: trunk people didn't bite, and then they'd lost their minds
Speaker 1: right because there was nothing there to find because they
Speaker 1: weren't accepting false information or Russian things. A lot of
Speaker 1: people don't understand the nature of these campaigns, you know, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: and I've now been through so many of these cycles.
Speaker 1: I'm there, I see it, I watch it, and you know,
Speaker 1: the best way to describe it as organized chaos where
Speaker 1: everybody for weeks and months at a time, or gulping water,
Speaker 1: you know, during you know, when you go through different
Speaker 1: stages where things might calm down a little bit, but
Speaker 1: for example, as you head into the primaries, you go
Speaker 1: from one primary one state, to the next state, to
Speaker 1: the next state, to the next state too, and you're
Speaker 1: just flying all over the place. And then you got
Speaker 1: to follow the news, and you got to react to attacks,
Speaker 1: and you constantly sort of reh there's a reconfiguration of
Speaker 1: messaging and what's working, what's not working. So there's not
Speaker 1: a whole lot of time. And you know, if you
Speaker 1: go back to the Trump Tower meeting, the Magnitsky Act,
Speaker 1: that was a setup too. You mentioned the setup because
Speaker 1: we remember the woman that came in came in under
Speaker 1: false pretenses. It really was an issue about Russian adoption.
Speaker 1: But there were two meetings with Fusion GPS, one before
Speaker 1: and after a coincident. What Michael Capo and what Michael
Speaker 1: Caputo says, and he said this, and I haven't heard
Speaker 1: on the air since then, and I'm not wildly surprised
Speaker 1: about it. But what he said was he knew of
Speaker 1: at least a dozen other and he named he named names, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, specifically of people that were approaching. They were
Speaker 1: all fbissets. And again I'm not talking about the rank
Speaker 1: and file FBI people, right we're talking about the you know,
Speaker 1: the unholy sixteen or whatever you want to call him
Speaker 1: right at this hour, sixteen whatever you want to call him.
Speaker 1: But you know, I can't believe that this and look,
Speaker 1: maybe it is the Muller report, right, I mean for
Speaker 1: the Inspector General's report to go there was some really
Speaker 1: shady stuff going on, because you can't go plant evidence
Speaker 1: and then you know, go through all the trouble of
Speaker 1: a dossier unless you're feeling pretty confident that Woller, he's
Speaker 1: going to get elected and nobody's going to know about it.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something. This is the important aspect
Speaker 1: of all of this is there was Russia collusion. There
Speaker 1: was Russian lies bought and paid for by one candidate.
Speaker 1: And first this candidate was protected. She should have been indicted,
Speaker 1: as we now know as all of these now closed
Speaker 1: door testimonies come in, she was protected and she had
Speaker 1: committed crimes. You want, you know, all the Democrats that
Speaker 1: cry obstruction even though there was none and no intent.
Speaker 1: We know what Hillary's intent was when she deleted an
Speaker 1: acid washed or hard drive. There's no ambiguity on that
Speaker 1: at all. And then the Russian dossier and that information
Speaker 1: was disseminated in leaked to members of the media so
Speaker 1: would influence American voters. And it was used to bludge
Speaker 1: in the Trump campaign and spy on them by getting
Speaker 1: to Carter Page, and then it was used afterwards as
Speaker 1: an insurance policy. Add to that, the Ukrainians they want
Speaker 1: to give us the evidence of real collusion to help
Speaker 1: pillary Clinton. Nobody cares about that. They only care about
Speaker 1: sexual assault. If it's a Republican they can bludge it,
Speaker 1: not the victims alleged victims of the Lieutenant governor of
Speaker 1: the Great State or Commonwealth of Virginia. First one is
Speaker 1: FIS abuse and other matters. We believe there is a
Speaker 1: conspiracy to lie to the FISA Court and its lead
Speaker 1: the FISA Court by numerous individuals that all need to
Speaker 1: be investigated and looked at that and we believe the
Speaker 1: statute is the conspiracy statute. The second conspiracy one is
Speaker 1: involving manipulation of intelligence that also could insnarl many Americans
Speaker 1: and we are so that's kind of the second one.
