Speaker 1: Right as we predicted, these poles are headed south, and
Speaker 1: they're headed south quickly. This is not working out well,
Speaker 1: for they do nothing. Radical extreme socialist democrats in the swamp.
Speaker 1: You know, have they done a thing? Ask yourself a question,
Speaker 1: what have they done to help the American people, the
Speaker 1: people they represent? For three years? What have they done
Speaker 1: short of every second minute, hour of twenty four hour week,
Speaker 1: twenty four hour a day, every seven day week, every month,
Speaker 1: and every year, all they wanted to do? They have obsessively,
Speaker 1: compulsively focused on hating Trump for the purpose of impeaching him,
Speaker 1: which they said, Well, I gotta impeach the mffor do
Speaker 1: you remember the night that what's her name was elected?
Speaker 1: Carson went to leap and they have done nothing. You
Speaker 1: know what, I'm just sitting back and I'm watching now,
Speaker 1: I'm reading, I'm getting doing a deep dive into these
Speaker 1: poles today and again, I'm I'm a Trump polling skeptic.
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced Trump in any way polls like any
Speaker 1: establishment politician, you know, I'll tell you notoriously controversial figures
Speaker 1: don't pull well. Prime Minister Netanyahu's never pulled Well's viewed
Speaker 1: as a divisive figure in Israel years ago. Jesse Helms
Speaker 1: I think was underwater. John McLaughlin I think was part
Speaker 1: of his polling way back in the day. That shows
Speaker 1: how old he is. But he never pulled particularly well either,
Speaker 1: and but he'd always win and win by a big margin.
Speaker 1: And I don't think Trump is ever gonna pull well
Speaker 1: ever or accurately. We saw that leading up to the election.
Speaker 1: That was what we had. Rasmussen, McLoughlin, and Matt Towery
Speaker 1: three posters. Tower he's claiming that at the time he
Speaker 1: was retired. He's not. So it's there. There comes a
Speaker 1: point you gotta ad with this election in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: is gonna come down to a very simple but basic
Speaker 1: fundamental politics. One O one. Are you better off than
Speaker 1: you were four years ago? Well, I'd argue, by every measure,
Speaker 1: we are the best employment situation in the countries since
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty nine. Every demographic group in the country is
Speaker 1: doing dramatically better. The president has a list of accomplishments.
Speaker 1: I don't even know where to start. And as I
Speaker 1: go through some of this, ask yourself, what have the
Speaker 1: Democrats done? What have they accomplished in the last three years?
Speaker 1: With Donald Trump as president, I'd argue nothing except constantly
Speaker 1: hating him. And you know, and look at how they
Speaker 1: divide the country. We'll play it more detail later. You know,
Speaker 1: you got the compromised, corrupt, congenital liar shift And I
Speaker 1: keep saying the shift show. And he's a bullshiffer, if
Speaker 1: you will. He's full of shift. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: shift out there, shift matters. It's all sorts of stuff
Speaker 1: in the world. So but in his own district, he's
Speaker 1: doing a town hall. All of their rage and hate
Speaker 1: towards Trump. Now the president has had to absorb these attacks.
Speaker 1: It's pretty remarkable how much he takes on every day.
Speaker 1: I know people in my industry, radio and TV, they
Speaker 1: can't even take a little love tap of criticism. They
Speaker 1: can't handle it. They bubble and fizz and melt down.
Speaker 1: I've told you this before. I mean, whatever switch I
Speaker 1: was supposed to have that cares about what people say
Speaker 1: or think about me, it's gone. It doesn't exist in
Speaker 1: me anymore. I have to live with myself. I know
Speaker 1: when I'm right, I know when I'm wrong, and I
Speaker 1: follow the guides of conscience that Thomas Payne once wrote
Speaker 1: of in seventeen seventy six, common sense, listen to your
Speaker 1: own conscience, your own what's right in your own heart.
Speaker 1: And by the way, he also said, there'd be no
Speaker 1: need for any other lawgiver if we listen basically to
Speaker 1: God in our hearts. But we're human. That not being
Speaker 1: the case fallen beings, etc. We don't get there. But
Speaker 1: this is the rancor they have brought to the country.
Speaker 1: They have brought no policies, they have made no improvements.
Speaker 1: They have resisted and obstructed everything the president's tried to do.
Speaker 1: They have investigated to death this president. They have tried
Speaker 1: to stimy and stifle and stop every single thing he's
Speaker 1: tried to do, and he's been able to do it anyway.
Speaker 1: And what have they brought to the country. Not a
Speaker 1: single accomplishment that I can think of, unless you consider
Speaker 1: it an accomplishment to impeach a president over nothing with
Speaker 1: you know, even one of the articles of impeachment just
Speaker 1: blown out of the water last week when the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court took on the case of whether or not when
Speaker 1: there's a conflict with the executive and legislative branch and
Speaker 1: one of the branches seeks remedy in the courts. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're going to decide on executive privilege and the White
Speaker 1: House is going to win. But this is just it
Speaker 1: was fascinating that it happened in chief's district, the congenital
Speaker 1: liars district, because this is what he has brought to
Speaker 1: the country, him and the rest of his party that
Speaker 1: follow him and are as extreme as him. This is
Speaker 1: what they have brought the country. I would argue, this
Speaker 1: is their big accomplishment the last three years president. And
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why is is so important that
Speaker 1: it was so partisan overwhelming, is that this shouldn't be
Speaker 1: a partisan issue. They will not fire, fire, jail a lawyer, jail.
