Speaker 1: All right, glad you with us two hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: eight days. Doesn't matter what these corrupt, abusively biased, psychotic,
Speaker 1: rage filled hate Trump mob and the media and the
Speaker 1: Democrats do when we know how this is all gonna end.
Speaker 1: That's the bottom line. And I am I am really
Speaker 1: angry at some week Republican senators because this, you know,
Speaker 1: John Cordnan even said it himself and David Purdue, the
Speaker 1: House managers should proceed with the evidence they used to
Speaker 1: impeach Trump in the House and stop demanding that the
Speaker 1: Senate take on their constitutional role. They are given in
Speaker 1: the US Constitution the sole power to impeach the president
Speaker 1: and others officers, judges, etc. That's their role. The Senate's
Speaker 1: sole role is to listen via trial to the evidence
Speaker 1: that led to their vote to impeach they have now impeached.
Speaker 1: Now the trial and the Senate, and I think Cornin
Speaker 1: was right, the case is just so pathetically weak. Now
Speaker 1: they're trying to ratchet up all this pressure on everybody
Speaker 1: else to do the job they themselves can't do, or
Speaker 1: they just want endless, never ending impeachments of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, either present your evidence. You know they have
Speaker 1: their rock solid case, as Jerry Nadler said, But if
Speaker 1: the House isn't prepared to go forward with their rock
Speaker 1: solid case and their evidence with all their urgency and
Speaker 1: blame the Senate and get the Senate to bring on
Speaker 1: the bringing the guests or the people they want to
Speaker 1: interview that they didn't even call, because that's going to
Speaker 1: be resolved. The whole issue of executive privilege and witnesses
Speaker 1: really ticks me off because that's not the Senate's constitutional role.
Speaker 1: That role would be in the impeachment process. They've impeached him,
Speaker 1: and if they don't, don't think they have a good case.
Speaker 1: If they're not prepared to bring their case forward, if
Speaker 1: they're trying, their only argument is too, well, we found
Speaker 1: new evidence. Okay, what's the new evidence. Well, if you
Speaker 1: read what they sent over less parness, the guy that's
Speaker 1: under indictment in the Southern District of New York federal indictment,
Speaker 1: let's see, oh, campaign finance violations one two allegedly gets
Speaker 1: a million dollars from of all places, Russia didn't want
Speaker 1: to report that payment to him. It is okay, that's
Speaker 1: the best you got. And then you reach Schiff and
Speaker 1: his letter to the Senate about partness and the new
Speaker 1: evidence that they have. But Joe Biden is so innocent,
Speaker 1: and it was really the prosecutor that Joe Biden demanded
Speaker 1: leveraging blackmailing the Ukrainian government with a billion dollars in
Speaker 1: tax money. You're not getting the billion unless you fire
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. What was the prosecutor doing that was so corrupt?
Speaker 1: Investigating the payment of millions of dollars to zero experience Hunter. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they have to forge get that whole part, which is
Speaker 1: infuriating to me because the lack of fundamental common sense
Speaker 1: reason fairness. The same standards are not applied on anything,
Speaker 1: whether it be about h a Russian election interference, well
Speaker 1: except if it's Hillary's dirty Russian dosier likely Russian misinformation.
Speaker 1: From the get go, we don't care about that. Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Russia was only about Trump Russia. It is an affront
Speaker 1: to our constitution. It is we are bastardizing and shredding it.
Speaker 1: This These senators, these Republicans, ought not legitimize this, and
Speaker 1: they feel this compulsion. They want to be liked, they
Speaker 1: want to appear fair, They don't want to take tough votes.
Speaker 1: They so they're gonna bend over backwards to prove that
Speaker 1: they're fair. Why the Democrats are not fair? Look at
Speaker 1: what your constitutional role is and do that they impeach
Speaker 1: the president. Okay, now the managers have been selected. Okay,
Speaker 1: now everybody's sworn in. Okay, make your case, and I
Speaker 1: guess if you're going to be stupid and then you
Speaker 1: feel a compelled to bring in other guests, you better
Speaker 1: be very careful on the issue of executive privilege because
Speaker 1: this transcends anything to do with Donald Trump. You know,
Speaker 1: President Trump invoked executive privilege. You look at the history
Speaker 1: of that presidential power and it goes back to the
Speaker 1: very beginning and one of the you know, George Washington
Speaker 1: invoked it. Dwight Eisenhower named it, Richard Nixon abused it.
Speaker 1: But if a president and future presidents don't have the
Speaker 1: ability to speak freely and get advice pure, unadulterated raw
Speaker 1: advice from especially nationals, national security concerns, nobody's ever going
Speaker 1: to want to talk freely to any president. You know.
Speaker 1: The definition actually comes back from Mark Roselli, authored two
Speaker 1: books of executive privilege, founder founding dean of the Shar
Speaker 1: School of policy and government. George Mason University defined executive
Speaker 1: privilege in a ninety eight Minnesota Law Review article as
Speaker 1: the right of the President and high level executive branch
Speaker 1: officers to withhold information from Congress, to courts, and ultimately
Speaker 1: the public when it comes to one certain national security
Speaker 1: needs in two, protecting the privacy of White House deliberations
Speaker 1: when it is in the public interest to do so.
Speaker 1: It is not in the US Constitution. It is considered
Speaker 1: an implied power based on the separation of powers laid
Speaker 1: out an Article two, which has meant to make sure
Speaker 1: that one branch of government doesn't become all powerful. Executive
Speaker 1: privilege is one of the ways that one way the
Speaker 1: legislative branch's power over the executive is limited. We only
Speaker 1: have one commander in chief, not five hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: five commanders in chief. Congress investigating George W. Bush's firing
Speaker 1: of eight US attorneys two thousand and six, White House
Speaker 1: Council Fred Fielding alluding to executive privilege in a letter
Speaker 1: referencing the constitutional law they called it in their particular cases.
Speaker 1: They agree and they disagree, but the bottom line is,
Speaker 1: you need this any reasonable complicated organization, you need a
Speaker 1: place where people can discuss what they're going to do,
Speaker 1: especially on national security, with confidentiality. That's it. It really
Speaker 1: is that simple. And if you want to go back
Speaker 1: to when it was first invoked, well you go back
Speaker 1: to George Washington. He claimed it in seventeen ninety two
Speaker 1: when Congress asked him to turn over documents related to
Speaker 1: an unsuccessful military operation involving Native Americans. Oh you look
Speaker 1: at that. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that, after conferring with
Speaker 1: his cabinet members, Washington believe the executive to be able
Speaker 1: to communicate such powers as the public good would permit
Speaker 1: an ought to refuse those the disclosure of which would
Speaker 1: injure the public. That's what it is. It's really simple.
Speaker 1: It has been you know, it is involved somewhat, but
Speaker 1: but it remains the same now in terms of what
Speaker 1: is happening here. Every American we got to watch these
Speaker 1: two big issues. One the fight over executive privilege. President
Speaker 1: has a right to seek remedy. That's why the whole
Speaker 1: second article of impeachment is absurd. Well, you said you're
Speaker 1: going to invoke executive privilege. Therefore, my point is you're
Speaker 1: obstructing Congress. No, because the President, rightly, when there's a
Speaker 1: conflict between the executive legislative branch, sought remedy from where
Speaker 1: that would be from, yes, the third branch government, the
Speaker 1: judicial branch of government. And so now the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: they've done their job. Now they have their managers, Now
Speaker 1: their impeachment managers can move forward. The only fact witness
Speaker 1: they ever found was Ambassador Selling. Another fact witness that
Speaker 1: never got called that should have been called, well, that
Speaker 1: would be the congenital liar, corrupt and compromised as he is,
Speaker 1: Adam Ship who's leading this shift sham show. Now in
Speaker 1: the Senate, the executive summary of the President's defense team
Speaker 1: just nailed it. They said, this is you know, these
Speaker 1: articles of impeachment are an affront to the Constitution of
Speaker 1: the United States. It's an affront to our democratic institutions.
Speaker 1: The articles themselves, the rigged process that brought them to
Speaker 1: where we are, are a brazenly political act by House Democrats,
Speaker 1: and it must be rejected. And to some of you
Speaker 1: weak and wobbly Senate republic Plians, do not offer legitimacy
Speaker 1: into this corrupt process. That's what they're trying to get
Speaker 1: you to do. They're trying to get you to take
Speaker 1: on their role, which is solely their role defined in
Speaker 1: the Constitution. I like how they write in the executive Summary.
Speaker 1: They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the
Speaker 1: solemn responsibility that that power entails. Anyone having the most
Speaker 1: basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people
Speaker 1: should shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to
Speaker 1: peach impeach a duly elected president. By the way, supposed
Speaker 1: to be bipartisan. Yeah, that's never happened before. There's a
Speaker 1: purely partisan act. You know, the jeering, the signing ceremony,
Speaker 1: the pens, the pictures. I mean, the whole thing is repulsive.
Speaker 1: You know, they focus group all the varying charges and
Speaker 1: they settle on, okay, well two things with two articles. Well,
Speaker 1: the problem with what they've settled on here is is
Speaker 1: not a single article they don't identify any impeachable offense bribery,
Speaker 1: high crimes, misdemeanors, abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: And that their theory about abuse of powers so plants
Speaker 1: the standard high crimes, misdemeanors and briberies and a made
Speaker 1: up theory and the House and the president's attorneys are right,
Speaker 1: that would permanently weaken the presidency. It would effectively permit
Speaker 1: impeachments based on mere political and policy disagreements. And by
Speaker 1: limiting impeachment to cases of treason, bribery, or other high
Speaker 1: crimes and misdemeanors, the Framers restricted impeachment to very specific
Speaker 1: offenses against already known an established law. I've been arguing,
Speaker 1: no one seems to want to listen to me that
Speaker 1: when the President said, do us a favor, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: want you to look into this. You know what involvement
Speaker 1: did you have? A Ukrainian court determined that, in fact,
Speaker 1: Ukraine interfered in the twenty sixteen election. Well, that's a
Speaker 1: big deal. Do us a favor, not do me a
Speaker 1: do us meaning both countries. Can you get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this, Well, that would be important to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of. By the way, you don't have
Speaker 1: to take my word for it. Look at the liberal
Speaker 1: media and you have the political article January eleventh, twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire. And you watched the
Speaker 1: mob and the media to say, well, they're trying to
Speaker 1: say that Russia didn't do it, that really was Ukraine. No,
Speaker 1: I do believe Russia tried to interfere in our elections,
Speaker 1: as was worn by Devin Nunas in twenty fourteen, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean Ukraine didn't also, and well, Ukrainian Court
Speaker 1: and Politico in January of twenty seventeen told us they did.
Speaker 1: That Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the
Speaker 1: President elect Trump after quietly working to boost Hillary. Oh,
Speaker 1: they were trying to influence our elections. That's what politicos saying.