Speaker 1: As you know, we've had a lot of concerns with
Speaker 1: the way intelligence was used, so that that would be
Speaker 1: kind of the two conspiracy recommendations referrals that were that
Speaker 1: we're making. The third is what I would call a
Speaker 1: global leak referral. My question is, now that President Trump
Speaker 1: has been exonerated of Russia collusion, is the Justice Department
Speaker 1: investigating how it came to be that your agency used
Speaker 1: a silacious and unverified dossier as a predicate for a
Speaker 1: FIZA order on a US citizen. The Office of the
Speaker 1: Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process
Speaker 1: in the Russian investigation, and I expect that that will
Speaker 1: be complete in probably in May or June. I am
Speaker 1: told so hopefully we'll have some answers from Inspector General
Speaker 1: Horowitz on the issue of the FISA warrants or more generally,
Speaker 1: I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying
Speaker 1: to get my arms around all the aspects of the
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Are you investigating who leaked the existence of the FAZI
Speaker 1: order against quarter Page? Who? What? Are you are you
Speaker 1: investigating who leaked the existence of a FIZI order against
Speaker 1: quarter Page. I haven't seen the referrals yet from Congressman
Speaker 1: Nunyez but obviously if there's a predicate for an investigation,
Speaker 1: it'll be conducted, all right. That was first Evan Nunez
Speaker 1: and the Attorney General appearing before Congress earlier today, given
Speaker 1: his testimony in all of this, we also have the
Speaker 1: release and it's very revealing of the transcript of the
Speaker 1: top FBI lawyer during the Clinton Trump Russia investigations. That
Speaker 1: would be James Baker, who in this closed door testimony
Speaker 1: expresses a lot of concerns about all the political bias,
Speaker 1: and he had been the one person that thought that, yeah,
Speaker 1: Hillary probably should have been indicted for the Espionage Act. Now,
Speaker 1: Kimberly Strassel is with US author journalists, member the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal Editorial Board. She writes a weekly conservative column,
Speaker 1: Potomac Watch, every Friday in the Wall Street Journal. One
Speaker 1: of the leading voices and investigators in all of this. Kimberly,
Speaker 1: thanks for being one of us. How are you great?
Speaker 1: It's great to be here. Sean. Let's start with Devin Newness,
Speaker 1: and it actually gets deeper than that. Mark Meadows talked
Speaker 1: about the criminal referrals and how they will show an
Speaker 1: overwhelming amount of evidence on FBI abuse and bar saying
Speaker 1: today that well, maybe as early as May, we're going
Speaker 1: to get the inspector General report. We know there was abuse.
Speaker 1: We know they never told the FISA Court judges that
Speaker 1: Hillary paid for it. We know the information was not
Speaker 1: verified because it was unverifiable because its own author, Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: he couldn't say under oath whether any of it was
Speaker 1: true and maybe fifty fifty his words. And we know
Speaker 1: that in the particular case of presenting it to the court,
Speaker 1: that they withheld the information that was critical and if
Speaker 1: you can't verify it, you can't present it. And that
Speaker 1: would mean that they committed a fraud on the FISA Court.
Speaker 1: And I would imagine some people are in deep trouble
Speaker 1: over that. Well, it's just great news overall that Congressman
Speaker 1: at Newness is doing this because a lot of us
Speaker 1: wondered last year they had all of these interviews. Obviously
Speaker 1: most of them were done behind closed doors. We couldn't
Speaker 1: see what they were. But the point was, where is
Speaker 1: all of this going? Well, now we know there's new
Speaker 1: leadership at the Department of Justice. That's something that's been
Speaker 1: lacking there. We didn't have someone in charge who had
Speaker 1: the ability to look at all of this given that
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions had had to recuse. Now we've got a
Speaker 1: new cop on the block. They're going to send over
Speaker 1: these referrals. The Attorney General has already expressed his willingness
Speaker 1: to look at that, and as he said, if there's
Speaker 1: a predicate for investigation, he will move on them. Some
Speaker 1: of these, I am told, are very straightforward, like the
Speaker 1: lying to Congress ones and the leaking ones. There will
Speaker 1: be evidence in these referrals that will be hard to
Speaker 1: ignore and hard to not bring a case against someone.
Speaker 1: The conspiracy charges, that's a little bit more of uncharted territory,
Speaker 1: but it is certainly an opportunity for the House members
Speaker 1: to present everything they have to bar who has himself
Speaker 1: finally expressed some interest. We finally have interest to look
Speaker 1: into this and investigate. Well, what did you think of
Speaker 1: the Attorney General's testimony? Today? Says sometime probably in a week,
Speaker 1: he's going to release this with obvious redactions. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was so funny that you have the cowardly Shift.