Speaker 1: You're a lawyer, got a lawyer, jail. You are disgracing
Speaker 1: the House of Reping you will be going to jail
Speaker 1: for the reason reason you no, no, n n n
Speaker 1: n n no. Alright, because it's probably giving you a
Speaker 1: headache like it's given me an ache. I'll stop, but
Speaker 1: we'll play more later. That's what they have given the
Speaker 1: country now when they were in power, Biden Obama, I'm
Speaker 1: giving those numbers out of me. Thirteen million more Americans
Speaker 1: on food stamps, eight million more in poverty, lowest labor
Speaker 1: participation rate since the seventies, worst recovery since the forties.
Speaker 1: We had the lowest homeownership rate in fifty one years.
Speaker 1: What has Trump given us as a result of real accomplishments. Oh,
Speaker 1: we've got the best employment situation since nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 1: In every demographic in the country is benefiting at record levels. Now,
Speaker 1: he made a promise he wants constitutionalist originalists on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Check he made a promise the biggest tax
Speaker 1: cuts in history. Check. He made a promise ending burdens bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: We've gotten rid of more bureaucracy than we'd likely have
Speaker 1: in the last one hundred years. Check energy independence. For
Speaker 1: the first time in seventy five years, we are a
Speaker 1: net exporter of energy. What are the results of this
Speaker 1: stock market high after high after high wages him post
Speaker 1: recession high. We have near record low, well, actually record
Speaker 1: low unemployment best is in sixty nine. We have a
Speaker 1: record number of Americans employed, millions of new jobs created,
Speaker 1: including in industries. Obama said that those jobs never coming back.
Speaker 1: They came back once you got rid of the burdensome
Speaker 1: regulation and high taxation. And you know, if the president
Speaker 1: has put us on a trajectory where even now all
Speaker 1: of those that were predicting a recession is coming, is coming,
Speaker 1: is coming, and I hope it comes. Bill mar saying
Speaker 1: that even they're recognizing, you know what, Nah, turn the
Speaker 1: ship around. It doesn't look like was any recession in
Speaker 1: the near future. You know, here's a guy that you know,
Speaker 1: said he wants freer and fairer trade deals, but you're
Speaker 1: gonna make them mad. Well they might have gotten mad,
Speaker 1: but they still gave us a better deal because he
Speaker 1: demanded it and he negotiated it, and NATO's paying their
Speaker 1: fair share. And yeah, he doesn't want long protracted wars.
Speaker 1: But he did beat the Caliphate in Syria. He didn't
Speaker 1: just draw a red line in the sand, and he
Speaker 1: beat Baghdadian company. They're dead. And yeah, they didn't want
Speaker 1: to give him the money for the border wall, but
Speaker 1: he found a way to do it. I told you
Speaker 1: he's going to find another way. He's gone to Plan
Speaker 1: B and now the money is now allocated, the wall
Speaker 1: is being built and it's underway as we speak. We
Speaker 1: have millions off of food stamps, seven to be exact,
Speaker 1: seven million new jobs created. You add to all of this.
Speaker 1: You know what the President has been able to do
Speaker 1: for veterans and helping the VAU the US MCA trade deal,
Speaker 1: getting rid of the the employee the mandate in Obamacare
Speaker 1: individual mandate, all of these things are result really putting time, money,
Speaker 1: and energy behind ending the opioid epidemic in the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, women's unemployment is a sixty five year low.
Speaker 1: How many records have we had for African Americans and
Speaker 1: Hispanic Americans. Thank God, we're helping people now develop opportunities
Speaker 1: for themselves and their families for a long, happier, more
Speaker 1: successful life. What are the Democrats done? Can you answer that?
Speaker 1: And the answer is no, because this is all they've done. Now,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell I know the mob and the meat. They
Speaker 1: can't stand it because he's just speaking the truth. He
Speaker 1: is now hinted that on the Senate floor today that
Speaker 1: Senate's kind of dismissed these pending ridiculous articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: It will be anti climatic, just like you know tomorrow
Speaker 1: when they would take the final vote impeached. You know,
Speaker 1: fake news CNN and MSDNC state run fake news television,
Speaker 1: both of them, they'll be giddy. They'll be happy. They
Speaker 1: will think they accomplished something. They've accomplished nothing, because he's
Speaker 1: not going anywhere. And you're ninety four trillion dollars New
Speaker 1: Green Deal where everything's free, and we have no oil
Speaker 1: or gas or coal and no internal combustion engine and
Speaker 1: eventually no planes or cows. That's not gonna go over
Speaker 1: because it's a mathematical law. The numbers you're throwing out
Speaker 1: is impossible, just like the same thing with Medicare for all. Anyway,
Speaker 1: McConnell dismissed the suggestion out of hand, but Schumer because
Speaker 1: he said, well, the House impeaches, they vote for impeachment,
Speaker 1: and we have the trial here, and the time for
Speaker 1: witnesses as it relates to articles of impeachment has come
Speaker 1: and gone. And the very position that Chucky Schumer had
Speaker 1: when he was a senator in New York and it
Speaker 1: was the Clinton impeachment. And then McConnell rightly accused Schumer
Speaker 1: of going straight to the news media. I think he
Speaker 1: actually leaked to the news media. First, we don't create
Speaker 1: impeachment here, we judge them. Okay, it's not the time
Speaker 1: now to argue over We've already had auditions, that we
Speaker 1: had public hearings, and we had the from on high
Speaker 1: Ivory Tower professors. And as a little anecdotal information, the
Speaker 1: RNC now has gotten six hundred thousand new donors since
Speaker 1: the start of the impeachment. They have a lot more
Speaker 1: money and their coffers than do the Democrats. I see
Speaker 1: Maxim Waters has now brought forward a new Trump Putin
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, appearing on fake news. See and I've done
Speaker 1: some research. I know about his alignment with Putin, I