Speaker 1: That's what the Ukraine Court said, Separate and apart from
Speaker 1: any interference Russia was involved in and Poorshiko's administration, along
Speaker 1: with Ukrainian embassy in Washington, insist they stayed neutral. The
Speaker 1: problem is the article goes on to chronicle exactly what
Speaker 1: they did. How Ukrainian government officials I'm reading verbatim, tried
Speaker 1: to help Hillary Clinton undermine Trump by publicly questioning his
Speaker 1: fitness for office, also disseminating documents implicating a top Trump
Speaker 1: aid in corruption and meeting mana for it, I would assume,
Speaker 1: and suggested that they were investigating the matter, only to
Speaker 1: back away after the election. They helped Hillary Clinton's allies
Speaker 1: research damaging information on Trump and his advisers. A political
Speaker 1: investigation found a Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for
Speaker 1: the DNC. Oh, they're colluding, met with top officials in
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian embassy in Washington in an effort to expose
Speaker 1: ties between Trump, Manaport Russia. Ukrainian efforts had an impact
Speaker 1: in the twenty sixteen race, helping to force Manaport's resignation,
Speaker 1: advancing the narrative the Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Speaker 1: Ukraine's foe to the east Russia. The mob is saying, well,
Speaker 1: it's a conspiracy theory. Well, then talk to Politico all
Speaker 1: through that article now works at the New York Times. Wow,
Speaker 1: I don't want to. I'm sure they regret writing the
Speaker 1: truth for one time in their life. This whole abuse
Speaker 1: of how power article is not an impeachable offense. It
Speaker 1: is not. It is not there, just like the soul
Speaker 1: power to impeach. That is the role, the sole role
Speaker 1: of the House, trial, sole role of the Senate. Now
Speaker 1: the House managers present your case or withdraw them. You
Speaker 1: know this theory that a president can be impeached for
Speaker 1: taking permissible actions, or I've been arguing rightfully, the president
Speaker 1: asking both about election an interference and the president asking
Speaker 1: about Joe on tape. You're not getting the billion unless
Speaker 1: you fire the prosecutor who is investigating my zero experience
Speaker 1: son who's being paid millions. That would be faithfully executing
Speaker 1: laws because on the surface, well, we have identified through
Speaker 1: our legal team numerous laws that we strongly believe would
Speaker 1: apply in that particular case. You know that the idea
Speaker 1: of obstruction, that's not an impeachable offense. When there is
Speaker 1: a conflict between branches executive and legislative branch, Yes, that
Speaker 1: third branch of government, you're allowed to seek remedy. Seeking
Speaker 1: remedy is what the President's supposed to do. You know, well,
Speaker 1: the President lack lawful cause or excuse to resist House
Speaker 1: Democrats subpoenas well. They never ended up calling these witnesses
Speaker 1: Number one. They decided it was too urgent, they needed
Speaker 1: to move forward because the House knew that it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be until June when we get a decision from the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. It's that simple, and defending separation of powers
Speaker 1: is not an impeachable offense. We'll continue. I'm gonna explain
Speaker 1: more of this on the other side, and what's going
Speaker 1: to happen this week, all right, glad you with us
Speaker 1: twenty five to the top of the hour. It is,
Speaker 1: if this was such a rock solid case, this impeachment,
Speaker 1: why would the Democrats be needing anything other than what
Speaker 1: they've found. The fact is it is not. It is
Speaker 1: an admission they know it's not now for the president.
Speaker 1: And this is where the Usue of witnesses an executive privilege.
Speaker 1: This is where your Republican senators need to not add
Speaker 1: any legitimacy to the shift sham show that we've watched,
Speaker 1: because this is an affront to the Constitution of the
Speaker 1: United States and to our democratic institutions. It is you know,
Speaker 1: if you look at the bottom line to all of this,
Speaker 1: there's no crime even alleged here, There is no It
Speaker 1: doesn't meet the constitutional standard. You know, the House impeachment
Speaker 1: manager has been called out for making a bogus bribery charge.
Speaker 1: You know, you have let's see their manager's named Jason Crowe,
Speaker 1: accusing Trump on Sunday of attempting to commit bribery and
Speaker 1: his dealings with Ukraine. But when I asked, it was
Speaker 1: not one of the articles of impeachment. Y. Yeah. Specifically,
Speaker 1: he did attempt to bribe Corp as a barign government official,
Speaker 1: in this case the president of Ukraine. The only one
Speaker 1: that did that was Joe. You're not getting the billion. Now,
Speaker 1: I'll give you the billion if you do what I want.
Speaker 1: Fire the prosecutor investigating my son. You want to know
Speaker 1: why this whole Parnass argument is total bs because when
Speaker 1: the shift Sham congenital liar compromise congenital liars sent over
Speaker 1: the new evidence, he declared the Biden's innocent, but it
Speaker 1: was the prosecutor corrupt all of this. You know, well,
Speaker 1: why wasn't this an article? Well, you know, we have
Speaker 1: to look at the entire context of what happened here.
Speaker 1: That's what this is about. This is about abuse of power.
Speaker 1: Oh so there is no specific crime here that is
Speaker 1: at the end of it. Now, Gallup is even saying,
Speaker 1: and they're polled, majority of Americans want the Senate to
Speaker 1: acquit the president. This is now, by the time these
Speaker 1: whatever weeks are over, the country is gonna have had
Speaker 1: it with all of this, because this is all they've
Speaker 1: given this country now for three long solid years and
Speaker 1: it's interesting and kind of fascinating to me watching Team
Speaker 1: Biden going as far as they am and are in
Speaker 1: terms of damage control, because if Hunter is brought in
Speaker 1: to testify about the millions he was paid for zero experience,
Speaker 1: they've got a problem. Biden isn't taking any chances. He's
Speaker 1: launched a damage control campaign to contain the fallout from
Speaker 1: anything Hunter might be forced to confess to. Under oath,
Speaker 1: Team Biden has gone as far as to issue a
Speaker 1: direct order to their you know friends that basically the
Speaker 1: press organization for all things radical democratic, socialist, any media
Speaker 1: organization referencing reporting on repeating these claims from Trump and
Speaker 1: his allies must state clearly and unambiguously that they have
Speaker 1: been discredited and debunked by authoritative sources. No, they haven't.
Speaker 1: We don't need The only authoritative source we have are
Speaker 1: the words of Joe and the words of Hunter, because
Speaker 1: they're damning on both sides of it. Said I'm not
Speaker 1: going to We're not going to give you the million dollars.
Speaker 1: They said, you have no authority, you're not the president.
Speaker 1: The president said, I said, call him. He said, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you not getting a billion dollars. I said, you're
Speaker 1: not getting a billion. I'm gonna be leaving here. And
Speaker 1: I think it was what six hours. I look as
Speaker 1: I'm leaving six hours. If the prosecutors not fired, you're
Speaker 1: not getting the money. Oh, son of them got fired.
Speaker 1: They there is all your quid and pro and quo
Speaker 1: that this idiot, the impeachment manager Jason Crowe didn't want
Speaker 1: to talk about over the weekend. Well, well you're claiming
Speaker 1: that the president in fact in this, but he was
Speaker 1: trying to bribe. No, what is Biden doing with the billion?
Speaker 1: And that should anger every American because you can see
Speaker 1: it is rank hypocrisy. It is at a high at
Speaker 1: the highest level, even imaginable. But they don't care. They did, well,
Speaker 1: let's bring in less partners. Oh the guy that would
Speaker 1: probably say anything at this point, Well, I got a
Speaker 1: picture with Trump. I got a couple of pictures with
Speaker 1: Trump at at a photo line. Well, big deal and
Speaker 1: doesn't mean well I talked to Rudy Giuliani. Big deal again.
Speaker 1: And the idea that Rudy the crime fighter saw this
Speaker 1: corruption and hypocrisy and investigated. Good for him. Why shouldn't
Speaker 1: he here's every right too it's unbelievable, and he wants
Speaker 1: to he wants to be a witness in this case.
Speaker 1: You know, Levine said it man did, He'd nail this.
Speaker 1: He claimed Trump is getting less due process than the
Speaker 1: terrorists in nine to eleven. Think back, remember Gitmo, all
Speaker 1: the all the accommodations, the soccer field built, the dietary
Speaker 1: concerns taken care of. The whole argument that, well, we
Speaker 1: should give them due process rights of American citizens, their
Speaker 1: enemy combatants. This is the middle of a war, the
Speaker 1: War on Terrorism nine to eleven Commissioner report. They were
Speaker 1: at war with us, We were at war with them,
Speaker 1: and he says this is important. Well, what what due
Speaker 1: process have they ever given the president in any of
Speaker 1: this None. That's the whole point, you know, Look at
Speaker 1: oh Ukrainian election interference. Yeah, well Democrats, media mob, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to reconcile the January eleventh, twenty seventeen article
Speaker 1: in Politico and the Ukrainian court. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: said Ukraine interfered and faithfully executing the laws. I listened
Speaker 1: to Joe and Hunter and I'm saying, holy crap, this
Speaker 1: defines everything that we say that they say. They care
Speaker 1: so much about. There's no crime that they've even listed
Speaker 1: in all of this. Their obstruction of Congress is obscene
Speaker 1: because the President, rightly seeking remedy, went in conflict with
Speaker 1: the legislative branch through the judicial branch. That's what they do.
Speaker 1: He asserted executive branch prerogatives, and as they pointed out
Speaker 1: in their Executive Summary, contrary to a mistaken charge, the
Speaker 1: President lacked lawful cause or excuse to resist the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, and based on established
Speaker 1: legal principles and immunities, Executive branch officials refused to comply
Speaker 1: with the subpoenas. Purportedly they were going to be issued
Speaker 1: in the impeachment inquiry, but they was so urgent they
Speaker 1: just decided not to invite them before the House and
Speaker 1: even authorized any inquiry because, as the Office of Legal
Speaker 1: Counsel advised, the subpoenas were unauthorized and had no legal
Speaker 1: bearing or force. There's your first ruling in the president's favor,
Speaker 1: and I can't imagine that the court would ever go
Speaker 1: along with this nonsense either. My only fear is, you know,
Speaker 1: is Congress going to say, well, this is political, we
Speaker 1: have the right to decide that no, you don't. This
Speaker 1: is a principle that would destroy the ability of any president.
Speaker 1: Has been argued since George Washington to have open conversations
Speaker 1: about issues of importance involving national security. Oh, who did
Speaker 1: they want to bring in? Let's see the Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff mcmulvaaney, National Security Advisor John Bolden, and Mike Pompeo,
Speaker 1: Secretary of State. Now they're not allowed to be able
Speaker 1: to freely advise the president, deliberate with the president on
Speaker 1: important issues involving how we deal with other countries than
Speaker 1: the presidency, and the constitutional right commander in chief is
Speaker 1: evaporated under the president's supervision. Executive Branch officials were directed
Speaker 1: not to comply because the committees seeking their testimony refused
Speaker 1: to allow them to be accompanied by agency council. Leave it.
Speaker 1: That's how corrupt the process was there, and the Office
Speaker 1: Illegal Counsel concluded that the committees may not bar agency
Speaker 1: counsel from assisting Executive Branch witnesses without contravening the legitimate
Speaker 1: prerogatives of the executive branch. As it goes back to
Speaker 1: George Washington that attempting to enforce a subpoena while barring
Speaker 1: agency council would be unconstitutional. The reason they didn't pursue
Speaker 1: it further is they know the odds are pretty strong
Speaker 1: they're gonna lose. We'll find out from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I guess at some point down the road. Defending the
Speaker 1: separate of powers is everything the system was designed to do.