Speaker 1: Adam Shift, I think has lied many times to the
Speaker 1: American people. I would love the four hours of air
Speaker 1: time that I've offered him, three on radio and one
Speaker 1: on TV. I'll take Gerald Nadler two, I'll take any
Speaker 1: But I didn't these people that want to come because
Speaker 1: we have our dossier on him, including a tape of
Speaker 1: him colluding with a Russian hoxter, thinking he's getting information
Speaker 1: that would disrupt the political process in the US. But
Speaker 1: as I listened to mister Barr and I, you know,
Speaker 1: it sounds to me like everything that he wrote in
Speaker 1: his letter is true and that basically there was no
Speaker 1: collusion now that is confirmed four times, and on top
Speaker 1: of that, there is no obstruction. There was no intent,
Speaker 1: no evidence of obstruction, and this has been a two
Speaker 1: year lying campaign by the news media and the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party to destroy a duly elected president. Yeah, the takeaway
Speaker 1: from the bar testimony is that he just completely destroyed
Speaker 1: this whole new Democratic claim of some cover up that
Speaker 1: has happened here, which is the only thing they were
Speaker 1: left with after the Mulla report came out and they
Speaker 1: didn't get their collusion findings and they didn't get their
Speaker 1: obstruction charges. But Bar was I thought, pretty masterful today
Speaker 1: and destroying that in that you know, he said, look,
Speaker 1: we've been working with the Special counsel for a long time.
Speaker 1: There's been oversight. This was not necessarily a surprise what
Speaker 1: was coming. That was how we were able to put
Speaker 1: this letter out so quickly. Moreover, I gave the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel the opportunity reviewed the letter, and he chose not
Speaker 1: to all of which suggests that he probably didn't because
Speaker 1: he knew that Muller or what Barr was putting out
Speaker 1: there was completely straightforward. The findings are pretty straightforward. So
Speaker 1: and he's also you know, he pointed out, we're going
Speaker 1: to have these redactions. I'm going to color code him
Speaker 1: so that you can see exactly why we're taking out
Speaker 1: what we need to do. I'm also not going to
Speaker 1: go and at least not now, and ask for these
Speaker 1: kind of crazy requests that you guys have asked for
Speaker 1: Democrats to have a grand jury actually sign off or
Speaker 1: a judge sign off on releasing grand jury testimony, which
Speaker 1: is just an opportunity for Democrats to smear a lot
Speaker 1: of private citizens who testified. You know, if you stay
Speaker 1: focused though, on the issue of OKAYI did their own
Speaker 1: nine month investigation. Even struck in Page acknowledged there was
Speaker 1: no evidence of any Trump campaign Russia collusion, but the
Speaker 1: Special Council was appointed anyway, now, how that happened. I
Speaker 1: believe that James Comey potentially violated the law by leaking
Speaker 1: classified information government documents. I think that is a problem.
Speaker 1: And more so, how did James Comey sign off if
Speaker 1: the Grassly Graham memo was accurate on the dossier that
Speaker 1: was bought and paid for by Hillary never verified? How
Speaker 1: did he sign off on that in October twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: and then go to Trump Tower to meet with President
Speaker 1: elect Trump in January twenty seventeen and say it's unverified
Speaker 1: and salacious. Wouldn't he have to have been saying to
Speaker 1: the FISA Court that he's verified it. Doesn't that mean
Speaker 1: that either he lied to the court or lied to
Speaker 1: the President elect. Well, what you're putting your finger on here, Sean,
Speaker 1: and I think it is. The vital question is how
Speaker 1: early on did everyone at the SBA I know that
Speaker 1: this dossier had been bought and paid for by the
Speaker 1: rival campaign. How much discussion was there that about that,
Speaker 1: and how much were they aware that what they were
Speaker 1: doing was inappropriate? And in your opening you mentioned the
Speaker 1: testimony that we're just publicly seeing today from the former
Speaker 1: General Counsel James Baker, and they were highly aware that
Speaker 1: this was an explosive thing to be using, and that
Speaker 1: this is why this gets to why we ended up
Speaker 1: having the obscured language that they used in the FIZ
Speaker 1: of warrant. I'm told that not only did we know
Speaker 1: that they obscured that, but in addition, what did they
Speaker 1: not put into that FIZE warrant exculpatory evidence that they
Speaker 1: may have had in their hands at that point which
Speaker 1: would have argued against going forward with surveillance of American citizens.