Speaker 1: know about Manaphort, what his relationship was, and the fact
Speaker 1: that he had been sent there by Putin in essence
Speaker 1: to head up the president's campaign. Because I believe, even
Speaker 1: though I don't have the facts to prove it. Okay,
Speaker 1: let me read that again, even though I don't have
Speaker 1: the facts to prove it, I believe that's sort of
Speaker 1: like that, this is a crime. What's Natler's phrase, The
Speaker 1: crime is ongoing. The crime is this is against American Democrats. Well,
Speaker 1: if if the crime is in progress, stop it, because
Speaker 1: we don't see it. We're looking at the president doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be committing a crime. So think of the
Speaker 1: logic of it. So now ask yourself all right, So
Speaker 1: the president is done in three years that which Biden
Speaker 1: Obama couldn't do an eight. You know, they add thirteen
Speaker 1: million Americans to food stamps. Trump policies get seven million
Speaker 1: off of food stamps. They we have the best employment
Speaker 1: situation since nineteen sixty nine. They have the lowest labor
Speaker 1: participation rate since the seventies. You go through the list,
Speaker 1: so you see the differences. Even in the midst of
Speaker 1: this madness. The President, Yeah, he engages, he fights. He
Speaker 1: sent out a letter to Nancy Pelosi today. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what's in it, because he's right. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: every other part of his agenda's out there working on
Speaker 1: and they just continue their impeachment psychosis. And I'm telling
Speaker 1: you it is if the president is able to maintain,
Speaker 1: if I'm right that he's not losing any of the
Speaker 1: people that supported him in twenty sixteen, I don't think
Speaker 1: he will. This thing in Michigan, this focus group I
Speaker 1: told you about yesterday's big because people that voted in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, they voted for Obama then Trump, they're all
Speaker 1: supporting Trump in twenty twenty and they they're sick and
Speaker 1: tired of what the Democrats are doing. So you gotta
Speaker 1: let them, you gotta let it play out and let
Speaker 1: them hurt themselves. But the polls now show that it
Speaker 1: is a free fall for the Democrats. It just took
Speaker 1: a little longer than I thought it would. And then
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to come back in the new year.
Speaker 1: Then they're actually gonna run the trial. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: last long in the Senate. Then their candidates, when you
Speaker 1: start digging deep into what their views are and what
Speaker 1: they're planning to do to the country, doesn't take You
Speaker 1: don't need an abbaicus, you don't need a calculator to
Speaker 1: add up ninet four trillion in the New Green Deal
Speaker 1: in ten years. It will destroy this country. And it
Speaker 1: is not even mathematically possible. The fifty two trillion in
Speaker 1: ten years for medicare for all with no private option,
Speaker 1: the math is not there. You can't You don't even
Speaker 1: take in the money to pay for that in ten years,
Speaker 1: never mind all the other functions of government that matter.
Speaker 1: So it's all one big psychotic. Maybe this makes them
Speaker 1: feel relevant and good, but they're not serving the people.
Speaker 1: And if the president holds his people and those that
Speaker 1: have benefited the most for his policies that didn't vote
Speaker 1: for him, come over to his side landslide, and you
Speaker 1: see eight new polls with African Americans supporting Trump. Now
Speaker 1: the conduct is not conducted the perspective American people, the
Speaker 1: clock in the calendar, no masters except themselves. You see,
Speaker 1: our committee held his first hearing on December fourth, literally
Speaker 1: the day after Shift publically released his report. In the
Speaker 1: first minutes of the hearing, mister Censonbrunner furnished a chairman
Speaker 1: with our demand from a minority day of hearings. The
Speaker 1: chairman also set a deadline of December six for Republicans
Speaker 1: and the President to request additional witnesses, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: until Saturday. The day after the deadline, the Chairman chief
Speaker 1: transmitted eight thousand pages of material to the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: And we still haven't gotten everything. Not that it matters
Speaker 1: to the majority. For institutional inst this should bother you.
Speaker 1: You can still go ahead and vote here yes tomorrow
Speaker 1: and vote for yesterday and do that, but it should
Speaker 1: matter for this institution that while I was in Georgia,
Speaker 1: I received a call from my staff saying they've just
Speaker 1: released eight thousand documents. Some drives, some of which were
Speaker 1: going to be kept in a secure holding. And when
Speaker 1: I asked the chairman about these documents where they gonna
Speaker 1: be use, he said, well, we're not gonna read them either.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna have a chance to go through them.
Speaker 1: We're just gonna go ahead with what we're doing. That
Speaker 1: was from my chairman, who I respect greatly. We've done
Speaker 1: a lot of things together, but it has been very
Speaker 1: difficult when in a hearing of this magnitude, How can
Speaker 1: anyone Republican or Democrat actually go back and look at
Speaker 1: their constituents in the face and say, we looked at
Speaker 1: all the evidence. I looked at everything, and I came
Speaker 1: to this inclusion. No, we cherry picked the evidence and
Speaker 1: we only use what we wanted to do because that material,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is still not all been released.
Speaker 1: There's the Inspector General ig report that is still transplant
Speaker 1: has not been released. Now, whether it's good or bad
Speaker 1: is irrelevant. But when you're talking about impeaching a president,
Speaker 1: shouldn't the underlying evidence sent to Judiciary Committee actually matter? Again,
Speaker 1: it doesn't take constitutional experts coming in and tell us
Speaker 1: about it. It takes common sense to know that you
Speaker 1: don't impeach somebody without a lease making all the evidence proper.