Speaker 1: That's why the conflict leads to the decision by the
Speaker 1: third branch of government. In a government of laws asserting
Speaker 1: legal defenses, you can't claim that that substruction because that's
Speaker 1: a fundamental right. Supreme Court has instructed. Quote. For the
Speaker 1: agent of the state to pursue a course of action
Speaker 1: who's objective is to penalize a person's reliance on his
Speaker 1: legal rights is patently unconstitutional. The same principles applied during
Speaker 1: the Clinton impeachment. Lawrence tribe been on a holy war
Speaker 1: to defeat Trump. Hates Trump allegations that invoking privileges and
Speaker 1: otherwise using the judicial system to shield information as an
Speaker 1: abuse of power that should lead to impeachment and removal
Speaker 1: from office is not only frivolous but dangerous, and he
Speaker 1: hates Donald Trump. Even Nadler agreed that a president cannot
Speaker 1: be impeached for asserting a legal privilege. But that's the
Speaker 1: whole second article that they agreed to in the House
Speaker 1: and their impeachment. You can throw that sucker out now
Speaker 1: because that has no legal standing. The impeachment inquiry was flawed,
Speaker 1: as we all know from the beginning. They violated all
Speaker 1: prior precedent, every consideration New Gingrich and the Republicans gave
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety eight and nine none of it.
Speaker 1: And they had their audition impeachment hearings to see who
Speaker 1: did best. And then they still are withholding some of
Speaker 1: the testimony because it's not good for them. And then
Speaker 1: they had their hearsay witnesses, and then they had their
Speaker 1: opinion witnesses. It's meaningless, and well, now we needed we
Speaker 1: need you guys to do what we didn't do. You know,
Speaker 1: the process that resulted was completely unjust. No due process,
Speaker 1: no equal application of laws, no equal justice under the law.
Speaker 1: I mean it just It trivializes what should be somber
Speaker 1: and serious and should be only done not for pure
Speaker 1: political purposes like in this case. They throw aside all
Speaker 1: past precedent, They throw all history aside, all precedent aside,
Speaker 1: all due process, aside, and they've rammed this thing down
Speaker 1: everybody's throat with no rights for the president at all.
Speaker 1: You know, they can coct an unheard of procedure that
Speaker 1: denies the president the right to bring witnesses, cross examine witnesses,
Speaker 1: and bring evidence and confront evidence. That's all gone in
Speaker 1: this whole shift show. That's why it was bad from
Speaker 1: the beginning. That's why the Senate Republicans they need not
Speaker 1: add legitimacy to this. The hearings were defective. You got
Speaker 1: the guy leading the Shift sham show himself is compromised
Speaker 1: and helping to create the entire phony story and lying
Speaker 1: about that, like he's lied about Prussia collusion for three
Speaker 1: straight years. Denying a president of the United States is
Speaker 1: fundamental due process rights is a bad precedent. You know.
Speaker 1: Their goal was never to get to the truth. They
Speaker 1: were selectively leaking. We saw that by the selective editing
Speaker 1: and leaking of the audition, the audition interviews, but only
Speaker 1: the stuff that they thought they could use to propagandize
Speaker 1: the American people and win them over with half truths
Speaker 1: and lies. They pinned their impeachment hopes on the lie
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign colluded to Russia. Well that didn't work out.
Speaker 1: Four separate investigations. They've been trying to impeach him, which
Speaker 1: is why my impeachment montage on TV so powerful since
Speaker 1: two days after he won election. It fails because they
Speaker 1: have no evidence to support their claim. The only fact
Speaker 1: witness there were two, but the congenital compromise liars shifted
Speaker 1: and go under oath. The one fact witness, Ambassador Solomon,
Speaker 1: is the only relevant one. You know. Whatever they might
Speaker 1: have discussed privately, well, that's because that's the job and
Speaker 1: role of the the president of the United States. That's right,
Speaker 1: he's the commander in chief. We don't have five hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty five of them. President didn't condition any security
Speaker 1: assistance or a presidential meeting for We have the actual invitations.
Speaker 1: He's still invited Zelenski to come to America five five
Speaker 1: high profile meetings after the call. None of them was
Speaker 1: any aid ever mentioned by anybody in any way in
Speaker 1: any capacity, you know, And now it's just to me,
Speaker 1: the whole thing is disgusting. You know. They rest on
Speaker 1: the false premise that there could have been no legitimate
Speaker 1: reason to mention Joe Biden. Why don't want to know why,
Speaker 1: don't know why it's relevant. It's relevant because when I
Speaker 1: hear Joe Biden and then I hear Hunter's interview, I
Speaker 1: think we ought to be investigating real crimes of bribery
Speaker 1: and all the associated other charges I've identified and told
Speaker 1: you about. I won't repeat them here now, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's how Now good thing that Senate Majority Leader McConnell.
Speaker 1: He's now close to finalizing a rule that's going to
Speaker 1: allow the President's team to move to dismiss the articles
Speaker 1: in the Senate after the evidence has been presented. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a safety valve in case the Democrats try
Speaker 1: to drag out the trial for weeks and oh, we'll
Speaker 1: stop the trial now and we'll wait and go back
Speaker 1: to it in June. No, the president has a right
Speaker 1: to a speedy trial here because of political purposes. No
Speaker 1: president should have to govern with this hanging over their
Speaker 1: head because they have such a weak case. It's not
Speaker 1: the Senate's role. They're not obligated to publicize the final
Speaker 1: version of any resolution, by the way, and so he's right,
Speaker 1: and I hope the other Republican senators follow suit, you know,
Speaker 1: Nadler and the rest of the Democrats. They're scared to
Speaker 1: death that Hunter Biden will ever testify. The president's job
Speaker 1: approval rating is steady, and the support for impeachment is
Speaker 1: now dramatically inclined. Even NBC News had a site up
Speaker 1: arguing if that it could be illegal to vote for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. A piece published by NBC News where they
Speaker 1: argue that the voters who allegedly harbor racist feeling prejudices
Speaker 1: should be reprimanded or held accountable if they wrong think.
Speaker 1: Even they are saying, no, that's dumb. By the way,
Speaker 1: the New York Times supports Warren and Klobucher for president.
Speaker 1: That's weird. It really is. Why don't they want Joe
Speaker 1: and Hunter? Why don't they want them? So that's where
Speaker 1: the battle lines are drawn. And Senate Republicans ought not legitimizes,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the bottom bottom line here. And if
Speaker 1: they're gonna end up with witnesses fine ringing Joe and
Speaker 1: Hunter and the non whistle blower, heresay whistle Blower and Schiff,
Speaker 1: an incredible book by Peter Schwitzer. You want to know
Speaker 1: how corrupt bidens are Profiles in corruption, abuse of power
Speaker 1: by America's progressive elite. Next hour two Sean Hannity's show,
Speaker 1: Toll Free. It is eight hundred and ninety four one Sean,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: Peter Sweitzer has done an incredible job for the country,
Speaker 1: especially heading into this election. And what he has done
Speaker 1: is what he always does. He exposes corruption. This entire
Speaker 1: story about Joe Biden and Ukraine and China was first
Speaker 1: exposed in his last book, and it takes the media
Speaker 1: mob that of course they're not going to pay attention
Speaker 1: to it, but look at what this has blown up into.
Speaker 1: So he's we're launching today and we're proud to always
Speaker 1: have Peter on because the amount of research and detail
Speaker 1: that goes into his books is incredible. And this book
Speaker 1: is called profile, Profiles and Corruption and Abuse of Power
Speaker 1: by America's progressive elite. And have you noticed they all
Speaker 1: get rich? Well, he specifically deals with the presidential candidates
Speaker 1: from Biden, Kamala Harris, I guess she's out now, Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, Amy Kloe butch Are and others. And it
Speaker 1: is breathtaking what we were learning in this book. Now
Speaker 1: the mob in the media, they ignore quid pro quo,
Speaker 1: Joe and zero experience Hunter and even this the less parness,
Speaker 1: the new guy and the big guy that they're talking about. Uh,
Speaker 1: they forget everything about him as well. When when the
Speaker 1: congenital liar sent over the Parness stuff to the Senate,
Speaker 1: he just ex Honor, Oh, Biden is innocent of everything.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor was corrupt. You mean the prosecutor that was
Speaker 1: investigating payments to zero experience Hunter or will declare him corrupt.
Speaker 1: Just this is just but one example. Let's play it. Said,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to We're not going to give you
Speaker 1: the billion dollars. I said, you have no authority, You're
Speaker 1: not the president. The president said, I said, call him.
Speaker 1: I said, I'm telling you're not getting a billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I said, you're not getting a billion. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: leaving here. I think it was what six hours. I look,
Speaker 1: I said, leaving six hours. If the prosecutors not fired,
Speaker 1: you're not getting money, son of it. You didn't have
Speaker 1: any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself, though, No,
Speaker 1: But I think that I had as much knowledge as
Speaker 1: anybody else that was on the board, if not more. Oh, okay,
Speaker 1: I didn't have any knowledge, but I'm paid millions and
Speaker 1: millions of dollars. But that's how corrupt the Democrats are. Anyway.
Speaker 1: The book number one on Amazon already, Profiles and Corruption.
Speaker 1: We have a featured on Hannity dot com. Peter Schweitzer
Speaker 1: is with us. He wrote the book Clinton Cash. He
Speaker 1: has been in the forefront of exposing this corruption. Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I mean you first did this how long ago? Was
Speaker 1: your last book where you exposed Biden and Hunter and
Speaker 1: Ukraine and China, Sean, it's great to be with you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That book came out in March of twenty eighteen. We
Speaker 1: did a show in an interview and we showed that
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was a conduit for large sums of money
Speaker 1: from foreign interests who wanted favors from his father. And
Speaker 1: that was in March twenty eighteen. Shortly after that book
Speaker 1: came out. We started researching this new book and we
Speaker 1: built upon the foundation of what we found about Hunter.
Speaker 1: We found not only more stuff related to Hunter, other
Speaker 1: businesses he had set up that took in hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions from other foreign entities. We also found a four
Speaker 1: other Biden family members who profited handsomely off of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's tenure as Vice president. Sogged about it, Yes, and
Speaker 1: they bragged about it. It's the Biden five we call them.
Speaker 1: And I have to be honest with you, Sean. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've exposed a lot of corruption with Republicans and Democrats,
Speaker 1: both sides of the Aisle. I have never seen a
Speaker 1: circumstance where it is such a family affair as to
Speaker 1: where you have five members of a family who are
Speaker 1: profiting this way off of government service. Well, this is
Speaker 1: what the New York Post had how five members of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's family got rich through connections. And you go
Speaker 1: through all of it, and this now takes us around
Speaker 1: the globe here you talk Russia, Ukraine, China, Latin America
Speaker 1: and elsewhere. Correct, Yeah, that's right. I mean, for example,
Speaker 1: if you look at Frank Biden, Joe Biden's brother, he
Speaker 1: during Joe Biden's tenure as Vice president, is involved in
Speaker 1: two projects that takes in fifty four million dollars in
Speaker 1: taxpayer US taxpayer loans for energy projects in Costa Rica
Speaker 1: and in Jamaica. He sets up this energy company after
Speaker 1: his brother becomes vice president. He has no background in energy,
Speaker 1: he has no background in Central America. He has no
Speaker 1: background in any of these development plans as and yet
Speaker 1: he piggybacks off of his brother. Joe Biden visits Costa
Speaker 1: Rica in two thousand and nine. Shortly after that, his
Speaker 1: brother Frank is meeting with the Costa Rican presidents and
Speaker 1: other government officials. The same thing happens in foreign countries.
Speaker 1: So it's a pattern, it's a consistent pattern. It's not
Speaker 1: just Hunter, it's basically the entire family. It's unbelievable. Now,
Speaker 1: what do you make and maybe you can explain this
Speaker 1: to me, because remember this was all supposed to be
Speaker 1: about a quid and a pro and a quote with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Aid was never discussed. On the call with Zalinski,
Speaker 1: not one time. Now, corruption was discussed, the President saying, Wow,
Speaker 1: I hear you might be hanging out with the same
Speaker 1: guys as your predecessor, and that's not a good idea.