Speaker 1: That's also an obligation of the FBI. And I think
Speaker 1: we've got a lot to learn yet about what mister
Speaker 1: Comey exactly knew and how he could justify any of
Speaker 1: this during his testimony. And this is the testimony released
Speaker 1: by Congressman Collins today from with James Baker, the general
Speaker 1: counsel of the number one attorney for the FBI under Komi.
Speaker 1: Baker described in the case of Hillary's emails, her behavior
Speaker 1: in general as alarming and appalling and argued with others
Speaker 1: about why they thought she shouldn't be charged. Ultimately, they
Speaker 1: want out, but the reality is is that we'd know
Speaker 1: she had classified top secret special access programming information marked
Speaker 1: as such on that private server in a mom and
Speaker 1: pop bathroom closet, So that would be a crime. And
Speaker 1: with all the talk about whether or not the president obstructed,
Speaker 1: if you have subpoena emails Kimberly and you happen to
Speaker 1: delete them, some thirty three thousand of them, and then
Speaker 1: you acid washed the hard drive so anything that might
Speaker 1: be remaining on that hard drive is gone, and you
Speaker 1: have an aid bust up your devices with hammers in
Speaker 1: case those emails transferred over to those devices, and you
Speaker 1: pull out the sim cards. I don't think there's a
Speaker 1: greater case for obstruction of justice I could ever make
Speaker 1: in my life. Well, let's hope and that the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: mister Barr, decides to actually take a look back at
Speaker 1: the way the DOJ conducted itself and FBI during that
Speaker 1: entire investigation too. He's been more quiet on that front,
Speaker 1: but a review of those procedures I think is absolutely warranted.
Speaker 1: And in particular, I mean, you're mentioning the obstruction charge
Speaker 1: against Hillary, but there were other things that were just
Speaker 1: really eyebrow raising throughout all of that. I mean, to
Speaker 1: this day, for instance, you can go look at testimony
Speaker 1: that other Hillary Clinton aids gave to the FBI. And remember,
Speaker 1: as we're constantly told, it is a crime to lie
Speaker 1: to the FBI. But they gave testimony that is completely
Speaker 1: counter indicated and contradicted by emails that the FBI had
Speaker 1: in this possession and made public. So you can just
Speaker 1: go look at that black and white situation right there.
Speaker 1: Clearly they were not treated in the same way that
Speaker 1: the FBI treats other people. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: a concern when I go out and talk to people,
Speaker 1: they're feeling that there is unequal justice at the moment
Speaker 1: is one of the biggest issues for them, and that
Speaker 1: has to be a question that William Barr addresses at
Speaker 1: the top of DJ. Let me ask you now that
Speaker 1: we are getting closed door testimony. The President when I
Speaker 1: interviewed him last week, said, yes, we will be getting
Speaker 1: the FISA applications, We will be getting Gang of Eight information.
Speaker 1: We will be getting again once they are ready for clearance.
Speaker 1: We will be getting the three O two's, the interviews
Speaker 1: for example of Bruce or and Christopher Steele and others,
Speaker 1: and all those closed door testimony. So there was a
Speaker 1: narrative now that has gone on for over two years
Speaker 1: almost three about Trump Russia collusion, but yet we've discovered
Speaker 1: that one candidate had a rigged investigation was never ever
Speaker 1: going to be indicted. We know that candidate violated numerous
Speaker 1: laws and obstructed justice. We know that there was a
Speaker 1: Russian dossier paid for by one candidate, that dossie. Everybody
Speaker 1: was warned that it was not verified, and Clinton paid
Speaker 1: for it, but they still used it as the basis
Speaker 1: for FIZO warrant. We know that the bulk of the
Speaker 1: information of the FIO warrant was the dossier. And then
Speaker 1: we also have this little issue with the Ukrainians and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, and they were trying to help Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: and there seems no interest in their influence in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. What happened in your view, Well, I
Speaker 1: think the first thing we're going to learn, Sean, when
Speaker 1: we finally see these documents and it's overdue, is that
Speaker 1: the entire FBI line about how this unrolled is going
Speaker 1: to be proved to be untrue. So remember, they have
Speaker 1: fed this to all of their friends in the media
Speaker 1: for years and said, well, this all happened in July
Speaker 1: thirty first, twenty sixteen. That was official start of our
Speaker 1: CI investigation, crossfire, hurricane, and it all had because we
Speaker 1: were concerned about George Papadopolis In one line he said
Speaker 1: in London in the spring, which was always the thinnest
Speaker 1: of reads in my mind, that you could ever put
Speaker 1: forward as a justification. I think we're going to find
Speaker 1: out when we see these documents that this investigation started
Speaker 1: much much earlier than that, and that the FBI was
Speaker 1: interacting with all kinds of shady characters early on who
Speaker 1: were feeding them other claims, even in addition to the
Speaker 1: dossier that was all designed to get this Trump Russia
Speaker 1: collusion narrative flowing before the election. I'm running out of time.