Speaker 1: But you know, that's what happens when you're to the
Speaker 1: tyranny of a clock and a calendar. When you're the
Speaker 1: tyranny of a clock in a calendar and nothing else matters.
Speaker 1: We've seen evidence of the President decided to withhold from
Speaker 1: Ukraine important official acts, the White House visit military aid
Speaker 1: in order to pressure to announce investigations of Vice President
Speaker 1: Biden and the twenty sixteen elections. Why does that constitute
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense? So well, mister Raskin. On August eighth,
Speaker 1: Chairman Nadler stated, with respect to the Judiciary Committees hearing
Speaker 1: regarding the Mulla Report, that, quote, this is a formal
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings, but the House unquote but the House did
Speaker 1: not actually authorize impeachment proceedings until the adoption of h
Speaker 1: Res six six zero in October thirty first. So I
Speaker 1: believe it's important to clarify for the record when formal
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings actually started. A Chairman Nadler correct when he
Speaker 1: said that they started on August eighth, or did they
Speaker 1: begin when the House authorized them on October thirty. First,
Speaker 1: forgive me, missquid, was not actually prepared to answer that question,
Speaker 1: all right. That was, you know, the sights and sounds
Speaker 1: of the madness that has known as impeachment. The President
Speaker 1: now has weighed in two in a letter to the
Speaker 1: Speaker in name only Nancy Pelosi, and this impeachment represents
Speaker 1: an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by democratic lawmakers,
Speaker 1: which I agree with. They've abused their power. What they've
Speaker 1: done here is this is a purely political This is
Speaker 1: a political power play and what has been a never
Speaker 1: ending ongoing saga to try and undo an election, the
Speaker 1: will of the people. Smelly Walmart choppers like me and you,
Speaker 1: clinging to our God, our constitution, our Bible's religion, irredeemable deplorables.
Speaker 1: What they really think of us, we the people. He
Speaker 1: further goes on, this is unequaled in nearly two and
Speaker 1: a half centuries of American legislative history, and the articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not
Speaker 1: recognizable under any standard of constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence.
Speaker 1: The President goes on by proceeding with your invalid impeachment
Speaker 1: you're violating your oaths of office, you're breaking your allegiance
Speaker 1: to the Constitution, and you're declaring open war on American democracy.
Speaker 1: They've actually done this. They have now tried everything they
Speaker 1: can do to undo the election. Now we do have
Speaker 1: an election coming up again, as one's in three and
Speaker 1: twenty two days, but they can't wait. He goes on
Speaker 1: by saying that you dare invoked the founding Fathers in
Speaker 1: pursuit of this election nullification scheme. Yet your spiteful actions
Speaker 1: display unfettered contempt for America's founding, and your egregious conduct
Speaker 1: threatens to destroy that which our founders pledged their very
Speaker 1: lives to build. Any member of Congress who votes in
Speaker 1: support of impeachment, against every shred of truth, fact, evidence,
Speaker 1: legal principle, is showing how deeply they revile the voters
Speaker 1: and how truly they detest America's constitutional order. Our founders
Speaker 1: feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing
Speaker 1: their worst fears to life. He goes on, This is
Speaker 1: nothing more than in a legal, partisan attempted coup that will,
Speaker 1: based on recent sentiment, badly fail in the voting booth.
Speaker 1: You are the ones that are interfering in America's elections.
Speaker 1: You're the ones subverting America's democracy. You're the ones obstructing justice.
Speaker 1: You're the ones bringing pain and suffering to our republic
Speaker 1: for your own selfish, personal, political and partisan gain. It
Speaker 1: says everyone you included, now they spent three years doing this,
Speaker 1: knows what's really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen in an electoral college landslide three oh
Speaker 1: six to twenty seven, and you and your party have
Speaker 1: never recovered from that defeat. You've developed a full fledged
Speaker 1: case of what many in the media called Trump derangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: and sadly you'll never get over it. You're unwilling and
Speaker 1: unable to accept the verdict issued to the ballot box
Speaker 1: during the Great Election of twenty sixteen. So you have
Speaker 1: spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of
Speaker 1: the American people and nullify their votes. You viewed democracy
Speaker 1: as your enemy. As you very well know, this impeachment
Speaker 1: drive has nothing to do with Ukraine or the totally
Speaker 1: appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only
Speaker 1: has to do with your attempt to undo the election
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen and steal the election of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: And the President goes on this, there's far too much
Speaker 1: that needs to be done to improve the lives of
Speaker 1: our citizens. And he goes on and says, it is
Speaker 1: time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to
Speaker 1: work for the American people. Your first claim abuse of
Speaker 1: power is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of
Speaker 1: your imagination, which we've discussed at length here. It goes on.
Speaker 1: Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put
Speaker 1: America's interest first, just as I did with President Zelinsky. Rightly,
Speaker 1: that's what he's doing. Hang on, this just broke good thing.
Speaker 1: I have so many good people in this audience that
Speaker 1: are feeding me stuff. I got like this influx of
Speaker 1: information overload because I got oh, three TVs five computers
Speaker 1: in front of me, four million papers. They're all disorganized
Speaker 1: that I try to find them as we go along here.
Speaker 1: Apparently the fisichord is now weighed in. I guess on
Speaker 1: the Inspector General report. I've been dying to hear from them.