Speaker 1: So the President clearly was worried about American tax dollars
Speaker 1: going to a corrupt new administration. Now, the five subsequent meetings,
Speaker 1: high level meetings with the administration officials, including the Vice president,
Speaker 1: not once was they had ever mentioned Zelinsky and the
Speaker 1: farm minister. There's no influence, there's no quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: The one fact witness that we ever heard from Ambassador Sonlin.
Speaker 1: Now you got how is it the Democrats and the
Speaker 1: mob and the media can ignore. You're not getting the
Speaker 1: billion unless you fire the prosecutor that he knew, who
Speaker 1: was investigating his zero experienced son who's being paid millions.
Speaker 1: How do they bifer Kate compartmentalize their brains that way,
Speaker 1: because I can't figure that part out. Yeah, it's because
Speaker 1: there's different sets of rules for different people, Sean. And
Speaker 1: you know that as well as I do. And you know, look,
Speaker 1: I'm one of those people who thinks it was entirely
Speaker 1: legitimate for Donald Trump to raise the issue of the
Speaker 1: bidens with Zelenski on that telephone call. And here's why
Speaker 1: the media hasn't reported is to faithfully execute the laws.
Speaker 1: What Joe is doing is law breaking, exactly, Sean. But
Speaker 1: even more to the point, President Zelenski has just been
Speaker 1: elected in Ukraine. Who is his chief backer? Everybody acknowledges this.
Speaker 1: His chief financial backer is a Ukrainian oligarch named Kolomoiski,
Speaker 1: very very corrupt guy. Kolomoiski is reportedly involved with Barizma.
Speaker 1: So you have a new president coming in of Ukraine
Speaker 1: whose chief financial backer is involved in the Barizma scandal
Speaker 1: to begin with, of course you are going to pointedly
Speaker 1: ask him in a phone conversation. I'm asking you to
Speaker 1: look in to this. You're basically I want you to
Speaker 1: do us a favor, exactly me. But we had spent
Speaker 1: three years on election interference. And yeah, Biden, you know,
Speaker 1: being paid millions. The son and by the way, he's
Speaker 1: not a kid, he's forty nine, and admitting he's only
Speaker 1: getting it with no experience because of his father. His
Speaker 1: father's in charge of the money, and his father's using
Speaker 1: taxpaired dollars to shake down Ukraine to fire a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: and Adam Shift declares Biden's innocent and the and the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's corrupt. Well, I'd like to hear from the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: You're exactly right, Sean. I mean, look, all of these
Speaker 1: issues that have come up about collusion about Ukraine applies
Speaker 1: in this particular case to the Bidens. There's money flowing
Speaker 1: to them, not only from Ukrainians. One of the things
Speaker 1: we reveal in the book is that Hunter Biden's involved
Speaker 1: with a company called Burnham. He and his business partner.
Speaker 1: His business partner brags that they have a two hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars deal with a Russian oligarch named Yelena Batterina,
Speaker 1: who is widely reported in the West to be tied
Speaker 1: to Russian organized crime. There doesn't seem to be any
Speaker 1: media interest in that this is the son of the
Speaker 1: sitting vice president who's doing deals with these kinds of individuals.
Speaker 1: You have similar deals with these unknown Chinese companies that
Speaker 1: seem to be tied to the Chinese governments. You have
Speaker 1: Kazak oligarchs. They're all throwing money at Hunter Biden, and
Speaker 1: he has no background in private equity or in any
Speaker 1: of these areas, and there's just a complete lack of
Speaker 1: curiosity by much of the media and even looking into that,
Speaker 1: it's just there's a different set of rules for different
Speaker 1: people as far as the media is concerned. And the
Speaker 1: Bidens are the worst. But you also go into detail
Speaker 1: about Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders. Let's
Speaker 1: focus in on Warren and Sanders as they are the
Speaker 1: top tier candidates at this point, but also Amy Klobuchar explain, Bernie, explain,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren. Well, Elizabeth Warren's an interesting one because she
Speaker 1: basically has a three layer cake of entangling deals that
Speaker 1: should be concerning. The first one involves she herself. A
Speaker 1: lot of people know that she did legal work for corporations.
Speaker 1: She made a lot of money, millions of dollars doing that.
Speaker 1: What people don't realize is that she made that money
Speaker 1: sewan because in the mid nineteen nineties she was hired
Speaker 1: by Congress, she was paid by taxpayers as a consultant
Speaker 1: to rewrite a very narrow portion of the bankruptcy law.
Speaker 1: And what did she do after she was paid by
Speaker 1: taxpayers to do that? She went to corporations and said,
Speaker 1: pay me large sums of money and I will help
Speaker 1: you get around this law. And that's basically what she did.
Speaker 1: She was hired by Dow Chemical, by Anderson Worldwide, a
Speaker 1: whole host of companies. So that's Elizabeth Warrens I think
Speaker 1: corrupt behavior. It's the oldest game in Washington and a
Speaker 1: very corrupt one. But then on the second layer you
Speaker 1: have her daughter, who Amelia Tiagi, who in two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven, two thousand and eight is setting up a
Speaker 1: business company called bt Gee. They're having trouble raising capital.
Speaker 1: Well lo and behold. Her mother is being recruited by
Speaker 1: Harry Reid to head up the TARP bailout to be
Speaker 1: the chairman of the TARP Oversight Committee. When the meeting
Speaker 1: takes place for that to akurl, Elizabeth Warren's daughter shows
Speaker 1: up and what happens Sean Elizabeth Warren, as the head
Speaker 1: of TARP Oversight, is involved in the bailing out of
Speaker 1: large Wall Street firms. Who are the companies that come
Speaker 1: to finance and advise the daughter's business, the same firms
Speaker 1: that are being bailed out by the committee her mother
Speaker 1: is overseeing. It's this sort of chrony cozy relationship that
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren always talks about how opposed to it she is,
Speaker 1: but she and then acts on it. And then the
Speaker 1: third level Sean, there's a lot of mystery and I
Speaker 1: think a lot of concern here. This involves her son
Speaker 1: in law, so Sheiel Tiagi. He is married to Amelia Tiagi,
Speaker 1: her daughter. He is originally from India, met the daughter
Speaker 1: at Wharton Business School. But he has a series of
Speaker 1: international business deals he's involved in. One of those involved
Speaker 1: a company called Tricolor Pictures that he set up. It
Speaker 1: was designed specifically to make movies with the financial support
Speaker 1: of foreign governments. One of those deals, Sean was doing
Speaker 1: a film that was financed by the government of Iran.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the credits of that film,
Speaker 1: he's the sole producer of this film, the sole producer.
Speaker 1: The government agencies that funded that film are the government
Speaker 1: agencies that organize a lot of the anti Semitic, anti
Speaker 1: American rallies, cultural rallies in Iran. And in those film credits,
Speaker 1: by the way, Amelia, sorry, Sushil Tiagi's film credits, In
Speaker 1: those film credits, they actually thank the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
Speaker 1: Air Force for their contribution to the film. It's it's
Speaker 1: really quite a sunbelievable, all right, stay right there. This
Speaker 1: new book is blockbuster. This is not something we can
Speaker 1: fully inform you about in the course of one segment
Speaker 1: on radio. We'll ask him quickly when we get back
Speaker 1: Peter Schweitzer about Bernie Sanders. And Peter will join us
Speaker 1: tonight on TV. He'll be back later this week on
Speaker 1: radio with us. It's up on Hannity dot Com. It
Speaker 1: couldn't be any more timely. Profiles in Corruption, Abuse of
Speaker 1: Power by America's progressive elite. They're all getting rich. They're
Speaker 1: a bunch of phonies. Right, as we continue, Peter Schweitzer
Speaker 1: is with us his new book out today, profiles in corruption,
Speaker 1: abuse of power by America's progressive elite. I mean the
Speaker 1: story about Biden alone, it is so corrupt at such
Speaker 1: a level. You know, five members of Biden's family filthy
Speaker 1: rich because of Joe Biden, who he is not because
Speaker 1: of experience or service that they're giving. But he also
Speaker 1: goes into this book and it's up on Hannity dot
Speaker 1: com and get it on Amazon dot com now on
Speaker 1: bookstores everywhere, about Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: have Peter on TV tonight, back on the radio later
Speaker 1: this week, so we can really do a deep dive
Speaker 1: into this and think how timely it is considering all
Speaker 1: the Democrats are doing another president very quickly. In the
Speaker 1: minute we have left, give us a headline on Bernie
Speaker 1: and we'll talk more about it tonight. Well, Bernie, over
Speaker 1: the course of his thirty plus years in public office,
Speaker 1: has funneled huge sums of money to his family. That
Speaker 1: includes hiring family members even when it was not justified
Speaker 1: in the Burlington City governments. But more specifically in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen campaign, there was this mysterious media buying company
Speaker 1: called Old Time Media that was set up. They funneled
Speaker 1: eighty three million dollars through this media buying company, which
Speaker 1: was located in a house on a cul de sac
Speaker 1: in suburban Virginia, had no website, had no presence whatsoever.
Speaker 1: That company was run by two of Bernie Sanders's wife's friends.
Speaker 1: When she was asked about her connection or relationship to
Speaker 1: that firm, she hung up on a local Vermont reporter.
Speaker 1: So there are various ways taxpayer money, school money, other
Speaker 1: things that have flowed to the family and have made
Speaker 1: the Sanders family very, very wealthy. Well, it's pretty unbelievable.
Speaker 1: The book is phenomenal. How many pages total and footnotes
Speaker 1: notes do you have in the back of this book
Speaker 1: and research and sourcing pages. I mean it went on
Speaker 1: and on. I didn't even count them. How many, Well,
Speaker 1: there's eleven hundred and twenty one end notes, Sean, and
Speaker 1: we've got documents from seven different countries, legal documents, corporate
Speaker 1: records that you have no research for the book. It
Speaker 1: just flew off the top of your head and no
Speaker 1: anonymous sources. No anonymous sources. Is all documented with paper trails,
Speaker 1: profiles in corruption, abuse of power by America's progressive elite.
Speaker 1: By the way, those that lecture us, those that tax
Speaker 1: us to death, those that hate they're rich, hate the
Speaker 1: word profit, are the most guilty. Anyway, It's a great book.
Speaker 1: Kennedy dot com, Amazon dot com, bookstores everywhere. Peter Schweitzer,
Speaker 1: we're gonna feature this and we're gonna make sure everybody
Speaker 1: gets to know and be familiar with every detail, especially
Speaker 1: with only two hundred and eighty eight days to today.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you being one of us. We'll see it
Speaker 1: tonight when we come back. Congressman Doug Collins of Atlanta
Speaker 1: checks in with us, and we have our friend evangelist,
Speaker 1: albeit a king, on this Martin Luther King Day holiday.