Speaker 1: Do you believe, as I do, that many of the
Speaker 1: names that we have both talked about for the last
Speaker 1: two years. Do you believe those people will be indicted?
Speaker 1: Because I do. I think some of them will be,
Speaker 1: but it's unclear if all of them will be. You know, Look,
Speaker 1: I think one thing we also have to acknowledge is
Speaker 1: that some of the things that they did were utter
Speaker 1: abuses of power and completely inappropriate. But whether or not
Speaker 1: they rise to the level of crime is a different question,
Speaker 1: which is why we need to know what happened, so
Speaker 1: that we might even change the law to make sure
Speaker 1: they're of consequences in future. Well, we better hold them
Speaker 1: accountable or else they'll try and unseat other presidents and
Speaker 1: influence other elections and abuse of power. Again. All right,
Speaker 1: Kimberly Strassell, Wall Street Journal, thank you, eight hundred and
Speaker 1: nine four one sewn. When we come back, wide open
Speaker 1: telephones as we continue on this busy breaking newsday, we'll
Speaker 1: have all the coverage tonight on Hannity nine Eastern. All right,
Speaker 1: twenty five down till the top of the hour. Toll
Speaker 1: free our numbers, eight hundred and nine four one sean
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of this extravaganza.
Speaker 1: One thing that I am very intrigued about and concerned about.
Speaker 1: You know, it drives me nuts. I don't know why
Speaker 1: we as a government the United States, we see and
Speaker 1: Blair's the computer expert here, so maybe we should be
Speaker 1: asking him, but we see this ability of people to
Speaker 1: now hack into agencies in our government. I mean, one
Speaker 1: of the untold stories about Hillary's email server was that Hillary,
Speaker 1: you know they thought, I'm sure it happened that six
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence services hacked into that email server. System. Yeah,
Speaker 1: put your mic on, I'm going And so what bothers
Speaker 1: me is now the hacking is so big, so common,
Speaker 1: they're so good at it, and it's a different kind
Speaker 1: of warfare. I mean, they are now there the ability
Speaker 1: of people. Now we have known this for decades that
Speaker 1: there is a vulnerability within our governmental systems. People have
Speaker 1: hacked into NASA, people have hacked into the DoD, people
Speaker 1: have acted into the State Department. All of that. You know,
Speaker 1: we need safety insecurity because this is about our national defense.
Speaker 1: And then you take it to another level and you
Speaker 1: have this incident that happened down at Mara Lago. A
Speaker 1: Chinese national was able to bluff her way into Mara
Speaker 1: Lago carrying a thumb drive loaded with malware and a
Speaker 1: trove of other spy year. The FBI is now investigating
Speaker 1: whether this woman, Yuxing Zang thirty three, is an agent
Speaker 1: of the Chinese government. It would appear that she is.