Speaker 1: But the longest period of time. It must be long
Speaker 1: because it's taken a long time loading as it's been
Speaker 1: texted over to me. But I'm dying to know what's
Speaker 1: in this thing, and hopefully I'll be able to pull
Speaker 1: it up here. Let me see if Linda's phone brings
Speaker 1: it up faster than my phone. All right, I'm sending
Speaker 1: it to you, Linda, all right, Boston. If it goes through,
Speaker 1: let's see. Oh got it. I don't need yours. All right,
Speaker 1: here we go. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court WOOF is interesting
Speaker 1: accuracy concerns regarding FBI matters submitted to the FISA. Court says,
Speaker 1: this order responds to reports that personnel of the FBI
Speaker 1: am reading this as I see it, provided false information
Speaker 1: to the National Security Division of the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: and withheld material information from the National Secure Division which
Speaker 1: was detrimental to the FBI's case in connection with four
Speaker 1: FISA applications to the FISA Intelligence Surveillance Court FISK for
Speaker 1: short for Authority to conduct electronic surveillance of a US
Speaker 1: citizen named Carter W. Page. When FBI personnel misled the
Speaker 1: National Security Division NSD moving forward in the ways described above,
Speaker 1: they equally misled the FISA Court Boom, listen to this
Speaker 1: in order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and
Speaker 1: its implications. It is useful to understand certain procedural and
Speaker 1: substitutive requirements that applied to the government's conduct of electronic
Speaker 1: surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title one of the Foreign
Speaker 1: Intelligence Services Act Codified, amended, etc. Etc. Gives you the
Speaker 1: exact area governs the FISA court approving a proposed electronic surveillance.
Speaker 1: When deciding whether to grant such an application, a fisichort
Speaker 1: judge must determine, among other things, whether it provides what
Speaker 1: is probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target
Speaker 1: is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Speaker 1: Now those terms are defined by FISA. Then again gives
Speaker 1: you the location of the statute. Finding of probable cause
Speaker 1: to believe that the US citizen other United States person
Speaker 1: as defined in Section eighteen o three one is an
Speaker 1: agent of a foreign power cannot be solely based on
Speaker 1: activities protected by the First Amendment. This is stinging, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you right now. And then it says it goes
Speaker 1: onto there. However, the Fives Court, the government reported a
Speaker 1: FIS a court. Now they're putting footnotes in there. Let
Speaker 1: me continue. An electronic surveillance application must be made by
Speaker 1: a federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation. When
Speaker 1: it is the FBI that seeks to conduct the surveillance.
Speaker 1: The federal officer who makes the application as an FBI
Speaker 1: agent who swears to the facts in the application. The
Speaker 1: Faizachord judge makes the required probable cause determination quote on
Speaker 1: the basis of the facts admitted by the applicant, and
Speaker 1: cites certain areas of the law. The judge may require
Speaker 1: the applicant to furnish such other information as may be
Speaker 1: necessary to make the determinations required by the section. Those
Speaker 1: statutory provisions reflect that the reality that, in the first instance,
Speaker 1: it is the applicant agency that possesses information relevant to
Speaker 1: the probable cause determination, as well as the means to
Speaker 1: potentially acquire additional information. Notwithstanding that the FISA court assesses
Speaker 1: probable cause based on information provided by the applicant, Congress
Speaker 1: intended that the pre surveillance judicial warrant under FISA. This
Speaker 1: is getting very very interesting to me. Hang on a second.
Speaker 1: Let me I'm pulling it up on a hard, hard
Speaker 1: piece here Okay, notwithstanding the Physo Coort, probable cause based determination, etc.
Speaker 1: The FISA Court's assessment of probable cause can serve those
Speaker 1: purposes effectively only if the application agency fully and accurately
Speaker 1: provides information in its possession that is material to whether
Speaker 1: possible or probable cause exists. Accordingly, the Government has a
Speaker 1: heightened duty of candor to the FISA Court expartee proceedings,
Speaker 1: that is, ones in which the Government does not face
Speaker 1: an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications.
Speaker 1: The PIZO Court expects the Government to comply with its
Speaker 1: heightened duty of candor and the proceedings at all times.
Speaker 1: Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. With that background,
Speaker 1: the Court turns to how the government handled the four
Speaker 1: applications it's admitted to conduct electronic surveillance on mister page.
Speaker 1: The FISA Court entertained those applications in October of twenty sixteen, January,
Speaker 1: April and June of twenty seventeen. On December nine, nineteen,
Speaker 1: the government filed with the FISA Court public and classified
Speaker 1: versions of the OIG report. By the way, that would
Speaker 1: be this week. The OIG report describes in detail the
Speaker 1: preparation of the four applications for electronic surveillance against mister Page.
Speaker 1: It's document. It documents troubling instances in which the FBI
Speaker 1: personnel provided information to the NSD which was unsupported or
Speaker 1: contradicted by information in their possession. It also described several
Speaker 1: instances in which the FBI personnel withheld NSD information in
Speaker 1: their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing
Speaker 1: that mister Page was acting as an agent of a
Speaker 1: foreign power. In addition, while the fourth electronic surveillance application
Speaker 1: for mister Page was being prepared, while an attorney in
Speaker 1: the FBI's Office General Council engaged in conduct that apparently
Speaker 1: was intended to mislead the FBI agent who ultimately swore
Speaker 1: to the facts and that application about whether mister Page
Speaker 1: had been a source of another government agency. That's when
Speaker 1: they altered the CIA's description of the work of Carter Page.
Speaker 1: The information about the OGC's attorney's conduct in the OIG
Speaker 1: report is consistent with classified submissions made to the FISA
Speaker 1: Court by the government in October twenty fifth, twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: November twenty seven, twenty nineteen. Because of the conduct of
Speaker 1: the OCG attorney gave rise to serious concerns about the
Speaker 1: accuracy completeness of the information provided to the fives A
Speaker 1: court in any matter in which the attorney was involved
Speaker 1: the OGC attorney. The court ordered the Department on December fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, to, among other things, provide certain information addressing
Speaker 1: these concerns. All right, there's only about four more paragraphs left,
Speaker 1: but I don't have time here. But the good news
Speaker 1: is I'll finish it. On the other side, this is
Speaker 1: what we've been waiting for, the courts saying you lied
Speaker 1: to us and you have a heightened responsibility when seeking
Speaker 1: these warrants. In particular Tick Talk, Jim Comey and others.