Speaker 1: Would you agree that this could be as short as
Speaker 1: two weeks? What's your expectation. I think it's certainly possible
Speaker 1: that this trial could last one to two weeks. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, if the Senate makes the decision to
Speaker 1: go down the road of additional witnesses, that could extend
Speaker 1: it to six, eight weeks or even longer. So I
Speaker 1: think there are really two paths here. The threshold issue here, George,
Speaker 1: is will there be a fair trial? Will the senators
Speaker 1: allow the House to call witnesses, to introduce documents. That
Speaker 1: is the foundational issue on which everything else rests, and
Speaker 1: one thing that the public is overwhelmingly in supportive, and
Speaker 1: that is a fair trial. Imagine that your adjuror people
Speaker 1: watching your show from around the country, Imagine that the
Speaker 1: adjuror and the judge comes into the courtman says, look,
Speaker 1: I've been in consultation with the defendant. I'm working hand
Speaker 1: in hand with the defendant, and we've agreed that I'm
Speaker 1: not going to allow the prosecution to call any witnesses,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to allow the prosecution to show
Speaker 1: you any documents. I will only allow the prosecution to
Speaker 1: read the cold transcripts from the grand jury. No juror
Speaker 1: has ever heard that kind of a thing from a
Speaker 1: judge because it would be absurd, It would be a
Speaker 1: mockery of a trial, not a trial. But that is
Speaker 1: what Senator McConnell to date is proposing. But that's not
Speaker 1: what the American people want, and I don't think it's
Speaker 1: true to the oath the Senators have taken to be
Speaker 1: impartial administers of justice. If the Senate decides, if the
Speaker 1: Senor McConnell prevails, and there are no witnesses, it will
Speaker 1: be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to
Speaker 1: conclusion without witnesses. Look, I can tell you the atmosphere
Speaker 1: in the Senate when I came with the other house
Speaker 1: managers and we read the articles was one befitting something
Speaker 1: that has only happened three times in the nation's history.
Speaker 1: And I intend during the trial to be respectful of
Speaker 1: the senators, to operate from the presumption that they do
Speaker 1: take their o serious seriously, but also with the knowledge
Speaker 1: that Americans are watching that they're going to demand a
Speaker 1: fair trial. And if the Senators don't give the country
Speaker 1: a fair trial, one that's fair to the president but
Speaker 1: also fair to the American people, the senators will be
Speaker 1: held accountable. So that's the approach I intend to take.
Speaker 1: All right, there was the compromise. I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: you want you want the one guy on tape that
Speaker 1: thinks he's he's that is literally believes he's colluding with
Speaker 1: a Russian. You know what is what is the nature
Speaker 1: of the combromising? We have compromising mateos. Yeah, well what
Speaker 1: are they? Can you can can you can you tell
Speaker 1: me you compromising Matidias? Yes, of course does Vladimir know? Yes? Wow,
Speaker 1: can I get them? That guy, the one guy that
Speaker 1: lied for three years, the congenital liar. I mean, now
Speaker 1: what Look, this is now coming down to a fight,
Speaker 1: and we've to be very careful as a country on
Speaker 1: this because if a president cannot an executive privilege, have
Speaker 1: the freedom and ability to speak freely, get advice freely
Speaker 1: from those, especially with his national security team, it will
Speaker 1: forever destroy and literally prohibit the president from being able
Speaker 1: to fully do his job with the best freest advice
Speaker 1: because otherwise everybody's gonna run what they say through their lawyers. Now,
Speaker 1: between that and oh we didn't do a good enough
Speaker 1: job in the House, so we only found one fact.
Speaker 1: Witness Ambassador Sonlon and an ambassador Sonlan said the president
Speaker 1: wanted nothing and no quid and pro and quo and
Speaker 1: everything else was a shift sham show, and we just
Speaker 1: created this big illusion that there's something here. There's not. Now,
Speaker 1: Senator McConnell rightly, considering what we just played at Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: well he is now working with other republic plans or
Speaker 1: finalizing a rule that would allow the president's team to
Speaker 1: move to dismiss these articles in the Senate after the
Speaker 1: evidence they impeach. The president's sole job of the House.
Speaker 1: The sole constitutional authority to impeach lies with the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. The sole constitutional authority to have the trial
Speaker 1: based on the impeachment of the House is in the Senate.
Speaker 1: It's not the sentence constitutional role to bolster or redo
Speaker 1: the work of the House. That is their constitutional domain,
Speaker 1: not the sentence. But if they're going to try and
Speaker 1: drag this out to you know, well, we'll just wait,
Speaker 1: We'll just let this sit and you impeached to him. Now,
Speaker 1: let's get the trial on. And at some point here
Speaker 1: they've got to say, okay, we've heard enough. Now. Really,
Speaker 1: I think the addition of any other witness, but you
Speaker 1: know it legitimizes this entire farce. It is unbelievable to me. Well,
Speaker 1: why didn't that him shift the congenital liar call all
Speaker 1: these people. Oh no, we need to do it urgently,
Speaker 1: because he knows that when there's a conflict between the
Speaker 1: executive and legislative branch, Well, the constitutional stop gap, if
Speaker 1: you will, is to seek remedy from that other branch
Speaker 1: of government, known as the judicial branch of government. Now,
Speaker 1: the Republicans in this particular case need to stand strong
Speaker 1: and do their job in the Senate. The House impeach
Speaker 1: the president. Now it's their job to have the trial.
Speaker 1: Let the House managers present everything that they found why
Speaker 1: they impeached him, not another four hundred thousand reasons. They
Speaker 1: want to go impeach him again, I guess they can
Speaker 1: go do that. They can try, but they're doing nothing
Speaker 1: for the American people in the interim nothing. They've done nothing.
Speaker 1: They couldn't even praise the killing US solomany. They've done
Speaker 1: nothing to help the president with the economy, nothing to
Speaker 1: relieve taxes, nothing for job creation, nothing to secure the border.
Speaker 1: They've done nothing to make us energy independent. They've done
Speaker 1: nothing in terms of negotiating the new trade deals. They
Speaker 1: just predicted it would be a disaster like everything else
Speaker 1: they say about Trump. Now it's time the game is on.
Speaker 1: You got okay, you did your impeachment thing. We all
Speaker 1: know it's corrupt. Now let the Senate hold the trial.
Speaker 1: It's not their role constitutionally to do the job of
Speaker 1: the House. Georgia Congressman Doug Collins is with us. By
Speaker 1: the way, I saw an ajcpole that, um, you're really
Speaker 1: well favored amongst Republicans in Georgia to be the next
Speaker 1: senator in Georgia. I noticed that maybe the governor should
Speaker 1: have listened to me. Nobody ever listens to me. They
Speaker 1: may have, So we're gonna be talking about that more.
Speaker 1: But it's good. It's good to be with you. That
Speaker 1: the tape that you run off h you know ship
Speaker 1: and is just you know, had just I mean amazing
Speaker 1: problems with the truth. I mean when he said that
Speaker 1: there's no court in the land where drewers will come
Speaker 1: in and not expectabilcy with it. Let me take it
Speaker 1: back yourself further. There will be no court in the
Speaker 1: land that would allow prosecutors to come in with a
Speaker 1: case as bad as this one, who have actually abused
Speaker 1: every power, abused everything to actually make their case that
Speaker 1: you're look, you said a minute ago, they found one
Speaker 1: fat win, a stundling. Let me rephrase that there was
Speaker 1: another fact win that they knew about, but they'd ignored
Speaker 1: it is Adam chill, correct. I mean, this is why
Speaker 1: this whole notion. Look at the Constitution couldn't be any
Speaker 1: clearer to me. Why our Republican senators, some of the
Speaker 1: weak ones, even contemplating bringing in new witnesses because the
Speaker 1: House impeached them. Now, their job is to convince the
Speaker 1: Senate that it was warranted and just, and they hold
Speaker 1: the trial. That's their constitutional role. It's not their job
Speaker 1: to do the impeaching. The House already did it, and
Speaker 1: it was done in the most corrupt way imaginable. Why
Speaker 1: would they add legitimacy to this force. Well, you're exactly right, Sean,
Speaker 1: And this is the one thing that we've been emphasizing
Speaker 1: over and over again. We don't feel like this in
Speaker 1: the way that teaching this set up is that it's
Speaker 1: an evolving case. It's not something that you that you
Speaker 1: bring up what they've brought up. As they were disupposed
Speaker 1: to do their enquiry, they were supposed to have their hearings,
Speaker 1: which by the way, we only had one side of hearing.
Speaker 1: They were supposed to allow at least some modica of
Speaker 1: due process. They didn't do that. They were supposed to
Speaker 1: come to the Senate with a case. Now think about this,
Speaker 1: when I'm talking about a case for a crime, you know,
Speaker 1: such as we had in Clinton where he actually furthered himself.
Speaker 1: We're just thinking about an empeachment case to remove a
Speaker 1: sitting president who was duly elected. It should be more
Speaker 1: than hearsay an innuendo. It should be more than just
Speaker 1: simply saying we had a few witnesses who we thought
Speaker 1: sounds good. It should be more about more than just
Speaker 1: simply saying we disagree with the policy of the president.
Speaker 1: It should be about something actually that put our country
Speaker 1: in Jeffrey, this bunk. This president has done nothing to
Speaker 1: do that except put our country in a stronger position.
Speaker 1: The reason for this empeachment they don't like him, and
Speaker 1: they don't have good candidates to beating next November. So
Speaker 1: this should have been thrown out a long time ago.
Speaker 1: But they had a clock and a calendar, and they're
Speaker 1: doing it now and then trying to make the Senate
Speaker 1: to do their job for him. How does these Democrats
Speaker 1: like when shift in this guy that's under how many
Speaker 1: indictments with the Southern District of New York parness, I mean,
Speaker 1: they're acting like it's the second Coming. Now. The guy's
Speaker 1: under serious indictment, including the recent charge that he tried
Speaker 1: to hide a million dollar payment from of all places, Russia.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that this job was done. Now
Speaker 1: where are we with the executive privilege? Now the Court
Speaker 1: has already agreed the Supreme Court to take this issue up.
Speaker 1: We'll get a ruling, I guess sometime down the line
Speaker 1: in June or somewhere thereabouts, when the Supreme Court finishes
Speaker 1: its term for this year. So my question to you is, Okay,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't wait. Why would the Senate ever even consider
Speaker 1: anybody ever consider a delay in this on this front? Well,
Speaker 1: they shouldn't really, okay, And I think this is the
Speaker 1: part when you bring the case to courts. Whatever I've
Speaker 1: had to bring a case quart or I've been a
Speaker 1: part of trial. Of course, you bring your complete case,
Speaker 1: and especially when it's a case is more modicle after
Speaker 1: a civil count trial than a criminal problem. You know,
Speaker 1: you have your court record, you have your train scripts,
Speaker 1: you have everything you come to court with. They don't
Speaker 1: have that because they did such a poor job. Adam's
Speaker 1: shift was just rambling this through. Jared Navar was a
Speaker 1: giant rubber stamp, and the rest of these folks that
Speaker 1: are that have been from Nancy blos Young bound simply
Speaker 1: got their impeachment, as they're claiming that they wanted so
Speaker 1: that they could run against the president. Again, this is
Speaker 1: the problem. You have to go through this process, and
Speaker 1: this has been something that is historically. They want to
Speaker 1: take this out of contact with Nixon and Clinton. There
Speaker 1: were several years of investigation, several years of court proceeding,
Speaker 1: several years of things that went on which the wine
Speaker 1: House was fully involved in this roughly seventy eight days,
Speaker 1: and in which seventy one of those days the President
Speaker 1: had no even possibility of being part of the process.
Speaker 1: So they've just rushed this through. All of those things
Speaker 1: that they talked about now about litigating witnesses and executive
Speaker 1: rig was done prior to the impeachment investigations on Clinton
Speaker 1: and others. They're just simply trying to make it up
Speaker 1: as they go. Again, Sean, don't let anybody both use
Speaker 1: this is about November twenty twenty. It's not about a
Speaker 1: bone College July it is, well, it's about just smearing Trump.