Speaker 1: By all accounts, she lies to everyone she encounters. According
Speaker 1: to the Assistant US Attorney, Orlando Garcia said at the
Speaker 1: bond hearing in West Palm Beach yesterday, her ties are
Speaker 1: all in China. She was busted at the Marilago Club,
Speaker 1: after giving conflicting reasons as to why she was even
Speaker 1: there during one of the President's weekend visits. President was
Speaker 1: golfing at the time. Two days earlier, she had arrived
Speaker 1: in Newark, New Jersey on a flight from Shanghai and
Speaker 1: entered the country on a B one business visa. Zang
Speaker 1: also told investigators she was an investor and consultant in
Speaker 1: China would have hoped to promote Chinese American business relations
Speaker 1: while at Mara Lago. She said she was a successful
Speaker 1: successful in China, claiming to own a one point three
Speaker 1: million dollar home and a BMW there what authority said
Speaker 1: that she lied shortly after arriving. First, she told the
Speaker 1: Secret Service agents protecting the property that she was a
Speaker 1: guest headed for a swim at the pool, even though
Speaker 1: she was wearing a long gray dress and had no
Speaker 1: swimsuit with her. Officials alleged, and then her friendly manager
Speaker 1: eventually helped waver through, noting that Zang's last name, which
Speaker 1: is extremely common, also matched the name of an older
Speaker 1: male club member, so it was actually a staff member
Speaker 1: at Marilango that did this, not the Secret Service. Zang
Speaker 1: was then shuttled in a golf cart. Further into the resort,
Speaker 1: she went through a second Secret Service security checkpoint, where
Speaker 1: agents used a magnetometer to screen her for weapons and explosives,
Speaker 1: and she was taken to the club's main reception area,
Speaker 1: and that's where she made her fatal mistake. And that
Speaker 1: time she told the receptionist that she was at the
Speaker 1: resort to attend a United Nations Chinese American Association event.
Speaker 1: Problem was, there was no such event scheduled, and the
Speaker 1: worker alerted Secret Service and they began questioning her and
Speaker 1: her story fell apart. She was arrested and they eventually
Speaker 1: found this trove of items she had with her in
Speaker 1: her room at a nearby hotel. She was carrying let's see,
Speaker 1: five cell phones in total, two Chinese passports, a device
Speaker 1: that detects hidden cameras, a thumb drive that is loaded
Speaker 1: with malware, nine other thumb drives, five simcards, a laptop,
Speaker 1: an external hard drive, all these credit and debit cards,
Speaker 1: eight thousand dollars in US cash and seven hundred dollars
Speaker 1: in Chinese currency. Now the question is, you know, how
Speaker 1: did this happen? I don't, I mean how easy? How
Speaker 1: many times have people tried to hack into everything that
Speaker 1: I have today today, thousands thousands of times that I
Speaker 1: tried to hack into either one of my social media accounts,
Speaker 1: your account. Yeah, they just probe ports that are open
Speaker 1: on your website. They search, you know, they just they
Speaker 1: fish for things. It's called fishing and fishing well, phishing
Speaker 1: means they want you to click on something. Right, there's
Speaker 1: pishing attacks with things called watering hole attacks where they
Speaker 1: set up this fake website that you go to, you
Speaker 1: enter you user name and password, and then they take
Speaker 1: it and they try to use that on Hannity or
Speaker 1: use it on your email to try to catch you
Speaker 1: in this classic Yeah, and how many times how many
Speaker 1: do you think we've had since the beginning of the year,
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands? Well that do you notice them? Every time?
Speaker 1: We have services in place that automatically stop known. You know,
Speaker 1: why can't the government Look if the government has I
Speaker 1: read once two hundred and fifty thousand it people, how
Speaker 1: come we're still vulnerable the way we are because a
Speaker 1: lot of it's a it's a human problem. You know,
Speaker 1: someone someone goes out and they check their email or
Speaker 1: they click on an email or ninety four percent of
Speaker 1: all malwares from email. So you know, they click on
Speaker 1: this and they give their user name and password. It's
Speaker 1: not it's not a it's not a hack. It's it's
Speaker 1: it's a human problem. Pretty amazing. Some of the other
Speaker 1: news we haven't gotten to yet, Jason, I know you
Speaker 1: want to weigh in on some of this we now have. Well,
Speaker 1: there's prosecutor that wrote a peace anonymously after Kim Fox
Speaker 1: recently attempted to deflect the criticism of her handling of
Speaker 1: the Jus Smolette case, insinuating that her critics were motivated
Speaker 1: by racism anyway. This letter was published on the website
Speaker 1: of CWB Chicago. A Chicago prosecutor speaks out against Fox
Speaker 1: and her demoralizing attacks on law enforcers in the state
Speaker 1: law enforcement in the State's Attorney office in Chicago, and
Speaker 1: goes really just tears at the shreds and in that case, Look,
Speaker 1: I believe in presumption of innocence, due process, but you've
Speaker 1: got two eye witnesses that are saying they practiced and
Speaker 1: staged the attack. That's pretty compelling evidence. That's almost slammed
Speaker 1: dunk evidence. Isn't there video evidence too? Then you got
Speaker 1: video of the other two guys involved in this whole thing.