Speaker 1: The way we operate in the Department of Justice. If
Speaker 1: we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to
Speaker 1: have admissible evidence, incredible witnesses, we need to prepare to
Speaker 1: prove our case in court, and we have to fix
Speaker 1: our signature to the charging document. That's something that not
Speaker 1: everybody appreciates. There's a lot of talk about five applications,
Speaker 1: and many people that I see talking about it seem
Speaker 1: not to recognize what a FIES applicat FIES application is
Speaker 1: actually a warrant, just like a search warrant. In order
Speaker 1: to get a FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit
Speaker 1: signed by a career federal law enforcement officer who swears
Speaker 1: that the information in the affidavit it is true and
Speaker 1: correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. And
Speaker 1: that's the way we operate. And if it's wrong sometimes
Speaker 1: it is. If you find out there's anything incorrect in there,
Speaker 1: that person is going to face consequences. Did you have
Speaker 1: total confidence in the job and you used it to
Speaker 1: secure surveillance warrant and also in the subsequent nose total
Speaker 1: confidence that the Fizer process was followed and that the
Speaker 1: entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by
Speaker 1: DJ and the FBI. I think the notion that Fiser
Speaker 1: was abused here is nonsense. The thought that the FIES
Speaker 1: abuses fibuse nonsense. Well, that's not what the Inspector General found.
Speaker 1: It's clearly not what the Attorney General thinks. It is
Speaker 1: not what Prosecutor Durham believes, obviously, and this just literally
Speaker 1: broke moments ago. We have put it up on Hannity
Speaker 1: dot com. I've been reading it the United States Foreign
Speaker 1: Intelligence Surveillance Court accuracy concerns. Now, I had four paragraphs
Speaker 1: I haven't read, and then we're going to get John
Speaker 1: Solomon's view on this. It goes on to say the
Speaker 1: FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications as portrayed in
Speaker 1: the Office of Inspector General report was antithetical to the
Speaker 1: heightened duty of candor described above. They kept saying, you
Speaker 1: have a much greater bar and responsibility here the frequency
Speaker 1: with which representations made by FBI personnel hut Jim Comey
Speaker 1: turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in
Speaker 1: their possession. So let me go through the frequency with
Speaker 1: which representations made by the FBI personnel turned out to
Speaker 1: be unsupported, meaning false or contradicted by information that they
Speaker 1: had in their possession, Oh, exculpatory information, and with which
Speaker 1: they withheld information detrimental to their case. Oh yeah, we
Speaker 1: don't want you to see the real stuff. Then you're
Speaker 1: not going to give us what we want. It goes
Speaker 1: on to say, because this is I think devastating detrimental
Speaker 1: in their case, calls into question whether information contained in
Speaker 1: other FBI applications is reliable the FISA Court expects the
Speaker 1: government to provide complete, accurate information in every filing with
Speaker 1: the Court. Without it, the FISA Court cannot properly ensure
Speaker 1: that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes
Speaker 1: only when there is a sufficient factual basis. Therefore, the
Speaker 1: Court orders that the government shall know later than January ten,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, inform the Court in a sworn written submission
Speaker 1: of what is done, what it has done, and plans
Speaker 1: to do to ensure that these statements of facts in
Speaker 1: each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by
Speaker 1: the FBI that is material to any issue presented by
Speaker 1: the application. In the event that the FBI at the
Speaker 1: time of that submission is not yet able to perform
Speaker 1: any of the planned steps described in the submission, it
Speaker 1: shall include a proposed timetable for implementing such measures and
Speaker 1: be an explanation of why, in the government's view, the
Speaker 1: information in FBI application submitted in the terms should be
Speaker 1: regarded as reliable. Wow It is further ordered, pursuing the
Speaker 1: FIS a Court rule of Procedure sixty two A that
Speaker 1: the government shall no later than December twentieth, twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: complete a declassification review of the above referenced order of
Speaker 1: December five, twenty nineteen, in anticipation of the five Fyser
Speaker 1: Courts publishing that order WOW. In view of the information
Speaker 1: released to the public and the OIG report, the Court
Speaker 1: expects that such review will entail minimal, if any, redactions.
Speaker 1: That is, one pissed off court. What did I say?