Speaker 1: This is all they do now. I love the articles,
Speaker 1: the executive summary that was put out by the President's attorneys.
Speaker 1: Finally they're fighting back. It is an affront to the Constitution.
Speaker 1: It is an affront to our democratic institutions. The articles are,
Speaker 1: it's a better rigged process. The whole time, there has
Speaker 1: been no due process for the president. This is to
Speaker 1: damage the president. Nobody, nobody thinks that it's ever going
Speaker 1: to go anywhere. In the end, they don't identify a
Speaker 1: single impeachable offense. The theory about abuse of power is
Speaker 1: not an impeachable offense. Their obstruction charges because the president
Speaker 1: seeks remedy on the issue of executive privileges is absurd.
Speaker 1: On the face of it. The president properly did with
Speaker 1: all presidents before him have done. Defending the separation of
Speaker 1: powers is not an impeachable offense. The impeachment inquiry was
Speaker 1: flawed from the big again an they have violated all
Speaker 1: precedent and due process. So the question is where does
Speaker 1: this end? Now? What do you see because I see
Speaker 1: some week senators Republican senators. Well, that's a concern, and
Speaker 1: I think my hope is that once we have the
Speaker 1: opening arguments, that they'll get to hear a shop drawing on,
Speaker 1: They'll get to hear Jerry and Idler drawing home. They'll
Speaker 1: get to hear the rest. Don't drawing on about what
Speaker 1: say about the innuendo'll hearsay everything that they put together.
Speaker 1: It's interesting the Democrats always say that we focus on process,
Speaker 1: and I've always said, yes, we focused on process because
Speaker 1: you didn't do it properly. But I've never not focused
Speaker 1: on the fact. And one of the things you'll not
Speaker 1: hear them do is actually have anybody that could confirm
Speaker 1: that the money was with all? Do is any conditionality
Speaker 1: for improper reading or proper motive? And at the end,
Speaker 1: they got the money without doing anything to get it.
Speaker 1: They don't want to stay right there. I'll take a
Speaker 1: quick break. Doug Collins, Congressman Atlanta with US one hundred
Speaker 1: and nine for one, Sean, if you want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. All right, as we continue,
Speaker 1: Georgia Congressman Doug Collins, who is with US nine for one,
Speaker 1: Shaun is a number news round up, information overload, our
Speaker 1: coming up. We'll get to your calls. We'll check in
Speaker 1: with our friend Alveda King on this Martin Luther King Day.
Speaker 1: All right, so what about what? And I did like
Speaker 1: with Obviously McConnell is recognizing that the Democrats might be
Speaker 1: happy to hold this over the president's head, I guess
Speaker 1: for months and months, so he's looking at a kill switch.
Speaker 1: At some point. You gotta stop this madness. What do
Speaker 1: you think of these week Senate Republicans some of them,
Speaker 1: it's just a few, but a few of all the power. Well,
Speaker 1: they have to say the evidence for what it is,
Speaker 1: and they're gon have to say the anerate it's the president.
Speaker 1: It's time for them to listen, you know, to a
Speaker 1: full hearing. Let the Senate hear what the uh happened
Speaker 1: in the house. They look at the actual evidence is
Speaker 1: being presented. They look to find that there's nothing wrong,
Speaker 1: and then they need to move to their questions and
Speaker 1: then frankly, they need to move to a quit. This
Speaker 1: is I mean, the Democrats are not put on any
Speaker 1: kind of evidence with peaching this president for moved them
Speaker 1: from moment and the Republicans and frankly Democrats as well.
Speaker 1: It's put it all Republics Democrats who vote to impeach
Speaker 1: this president have set a dangerous president for any future
Speaker 1: president going forward, in which we have entered the realm
Speaker 1: of the political impeachment, in which this will be a
Speaker 1: talking point for anybody who's who wins president when I'm
Speaker 1: out of the Republican or Democrat. As long as the
Speaker 1: House is held by another party, this will become something
Speaker 1: that is damaging. The very core Nancy Pelosi speakership is now,
Speaker 1: I frankly think will always be tarnished with the ability
Speaker 1: to let her party do a political impeach. But this
Speaker 1: damages our democracy and damages the House of Representatives. All right, well,
Speaker 1: said Doug Collins, Congressman the great state of Georgia. Are
Speaker 1: you gonna run for the Senate where they're looking at that?
Speaker 1: Sean and now the way we're still helping the president
Speaker 1: finished up, but we're gonna have some discussion about that,
Speaker 1: and you and I are gonna have a be able
Speaker 1: to talk about it. Do you predict this will be
Speaker 1: over in two weeks? I'm hopefully it will be. I
Speaker 1: think that that's what needs to happen. I don't see
Speaker 1: any reason to drag this out. I think if they
Speaker 1: start trying to drag this out, I think American people,
Speaker 1: and especially those enators who may be waverery right now,
Speaker 1: we'll see this as nothing but a political toy. And
Speaker 1: if they allow it to be used the political film,
Speaker 1: if the Senate is now dimnis just as the House
Speaker 1: that's been demanded. All right, Congressman Doug Collins, Great State
Speaker 1: of Georgia, thank you, sir for being with us. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred and nine four one sewn. If you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, all right News rounded
Speaker 1: up Information Overload, we'll get to your calls. Our friend evangelist,
Speaker 1: I'll be the King. We'll join us as we remember
Speaker 1: this Martin Luther King Day Holiday her uncle eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine one saw on our number. Before I get there,
Speaker 1: I tell you I'm watching this week. I don't watch
Speaker 1: the Sunday shows much anymore, and I got to print
Speaker 1: out everything that's said every interview. I can sift through
Speaker 1: it quickly. I'd rather read it than watch it because
Speaker 1: watching it is infuriating. So that's kind of become my system.
Speaker 1: I also get summaries they put out within Fox, within
Speaker 1: the internal workings of the Fox News channel, so that's
Speaker 1: a very hopeful resource for me. And I want to
Speaker 1: Stephanopolos every interview he's doing. It's so corrupt and abusively biased,
Speaker 1: and I just want you to just listen to this now.
Speaker 1: He was there in the war room. He was one
Speaker 1: of Clinton's biggest defenders. I guess ABC can hire whoever
Speaker 1: they want. But we know that he's part of the
Speaker 1: media mob. We know he hates Trump, we know he
Speaker 1: was in the tank for Hillary. And people act like
Speaker 1: he's a newsman. He's not. I'm the one that Oh,
Speaker 1: Hannity has opinions, so do all these other people, except
Speaker 1: I'm honest. I tell you I give opinion. I tell
Speaker 1: you that I give straight news I do. I tell
Speaker 1: you we do investigative reporting. We were right the last
Speaker 1: three years, and the mob in the media, including Stephanopolos
Speaker 1: and ABC were dead wrong. But just listen, for example,
Speaker 1: this weekend brief filed by the presid attorneys last night
Speaker 1: to search several times if the president did nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with Ukraine? Do you agree with that. I didn't sign
Speaker 1: that freef I didn't even see the brief until after
Speaker 1: it was filed. That's not part of my mandate. My
Speaker 1: mandate is to determine what is a constitutionally authorized criteria
Speaker 1: for impeachment. And I strongly believe that abusive power is
Speaker 1: so open end that half of American presidents in history,
Speaker 1: from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt, have been
Speaker 1: accused by the political enemies of abusing their power. The
Speaker 1: Framers didn't want to have that kind of criteria in
Speaker 1: the Constitution because it weaponizes impeachment. I understand that I purpose.
Speaker 1: I understand that's your position, but that's not what I'm
Speaker 1: asking because you're also a citizen. As a citizen, do
Speaker 1: you think it's okay for a president to solicit for
Speaker 1: an interference in our election? There's a big difference between
Speaker 1: what's okay. What's okay determines who what you vote for,
Speaker 1: who you vote for. I'm a liberal Democrat who's been
Speaker 1: critical of many of the policies of the president. I'm
Speaker 1: here as a constitutional lawyer, a lawyer who's taught for
Speaker 1: fifty years constitutional a criminal procedure at Harvard, toward a
Speaker 1: course on impeachment, toward a course on constitutional litigation. I'm
Speaker 1: here to lend my expertise on that issue in that
Speaker 1: issue alone, because that's the primary issue. So you don't
Speaker 1: think his allegations are not impeachable, then this trial should
Speaker 1: result in an acquittal, regardless of whether the conduct is
Speaker 1: regarded as okay by you or by me, or by voters.
Speaker 1: The voters. I'm asking you, as a lawyer in the case.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to present my personal views on what
Speaker 1: I think. I think that the conduct does not rise
Speaker 1: to the level of an impeachable event. And then this
Speaker 1: is what infuriates me, because he's an advocate. He's not
Speaker 1: fair balanced, he's not news, but he pretends to be
Speaker 1: like the rest of the mob. They now don't care.
Speaker 1: Why is it he asking about quid and pro and
Speaker 1: quo and Joe. Why is it he out there leading
Speaker 1: the charge? It was it was his network that had
Speaker 1: the interview with zero experience, Hunter being paid millions, admitting yeah,
Speaker 1: do you have any experience? No? No, none, whatsoever. Well,
Speaker 1: why do you think you got chosen? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Do you think maybe it's because your dad's the vice
Speaker 1: president in charge of all things Ukraine? Probably? Probably. Now
Speaker 1: we're learning again from our friend Peter Schwhitzer's new book,
Speaker 1: Profiles and Corruption, Abuse of Power by America's progressive elite.
Speaker 1: Now we have five ways the Biden family made money
Speaker 1: off of his position. Well, that also is at that
Speaker 1: in and of itself. Listen, just remember who Stephanopolis is.
Speaker 1: He worked in the Bill Clinton administration. He was there
Speaker 1: and got yelled at a lot apparently by Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Still he's a Clinton sycophant. But that's it's just this,
Speaker 1: it's it is now the mainstream of media today to
Speaker 1: be corrupt, abusively biased. They speak in one voice. It's
Speaker 1: all anti Trump, every second, every minute, every hour of
Speaker 1: every broadcast day. Let's listen to him when he was
Speaker 1: helping trying to help Bill Clinton get elected in quote
Speaker 1: Bimbo eruptions, what was going on? What does names addressed?
Speaker 1: I can send you effects with names addressed, his phone
Speaker 1: numbers of who you in an affair with. It wouldn't
Speaker 1: make it true. It is completely If you went on
Speaker 1: the radio and said that Bill Clinton is the father
Speaker 1: village that have a black child, you would be laughed at.
Speaker 1: People would think you're crazy. I guarantee you that if
Speaker 1: you do this, you can be able to do this.
Speaker 1: You'll never work in democratic politics again. Maybe you don't
Speaker 1: want to. I'm not saying it matters. You will be
Speaker 1: embarrassed before the National Press Corps. People will think nobody
Speaker 1: will believe you, and people will think you're scumming that.
Speaker 1: The alternative is if you don't do it, it causes
Speaker 1: you some temporary pain with people who tomorrow aren't gonna matter,
Speaker 1: and you have a campaign that I'm just hands at
Speaker 1: in a difficult time. He did something right, you know
Speaker 1: that's important. It doesn't mean anything. We can't do anything
Speaker 1: for you specifically or anything like that. But you you
Speaker 1: know that you did the right thing. We're gonna bludge
Speaker 1: in you if you don't, if you if you dare
Speaker 1: run with the story. Did anyone ever remind George that
Speaker 1: it all turned out to be true? Unbelievable, it's so corrupt.