Speaker 1: They're buying the very items, the rope, the red hat, etc.
Speaker 1: That were allegedly used in the hoax, and they've given specifics.
Speaker 1: The cops are furious because they did their job. They
Speaker 1: spent literally thousands of man hours on this. Chicago can
Speaker 1: barely afford to keep their city, their streets safe, and
Speaker 1: this one prosecutor, So it was, why wouldn't you prosecute
Speaker 1: somebody grand jury ORRIDI when the police superintendent himself is black,
Speaker 1: So how is he charging racism? Talking about Eddie Johnson. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let me tell you that he's more angry than anybody
Speaker 1: in all this. And then it gets even worse. I
Speaker 1: saw when she was speaking at Jesse Jackson's I guess
Speaker 1: Rainbow Coalition. You know, then you have Congressman Bobby Rush
Speaker 1: calling Chicago police the sworn enemy of black people and
Speaker 1: demanding the Cook County State Attorney Kim Fox resigned over
Speaker 1: her office. Is handling any calling for that means, you know,
Speaker 1: friends of police, sworn enemy of black people? He said
Speaker 1: during this press conference that she was at. And they
Speaker 1: always taken the position that black people can get shot
Speaker 1: down in the street by members of the Chicago Police
Speaker 1: Department and suffered no consequences. Well, Eddie Johnson, the head
Speaker 1: of the department, is an African American. Maxine Waters praising
Speaker 1: the Chicago prosecutors in Kim Fox for what happened here. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, one one rage hate Trump media mob
Speaker 1: update and that is they skipped. Oh that's right, that
Speaker 1: we created another two hundred thousand jobs in America. I
Speaker 1: were getting close to six million Trump jobs, three point
Speaker 1: eight percent unemployment rate record low. As they never talked
Speaker 1: about that. Um, all of the case of these parents
Speaker 1: out in Hollywood, Felicity husband, Huh, what's her name? Huffman?
Speaker 1: What was she in the show Desperate Housewives? Right or
Speaker 1: something like that? All right, I'm not a show that
Speaker 1: I watched a whole lot. Just watch it at all,
Speaker 1: Either that or I read that she was in it. Anyway,
Speaker 1: she was smarting. Now she apparently did the least of anybody.
Speaker 1: There were people paying four or five hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: to this guy, and they knew that they were paying
Speaker 1: to get cheating on tasks on these acts or SATs.
Speaker 1: And then there were people paying formed five and six
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. They would work the system two ways,
Speaker 1: and one would be through the you know, cheating on
Speaker 1: the task. And then they'd actually go so far as
Speaker 1: to take a picture of their kid and put it
Speaker 1: on the on the body of an athlete and claim, well,
Speaker 1: the kids involved in crew or the kids involved in
Speaker 1: some of the pictures weren't of the kids even, like
Speaker 1: at all. Like they didn't even put the faces on
Speaker 1: the kids. They just used plane photos of other person's
Speaker 1: kids and submitted it. And the parents knew that these
Speaker 1: websites quote of their kids existed. But the other thing
Speaker 1: that's weird that no one's pointing out is they wrote
Speaker 1: off all this money as tax rite offs. They did
Speaker 1: it as a donation. Well, that's a problem too. Now
Speaker 1: every by the way, all these issues become tax issues. Well, now,
Speaker 1: the parents like Laurie Laughlin that didn't plead guilty, Listen,
Speaker 1: there's no jury in America that's gonna let you off here.
Speaker 1: I don't know what their lawyers thinking. And at that point,
Speaker 1: you know what, obviously he did it. In my humble opinion,
Speaker 1: I believe in due process they can prove they didn't.
Speaker 1: That's great. Let's assume for a second, if they did
Speaker 1: this the dumbest thing they can do, because they got
Speaker 1: new charges of money laundering today in all of this,
Speaker 1: maybe they should talk to Kim fox Well. I thought
Speaker 1: Felicity Huffman was smart. And again she had only spend
Speaker 1: fifteen grand. These other people spending five hundred, six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, and I guess it's not about the money.