Speaker 1: How many times have I said it? You never lie
Speaker 1: to a judge. I'd never lie to Judge Judy. You
Speaker 1: know you're less than candid the judge Judy. She scares me,
Speaker 1: actually met her. She's a she's tough as now she's
Speaker 1: she don't mess with her. John Solomon, we have on
Speaker 1: for other reasons as well. We're reading this and pretty
Speaker 1: much real time here. Your reaction, well, listen, honestly, it's
Speaker 1: awful eight and kind of little for the court to
Speaker 1: react now, because two years there was overwhelming evidence in
Speaker 1: the court of public opinion thanks to your show and
Speaker 1: my reporting and all the other great people who worked
Speaker 1: on this Greg Jared. But it is nonetheless a stinging,
Speaker 1: stinging rebuke of the FBI and every one of those
Speaker 1: officials who went out there in the last two three
Speaker 1: years and denied there was anything wrong. Rod Rosenstein, James Coomy,
Speaker 1: Andy McCabe, James Baker, and my favorite Adam Schiff. All
Speaker 1: of those people knew that there were a serious problem
Speaker 1: and they stuck their head in the sand and hoped
Speaker 1: it would go away. And only now because of the
Speaker 1: Horowitz Report and the court order do we know for
Speaker 1: sure that the FBI engaged in such sweeping misconduct that
Speaker 1: the Court wonders whether any of the fights it's been
Speaker 1: getting our accurate. I mean, that's what the ruling says today,
Speaker 1: we doubt all the accuracy. Well, it's a crime to
Speaker 1: commit a premeditated fraud on a court now, which we
Speaker 1: again another piece of the puzzle that we've been stating
Speaker 1: over and over again that the mob and the media
Speaker 1: never covered. But I will say this, I'm wondering. See,
Speaker 1: I think the court's been following this closely. I think
Speaker 1: they've known now for a while they've been lied to
Speaker 1: or suspected very much that they've been lied to and
Speaker 1: a fraud was perpetrated on the court. Now I think
Speaker 1: the Court, because of the Inspector General's report, now has
Speaker 1: the means to come in and demand this be rectified.
Speaker 1: It sure does. And you know they talk about this
Speaker 1: December fifth filing that's under sealed right now. I suspect,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying on your show for last week
Speaker 1: or so, that the Attorney General Barr or the Justice
Speaker 1: Department has gone in and withdrawn or taking some very
Speaker 1: drastic action to tell the court how bad these vices
Speaker 1: were beyond what the IG did. And when we get
Speaker 1: to see that court ordered to classified, we're going to
Speaker 1: get even more a sense of just how much willful
Speaker 1: misconduct occurred here. And you know this is a serious
Speaker 1: time for the court. You've got Lindsay Graham talking about
Speaker 1: I might not allow the Court to be renewed because
Speaker 1: I don't think it did its job. Here. You've got,
Speaker 1: you know, a very important national security function with vices.
Speaker 1: If they're done right, they protect our country. If they're
Speaker 1: done wrong, they trampled on liberties. And I think the
Speaker 1: next three or four months are going to be critical
Speaker 1: for the country and its leaders to get this fixed
Speaker 1: in right so that we don't lose a valuable national
Speaker 1: security tool. When you have Devin Nowness and Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: saying that we might have to get rid of the
Speaker 1: FISA court. That's not good for our safety and security
Speaker 1: as Americans. That then compromises us in a very ugly
Speaker 1: dangerous world, and the likes ofcom signing it when it
Speaker 1: was unverifiable and they had numerous warnings. All right, I
Speaker 1: want to change gears here. I've read your report today
Speaker 1: Latvia government, and you sent me over. I guess what
Speaker 1: are the original documents about? This says it flags suspicious
Speaker 1: Biden payments in twenty sixteen. First, I want you to
Speaker 1: explain something. I don't you hear Joe bragging about you're
Speaker 1: not getting the billion these leveraging a billion tax dollars?
Speaker 1: Then we got zero experience, hunter, you're not getting the
Speaker 1: billion fire the prosecutor Joe knew was investigating us, all right?
Speaker 1: To me, that was slam dunk, end of case. Right,
Speaker 1: Everything that I see involving this country seems corrupt. Why
Speaker 1: is that? Well, you know, there are these former Soviet
Speaker 1: republics where corruption has run amuck in what we call
Speaker 1: the oligarch system, where a few people got rich and
Speaker 1: they kind of are the puppet masters for the country.
Speaker 1: And one of those puppet masters in Ukraine was a
Speaker 1: guy named Zilchevski, the owner of Barisma, who hired Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden assumably to keep these sort of investigations away from
Speaker 1: so he wouldn't be detected for the sort of misconduct
Speaker 1: that has now been alleged. But here is what we
Speaker 1: now know the most important development in today's story. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has been telling us for the last few months, history,
Speaker 1: each changing right. First he'd ever talked to Hunter, then
Speaker 1: Hunter City, I talked to my dad about it, and
Speaker 1: I didn't really know they were under investigation, and then
Speaker 1: we showed that he did know he's under investigation. But
Speaker 1: the thing they've been hanging their hat on the last
Speaker 1: few weeks is at the time I fired the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: no big deal because the case against my son's company
Speaker 1: was dormant. That is bunk. There was enormous activity going
Speaker 1: on in December, January and February of twenty sixteen, right
Speaker 1: as the election was starting. And this is the new one.
Speaker 1: The new one is the Latvian government. A Soviet Republic
Speaker 1: neighbor of Ukraine said, hey, we see these transactions the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden. They don't look right. We think you should
Speaker 1: investigate him. They might be money laundering. Or evidence of
Speaker 1: money laundering, and they send that to the Ukrainian government
Speaker 1: one month for Joe Biden intervenes and fires the prosecutor
Speaker 1: overseeing this case. Joe Biden's story that nothing was going
Speaker 1: on in the case is demonstrably disproven by this document
Speaker 1: and several other things that you and I have talked
Speaker 1: about in your show the last few weeks. Now, Hunter
Speaker 1: claims that they never got a penny from China. Lawyer
Speaker 1: did say something to the effect of, I'm not mistaken that,
Speaker 1: Oh he just hasn't cashed in his shares, isn't that true? Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean that there is. That's right. There is some
Speaker 1: ambiguity about what happened in China. There's very little ambiguity
Speaker 1: about what happened in Ukraine. So how much money are
Speaker 1: we talking about here that you're again, this is your reporting,
Speaker 1: you're talking to I guess to these sources, Yeah, how
Speaker 1: do you do any of them have an agenda? Well?