Speaker 1: How do they exonerate quid pro quote Joe and Hunter?
Speaker 1: Why aren't they demanding answers here? Why did they go
Speaker 1: along with a phony narrative, a lie? They just echo
Speaker 1: the same thing. Oh that's there's nothing there, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: no reasonable person has ever even alleged anything wrong. No,
Speaker 1: it's fine, it's it's It is spectacular, breathtaking hypocrisy and
Speaker 1: lying that. We are fed day in and day out,
Speaker 1: every day by every outlet. I want to know why.
Speaker 1: Thanks to all of you, Hannity's number one on in
Speaker 1: all of cable news. We're getting numbers now that rival
Speaker 1: what the networks used to get. That's how That's how
Speaker 1: much cable news has grown. Because people can't trust any
Speaker 1: of these other outlets. Fake news will forever be their
Speaker 1: brand because of the corruption and the abusive, biased coverage
Speaker 1: of everything. There's a few of us. There's a very few,
Speaker 1: small few of us. I'm a talk show host. I'm
Speaker 1: like the whole newspaper. We do news, investigated, reporting, opinion, sports,
Speaker 1: even I'm wan to talk about. Well, we got a
Speaker 1: super Bowl coming up Kansas City, and boy, it's not
Speaker 1: Green Bay. That was the disaster in the first seven
Speaker 1: minutes of the game yesterday in San Francisco. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to our phones here, Kansas we say hi
Speaker 1: to Wayne. What's up? Wayne? How are you glad you called? Hey,
Speaker 1: Sean to talk to you. By the way, I'm guessing
Speaker 1: who you have in the Super Bowl taken just a
Speaker 1: long shot. You're probably pulling for Kansas City. Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 1: Harry kidding. Patrick Mahomes is a beast. He's amazing, There's
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. He had a Listen, they were
Speaker 1: behind for a period of time. I thought Tanna Hills
Speaker 1: becoming a pretty good quarterback. M he did, he did,
Speaker 1: he did, and they had a lead for a while.
Speaker 1: Then forget it. There was no stopping him once he
Speaker 1: turned on fire. Those long bombs he keeps throwing. I'm like, wow,
Speaker 1: great football, Yep, yep, No, you're You're not gonna beat
Speaker 1: Chief's Kingdom in our house though, that's not how it
Speaker 1: goes down. Well, the house and fighting and next in
Speaker 1: two weeks from now is going to be in Miami,
Speaker 1: so it's nobody's house. Yeah, yeah, hey, So I'm The
Speaker 1: reason why I called is because I think I heard
Speaker 1: you say this a couple of weeks ago. This president
Speaker 1: is single handedly changing two things. One the way people
Speaker 1: campaign and too what it means to be a civil servant.
Speaker 1: How great is it that a press and then can
Speaker 1: go out and do a campaign rally for multiple hours,
Speaker 1: and after being in public service for three and a
Speaker 1: half years, talk about what he has done. And it's
Speaker 1: scaring the death out of the liberals because all they
Speaker 1: can do is go out and campaign on what they
Speaker 1: want to do, and they realize that they can't throw
Speaker 1: out these empty promises anymore. We're going to hold them accountable,
Speaker 1: and it's scaring them to death. Listen, I think at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, when this all goes away
Speaker 1: and I'm the only people I'm annoyed at our weak
Speaker 1: Republican senators, and I expect it's going to frustrate us
Speaker 1: in the next week or two. But at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, there's nothing here. We all know how
Speaker 1: this ends. Then there's an election in two hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty eight days. And I'll tell you I voted for
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty that was my first presidential vote.
Speaker 1: I am dying to get to the ballot box. Even
Speaker 1: though my vote in New York means little to nothing,
Speaker 1: I understand that I'm still voting. And I hope the
Speaker 1: people in the country are seeing what we're seeing, what
Speaker 1: you're describing, because he makes the promises and he keeps them,
Speaker 1: and we've benefited from his policies. And you know what
Speaker 1: I told all my conservative friends, and I lost friends
Speaker 1: over this. I said, he's gonna govern as a conservative.
Speaker 1: I think we've been vindicated, just like we were vindicated
Speaker 1: on oh premeditated fraud, fi's abuse, spying on a candidate,
Speaker 1: a transition team, a president, and it's much worse. And
Speaker 1: we were right about Hillary, and we're right about the
Speaker 1: double standard. And we don't have equal application of our laws,
Speaker 1: and we don't have equal justice under the law. Hopefully
Speaker 1: that'll be rectified with Durham and Barr. But what we're
Speaker 1: seeing here is a travesty, and it is an unconstitutional
Speaker 1: power grab by people that have never accepted the will
Speaker 1: of the people. It's you know, you gotta understand something here, Wayne.
Speaker 1: They hate us more because we're the smelly Walmart Trump
Speaker 1: supporters to put them in office in the first place. Yep.
Speaker 1: They don't want us to be free thinkers. Correct. And
Speaker 1: you know what the best revenge is winning two eighty
Speaker 1: eight days. Imagine the shock on the faces of all
Speaker 1: these mob people, the Democrats, when they project Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump has been reelected the forty fifth president of the
Speaker 1: United States. Now, I can't predict that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: The only way that happens is for we the people
Speaker 1: to do our job. Now, we get the power back
Speaker 1: in two and eighty eight days, and I will put
Speaker 1: up on Hannity dot Com an interactive election everything you
Speaker 1: need to know about how you can vote. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: telling you how to vote, everything you need to do
Speaker 1: to get registered, when you need to register, by when
Speaker 1: you want to begin early voting, r absentee vot voting
Speaker 1: all that's up there. Okay, Yes, thank you Wayne. Good
Speaker 1: luck in two weeks. Karen in Los Angeles, Karen, how
Speaker 1: are you sorry about all your homeless problems going on
Speaker 1: there and all a lot of problems out in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles and California. Yes, unfortunately there are. Thank you. First
Speaker 1: of all, thank you for being such a reliable source
Speaker 1: of information for me. So. I'm twenty nine years old
Speaker 1: and I live in Los Angeles, and I was a
Speaker 1: looney liberal only six months ago. I used to be
Speaker 1: one of those brainwashed Trump paters, hypnotized by the stake
Speaker 1: news and hung on the way that he was portrayed
Speaker 1: in mainstream media. I thought I knew it all. I
Speaker 1: thought I had all the answers. Turns out I really
Speaker 1: knew nothing, which is why I am calling today. So,
Speaker 1: like I said, six months ago, I stumbled onto a
Speaker 1: video of one of Trump's first pieces when he was running.
Speaker 1: It was a video I've never seen before, and in
Speaker 1: that moment everything changed for me. It was like a
Speaker 1: light going on in my head and I understood Trump
Speaker 1: in that moment. It was like really crazy and in
Speaker 1: for the past six months, I've been diving into relearning
Speaker 1: everything that I thought I knew about politics, the constitution,
Speaker 1: history of this country, and the principles America was founded on.
Speaker 1: Evolving from a looney liberal to a patriot means a
Speaker 1: whole new way of thinking. If you want any chance
Speaker 1: in this battle for our mind, you have to have
Speaker 1: a basic understanding of this country, because the thing's happening
Speaker 1: right now run so much deeper than some silly Trump
Speaker 1: quote that gets twisted by fake news. And there aren't
Speaker 1: many Trump supporters my age in Los Angeles, so I'm
Speaker 1: lucky enough to have a patriotic dad. And he told
Speaker 1: me that when he was in school, his history teacher
Speaker 1: was so passionate and made learning about history fun and interesting.
Speaker 1: And I think that the modern day educational system has
Speaker 1: lost that. Kids don't find learning about America fun, and
Speaker 1: then they're bombarded with all these anti Trump ads and
Speaker 1: news stories and they completely bypassed the building blocks of
Speaker 1: forming an educational opinion. Instant Churchill, the Great Winston Churchill,
Speaker 1: once made the observation, if you're twenty and you're not
Speaker 1: a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're forty
Speaker 1: and not a conservative, you don't have a brain. What
Speaker 1: I admire about what's that. What I admire about your
Speaker 1: comments and I'm gonna have to let you go because
Speaker 1: I'm up on a break here is that you took
Speaker 1: the time and cared enough to just say okay, and
Speaker 1: I had an open mind to look at it. I
Speaker 1: believe if if people do what you do, we would
Speaker 1: be such a better society. I totally applaud you for
Speaker 1: your efforts. You worked hard to inform yourself. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying to believe me. Just see our track records there.
Speaker 1: We were right about Obama, we were right about the
Speaker 1: deep state. We've been right about a lot of things.
Speaker 1: The media they're wrong about most of it, and they
Speaker 1: have an agenda and they lie about it. Great call, Karen.
Speaker 1: We wish you the best as you now embark on
Speaker 1: your new political journey. Quick break. We'll come back, more
Speaker 1: calls on the other side as we continue, and doctor
Speaker 1: Alvida King will join us at the bottom of the hour.
Speaker 1: All right, here, we are just two eighty eight days
Speaker 1: until election day. How many people have the day off today,
Speaker 1: and maybe you don't get to hear the program as
Speaker 1: often as you normally do with your regular schedule. Glad
Speaker 1: to have you today because of the Martin Luther King
Speaker 1: Junior Holiday. Let's play a portion. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: one of the greatest speeches ever given in American history.
Speaker 1: There was no more powerful order than doctor Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King Junior or courageous along with all these other civil
Speaker 1: rights leaders at the time. I still have a dream. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is a dream deeply rooted in the American dreams.
Speaker 1: I have a dream. But one day this nation will
Speaker 1: rise up, live out the true meaning of its screen.
Speaker 1: We hold these twos to be self evident, that all
Speaker 1: men are created. I have a dream that one day,
Speaker 1: on the Red Hill to Georgia, the sons of farmer
Speaker 1: slaves and the sons of farmer slave honors will be
Speaker 1: able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
Speaker 1: I have a dream but one day even the state
Speaker 1: of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice,
Speaker 1: sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into
Speaker 1: anyaces of freedom and justice. I have a dream that
Speaker 1: my four little children one day live in a nation
Speaker 1: where they will not be judged by the color of
Speaker 1: their skin, but by the content of their character. I
Speaker 1: have a dream today. I have a dream that one
Speaker 1: day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its
Speaker 1: governor having his lips drifting with the words of interposition
Speaker 1: and nullification. One day, right bad in Alabama, little black
Speaker 1: bars and black girls will be able to join hands
Speaker 1: with little white bars and white girls as sisters and brothers.
Speaker 1: I have a dream today. I have a dream that
Speaker 1: one day every valid shall be exalted, every hill in
Speaker 1: mining shall be made low, the rough places will be
Speaker 1: made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight,
Speaker 1: And the gore of a lord shall be revealed. Our
Speaker 1: flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This
Speaker 1: is a faith that I go back to the Southwes.
Speaker 1: With this theme, we will be able to he out
Speaker 1: of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With
Speaker 1: this theme, we will be able to transform the jangling
Speaker 1: discards of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
Speaker 1: With this theme, we will be able to work together,
Speaker 1: to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together,
Speaker 1: to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will
Speaker 1: be free. One day, This will be the day. This
Speaker 1: will be the day, with all of God's children be
Speaker 1: able to sing with new meaning. My country tearsity sweet
Speaker 1: land of liberty, of r sing Land, where my fathers died,
Speaker 1: land of the pilgrim's pride. From every mountainside, let freedom
Speaker 1: ring and of Americus. To be a great nation, this
Speaker 1: must become true. And so let freedom ring from the
Speaker 1: prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the
Speaker 1: mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the
Speaker 1: heightening alleghanies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the smoke
Speaker 1: cap rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the crevicious
Speaker 1: slumps of California. But not only that. Let freedom ring
Speaker 1: from storm mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from lookout
Speaker 1: mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and
Speaker 1: mole hill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.