Speaker 1: That was another weird thing that people that hired this guy,
Speaker 1: you know, they all paid varying sums of money, so
Speaker 1: there was no consistency in whatever services he had. And anyway,
Speaker 1: she was. Hupman was accused of paying fifteen grand to
Speaker 1: have a proctor of a test boost his daughter's SAT score.
Speaker 1: And her statement was smart because if you did it
Speaker 1: and you know that they're they're telling you that they're
Speaker 1: going to make more charges, either cooperate, accept the responsibility,
Speaker 1: or we're gonna charge you more. So she said, I'm
Speaker 1: pleading guilty to the charge brought against me by the
Speaker 1: United States Attorney's Office. I am in full acceptance of
Speaker 1: my guilt, with the deep regret and shame over what
Speaker 1: I have done. I accept full responsibility for my actions
Speaker 1: and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions.
Speaker 1: I am ashamed of the pain I have caused my daughter,
Speaker 1: my family, my friends, my colleagues, and the educational community.
Speaker 1: I want to apologize to them, and especially I want
Speaker 1: to apologize to the students who work hard every day
Speaker 1: to get into college, to their parents who make tremendous
Speaker 1: sacrifices to support their children and do so Honestly, my
Speaker 1: daughter knew absolutely nothing about my actions, and in my
Speaker 1: misguided and profoundly wrong way, I have betrayed her. This
Speaker 1: transgression towards her and the public I will carry for
Speaker 1: the rest of my life. My desire to help my
Speaker 1: daughter is no excuse to break the law engage in dishonesty.
Speaker 1: You know what, I respect what she did here. Smart
Speaker 1: What kind of justice should there be for this kind
Speaker 1: of a crime? I think for hard you know, just
Speaker 1: as I think community service. I think, you know, for
Speaker 1: those that went so much deeper than this, they're going
Speaker 1: It's not even what I want them. They're going to
Speaker 1: jail as long as there's something because between this and
Speaker 1: small at I mean, the American public just can't stand
Speaker 1: to see the problem is people get off on nothing
Speaker 1: when this is a zero sum game there. In other words,
Speaker 1: there's only X number of spots available in these schools.
Speaker 1: And you know there's it I only know from like
Speaker 1: for example, there's UM for every sport you have. You know,
Speaker 1: they kind of grade um the ability of players. Like,
Speaker 1: for example, in tennis, there's a site called Tennis recruiting
Speaker 1: dot com. Well, for example, there's only twenty five blue
Speaker 1: chip players in the country in any given grade. That's it.
Speaker 1: There's only fifty five stars in any given grade in
Speaker 1: the country. Now you gotta remember these teams have twelve
Speaker 1: thirteen people on the squad and you know, then you've
Speaker 1: got a four star player that that's the top two
Speaker 1: hundred in the country. Now with all the schools and
Speaker 1: all the positions, boom, you know, you've got a lot
Speaker 1: of opportunities if you get to that level of play.
Speaker 1: And it's all based on your record. And you can
Speaker 1: look at any kids record going back to when they
Speaker 1: were not eight nine years old, and it's all out
Speaker 1: there unavailable. But um, you know, so I think in
Speaker 1: that terms, and then you know somebody's academic rad how
Speaker 1: does somebody end up with a fifteen eighty on their SATs?
Speaker 1: And there would bec student it's not gonna happen. I
Speaker 1: just had a good day. I just had a really
Speaker 1: good day. Um and I just don't think I think
Speaker 1: of the I think the ones that took it so far.
Speaker 1: I just I get it. Everybody's a helicopter parent today.
Speaker 1: Everybody life isn't like when we were kids. When I
Speaker 1: was a kid, get off the school bus, I'd run
Speaker 1: into the house, grab whatever equipment I needed, and I
Speaker 1: was gone on my bike. See later, nobody knew where
Speaker 1: I was. All right. My sources on the ground saying things,
Speaker 1: it's a tight race, but looking good for Prime Minister
Speaker 1: net and Yahoo and the right wing coalition, Greg Sarah
Speaker 1: tom Fitting. Also the battle over the Border. We got
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino, Haraldo, Lawrence Jones, Victor Davis handsOn, much more,
Speaker 1: All happening nine Eastern Hannity on Fox Big Night tonight.
Speaker 1: I'm promising you news truth you won't get anywhere else.
Speaker 1: We'll see you tonight at nine. Back here tomorrow