Speaker 1: And when this happened, and when we allowed freedom ring,
Speaker 1: when we let it ring from every village and ever
Speaker 1: hamlet from every state and every sit we will be
Speaker 1: able to speed up that day when all about children,
Speaker 1: black men and white men choose, and ten plouds, Protestants
Speaker 1: and Catholic we'll be able to join hands and singing
Speaker 1: the words of the old Negro spiritual Free at last, Free,
Speaker 1: at last, thank God a matter. We are freed last
Speaker 1: Just amazing words, amazing man, amazing life. You know, or
Speaker 1: think about when he says I've seen the Promised Land.
Speaker 1: I may not get there with you, but I've seen
Speaker 1: the promised land. Unbelievable. Doctor King is with us. I'll
Speaker 1: bet the King secutive director Rights for Unborn, Priests for life.
Speaker 1: Always great to have you back. I just want to
Speaker 1: tell this quick story. So when I went to Atlanta
Speaker 1: as a local radio host in nineteen ninety two, I
Speaker 1: was welcome to the city of Atlanta by then Mayor
Speaker 1: Maynard Jackson. The first day I'm on the air. Living
Speaker 1: in Atlanta, I got to meet all of these civil
Speaker 1: rights icons, and I had good relationships with many of them,
Speaker 1: including Maynard Jackson. He's since passed away. I had a
Speaker 1: good relationship with the mayor. He didn't like my politics,
Speaker 1: but we had a great respect for him. I got
Speaker 1: to know SELC Founder, you know, Joe Lowry, amazing man,
Speaker 1: incredible courage that all of these civil rights leaders had
Speaker 1: and showed at the time. I became best friends with
Speaker 1: Josea Williams. He was a trip and every year the
Speaker 1: Monday before the Thursday Thanksgiving I'm I'm gonna make it,
Speaker 1: and then boom, he'd go on and give out the
Speaker 1: phone number and he'd get all the money to ever
Speaker 1: dreamed of to feed the poor in the hungry in
Speaker 1: and around the Atlanta area. So everyone had a good,
Speaker 1: warm meal on Thanksgiving. Amazing man. He since passed away.
Speaker 1: You know, then you have people like Andy Young Again.
Speaker 1: I didn't agree with a lot of the politics. You
Speaker 1: can look at Congressman John Lewis. What the thing that
Speaker 1: I admire so much and I learned so much about,
Speaker 1: is this whole peaceful protest when fire hoses are being
Speaker 1: turned on you, when rocks, bottles, etc. Are being thrown
Speaker 1: at you, when you gather, you march anyway and in
Speaker 1: full completely peaceful protesting, with the worst vitriol and hatred
Speaker 1: thrown at you. It was every single time an amazing
Speaker 1: act of courage. And these brave founders of the civil
Speaker 1: rights organizations, and you know, resulting in the Civil Rights
Speaker 1: Act of sixty four and the Voting Rights Act of
Speaker 1: sixty five, amazing accomplishments. And they've made our country a
Speaker 1: better place because of their courage. I know there's the
Speaker 1: politics surrounding the issue of African Americans voting Democrat, a
Speaker 1: majority of which. But we've been addressing these polls. They're
Speaker 1: not outliers anymore. The amazing support now we're seeing for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in the Black community as he sets one
Speaker 1: record after another of low unemployment rates in the Black community,
Speaker 1: Hispanic community, Asian community, women in the workforce, youth unemployment.
Speaker 1: Because you look at any city in America that's been
Speaker 1: run by liberal Democrats for decades. They have failed the
Speaker 1: people in these cities. But they you know, every two
Speaker 1: four years, Oh we need your vote. What do I
Speaker 1: always complain about every two four years? What do we
Speaker 1: hear from Democrats? Republicans are racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic.
Speaker 1: They want dirty air water, they want Grandma and Grandpa
Speaker 1: poor eating cat and dog food before Paul Ryan look
Speaker 1: alike throws him over a cliff one day in a
Speaker 1: campaign ad. And I've gone through the history of those
Speaker 1: many times. I think that's changing because I think more
Speaker 1: people are beginning to see democratic policies have failed, they're
Speaker 1: they're just dead promises. Anyway, become friends over the years
Speaker 1: with doctor Elvita King. You knew your uncle growing up,
Speaker 1: how old were you when he was assassinated. I was
Speaker 1: seventeen years old. I got married the very next year.
Speaker 1: My dad, remend a d king, walked me down the
Speaker 1: aisle in A week later, he was killed in the
Speaker 1: swimming pool in Atlanta. But I'm so glad Sehan that
Speaker 1: you always give you a history and the backstory, because
Speaker 1: a lot of people think you just want to be
Speaker 1: a journalist and say, you knew Martin Luther King of
Speaker 1: about him and heard this, and I didn't know him.
Speaker 1: I'm saying not. People want to say that you're trying
Speaker 1: to associate with Excuse me, but you knew a lot
Speaker 1: of the people that worked with him, and you were
Speaker 1: very close, and you've had that history and well respected
Speaker 1: on both sides, and I don't think a lot of
Speaker 1: people really understand that about you. So I'm as you
Speaker 1: would get able to tell all of that as well.
Speaker 1: You know what people don't remember under j Edgar Hoover,
Speaker 1: this is not the first time that we've had abuse
Speaker 1: of power by high ranking people, not the rank and file,
Speaker 1: but high ranking people in the FBI. They had sent
Speaker 1: to your uncle a basically a letter. It was a
Speaker 1: letter saying, you know, basically to kill yourself, if I
Speaker 1: remember correctly, because we have this, this, this, this, this, this,
Speaker 1: and this about your personal life. It was the people
Speaker 1: all the time. I don't know if people really understand that,
Speaker 1: but yeah, but it didn't stop him. He didn't care
Speaker 1: good for him. They were trying to destroy him and
Speaker 1: make him stop fighting for what he believed. It Well,
Speaker 1: he had a mission, he had a purpose. He knew
Speaker 1: why he was here, and he set his face toward that.
Speaker 1: And many of us who knew him saw him do
Speaker 1: that and knew that that was what he was doing.
Speaker 1: My dad was able to do the same thing the
Speaker 1: very next year and then so even if this particular see,
Speaker 1: we understand that we are in that kind of a
Speaker 1: season again. And those of us who stand for truth,
Speaker 1: not that we are saying I'm ready to die. I'm
Speaker 1: way beyond thirty nine years old. I'm sixty nine Wednesday.
Speaker 1: You see, no way, no you you don't look at
Speaker 1: day over twenty oh thank you saying oh hallelujah. But
Speaker 1: you but you know, you think about this. Maybe he
Speaker 1: was a reverend, And I don't know whether it's true
Speaker 1: or not. It doesn't take away from all of the
Speaker 1: great things he did, and all of the great fight
Speaker 1: he had, Yeah, and then to have just because they
Speaker 1: didn't like his political views. They were illegally surveiling him
Speaker 1: and then trying to destroy him. People, when you meet Jesus,
Speaker 1: you start to try to get better. And that's what
Speaker 1: all that's about. So I really want people to admit
Speaker 1: or you hate that part. It's like Christians get disparaged,
Speaker 1: you know, like like the media mob and everybody they
Speaker 1: seem to relish in a somebody who professors who want
Speaker 1: to be a Christian or is a Christian in their
Speaker 1: failures and I'm like, well, my understanding, and I'm you know,
Speaker 1: I'm the one that needs the salvation. I'm not one
Speaker 1: of the good Christians. That's how proselytizing, right. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing, yeah, I just take it is why are
Speaker 1: you making fun of people that say they want to
Speaker 1: live a better life and they want to treat people
Speaker 1: the way other peoples are treated? And you know what,
Speaker 1: what did Jesus say? You know, you know, love God
Speaker 1: and your neighbor as yourself. And that's basically the summary
Speaker 1: of all the laws and all the laws of the prophet.
Speaker 1: What's so bad about that? After all these years, and
Speaker 1: I'm still doing the best I can. I know if
Speaker 1: they work in progress until we get home, and Heaven
Speaker 1: is home. So it's the grace of God calling on
Speaker 1: the name of Jesus. That doesn't mean we just keep
Speaker 1: doing whatever we're doing. That's just no excuse to do that.
Speaker 1: But we want to just do what we can to
Speaker 1: love others, to treat others fairly and kindly, love God
Speaker 1: and your neighbor as yourself. That's pretty much. And you know,
Speaker 1: the other thing is it's interesting that Jesus. Let's see,
Speaker 1: he picked twelve fishermen. I'm guessing fisherman weren't that different
Speaker 1: than fisherman today. You know, probably tax collectors, all those rights. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and and the woman you know, all right, you
Speaker 1: who were without sending you throw the first step Walban
Speaker 1: who was caught in the act. But did you have
Speaker 1: a wonder who she was acting with exactly? You got
Speaker 1: to wonder he's actually done with that, he did deal
Speaker 1: with this. Yeah, well, your uncle was an amazing man,
Speaker 1: and I know you fight for his legacy. I don't
Speaker 1: want to turn this into a political segment, but I
Speaker 1: do think there's something going on. This is not an outlier.
Speaker 1: I think the records and thank god our American family, everybody,
Speaker 1: every demographic now is is now benefiting from the conservative
Speaker 1: policies of the president. Of the ethnic group. We're not
Speaker 1: different races, were one blood. We all believe the same
Speaker 1: same color blood. We love you. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: I wanted to honor your uncle on this Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King Junior Day holiday. I don't, unfortunately get it off
Speaker 1: um with all the news going on. But we love you.
Speaker 1: God bless you and the work you do. I know
Speaker 1: you're out there saving lives every day and working hard
Speaker 1: on the issues you care the most about. Evangelist Alveda
Speaker 1: King amazing woman, amazing, amazing, unbelievable courage. And I learned
Speaker 1: I watched this. You got to watch these documentaries on
Speaker 1: the civil rights movement and the marches Selma Montgomery. You know,
Speaker 1: look up to the document about doctor King and they
Speaker 1: try to destroy this man. The deep state then under
Speaker 1: j Edgar Hoover. All right, loaded up tonight on Hannity,
Speaker 1: it's gonna wrap things up for today. We got Jordan's
Speaker 1: Seculo on the President's defense team, Steve Scalise, Senator Marsha Blackburne,
Speaker 1: Eric Trump. Tonight attorney Jenna Ellis Ranks previous Peter Schweitzer.
Speaker 1: This book is phenomenal. You want to talk about corruption,
Speaker 1: look at the Bidens. OH and Elizabeth Warren, OH and
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. They get rich. That's all coming up tonight,
Speaker 1: nine Eastern. We will have the best election and impeachment
Speaker 1: insanity coverage available on radio and TV. We'll see you
Speaker 1: tonight at nine, so your DVR. We'll be back here
Speaker 1: tomorrow as always. Thank you for being with us tomorrow
Speaker 1: two hundred and eighty seven days. Then you make the
Speaker 1: real decision. Have a great night. We'll see you tonight,
Speaker 1: back here tomorrow,