Speaker 1: Everyone has an agenda, right, and in Ukraine. I say that,
Speaker 1: I've said that in all my columns. Listen, it's tough,
Speaker 1: it's tough to navigate this, right, But what we know
Speaker 1: is the Latvian government says on the record, the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: government's released the document. There is no doubt a concern
Speaker 1: was raised in February twenty sixteen about the money being
Speaker 1: paid to Hunter Biden. That's contrary to anything Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has been saying. There were no red flags, there's nothing
Speaker 1: to be worried about. That's not true. Now we need
Speaker 1: a real investigation to get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 1: And here's what we do know. In March of this year,
Speaker 1: three years after this Latvian memo was sent, the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: prosecutors reopened the case in Ukraine. And they did so
Speaker 1: because they got access to new financial records. And they
Speaker 1: have said publicly at a news conference just a month
Speaker 1: ago that they are looking at money laundering, the very
Speaker 1: allegation that was in this Latvian document, and they've expanded
Speaker 1: it to look at also things like the theft of
Speaker 1: state or government funds. There's a very active investigation in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We should wait and see how the new president, the
Speaker 1: new prosecutor deal with that, but I do suspect we're
Speaker 1: going to get some clarity in the next four to
Speaker 1: six months from Ukraine about what they think really went
Speaker 1: on with Hunter Biden, Barisma and the owner mister Zolchvsky.
Speaker 1: What is all this stuff? I have not been following
Speaker 1: it at all, except that I see that Rudy has
Speaker 1: been traveling the world and I guess digging up information
Speaker 1: about the bidens. I guess is it just or the
Speaker 1: corruption in general or election interference as described by the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian court and by Politico on January eleventh of twenty seventeen. Right,
Speaker 1: So listen, I don't know as much. I haven't tracked
Speaker 1: Rudy's movements as closely the last few months, you know,
Speaker 1: back Apparently if he makes a telephone call to you,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, that's public information. Now, yes, they should probably know.
Speaker 1: God forbid that John Solomon actually, as an investigator reporter
Speaker 1: has contacts. Yeah, that's the silly part about it. If they,
Speaker 1: and there were many other reporters in those call likes,
Speaker 1: they just chose not to release them. I think Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani has been for more than a year looking at
Speaker 1: the issues in Ukraine as they affect President Trump's defense
Speaker 1: and things like the Mulla report and now the impeachment trial,
Speaker 1: and he's trying to get the best evidence for his
Speaker 1: client to make a case of his innocence. And one
Speaker 1: of those cases is there might have been really legitimate
Speaker 1: concerns in Ukraine about Hunter Biden that would warrant a
Speaker 1: president saying could you get to the bottom of it?
Speaker 1: That would be a natural legal defense for Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: to help the president build in this impeachment proceeding. And
Speaker 1: we should wait and see what he releases. There's some
Speaker 1: talk he's going to go before Senator Graham's committee and
Speaker 1: release his evidence. There's all the things I put into
Speaker 1: the public, and remember all my things are document You
Speaker 1: can click and see the documents and read the information yourself.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of questions, none of them answered,
Speaker 1: but a lot of important questions. And the most important
Speaker 1: is did Joe Biden engage in appearance of a conflict
Speaker 1: of interest when he fired a prosecutor he knew was
Speaker 1: investigating his son's company. I think we're getting a clearer
Speaker 1: answer every day on that, and there ought to be
Speaker 1: some accountability brought to that issue. All right, John Solomon,
Speaker 1: thank you, eight hundred and nine pot one, Sean Tolfree
Speaker 1: telephone number. Gladuate with us. Merry Christmas. You can say
Speaker 1: it again it's like, oh, it's safe to say it's
Speaker 1: the war on Christmas. Remember they get so mad, the
Speaker 1: Liberals that we'd say there's a war on Christmas. In box,
Speaker 1: I mean that you can't you can't even put up
Speaker 1: an activity scene about people just melting alca sualtter and water.
Speaker 1: Like Mike Huckabee says, puts out a tweet the other
Speaker 1: night he's got on my show and he goes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm going on Hannity because the president really deserves a
Speaker 1: third term because they stole his first year and they
Speaker 1: lose it. Anyway, in Ohio, we have Todd stand by Todd.
Speaker 1: How are you. I'm great, John, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Listen, listen. I'm not only going to tell
Speaker 1: you Marry Christmas, but I'm also gonna tell you God
Speaker 1: bless you. We're here in the Buckeye State, and I
Speaker 1: want to tell you, uh, you got the backing of
Speaker 1: the Buckeye State everything. I love the Buckeye State. We
Speaker 1: need Ohio every single election. You it's such an important state.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Yes, sir, you're welcome. I just I just
Speaker 1: really wanted to keep it short and sweet and just
Speaker 1: to tell you thank you. Everything that you're saying. You know,
Speaker 1: I've been following you for years. I've got my pitchers,
Speaker 1: My mom my, brothers were all following you. So I
Speaker 1: really appreciate what you do. I can't do it without you.
Speaker 1: And you know I'll say this, I'm gonna say it
Speaker 1: a lot in the next year. We're all spokes at
Speaker 1: a wheel. The only way the president gets re elected,
Speaker 1: the only way you'll ever hear the words CNN fake
Speaker 1: news can now project that Donald J. Trump has been
Speaker 1: reelected the president of the United States, and them lose
Speaker 1: their mind and we shocked the world again. It's an
Speaker 1: all hands on deck moment. This impeachment will long be
Speaker 1: forgotten by some, but not by me. Quick break right back.
Speaker 1: We'll continue straight a hut. The founding fathers must be
Speaker 1: turning in their graves that a president of the United
Speaker 1: States is vulnerable to impeachment. For this is perjury in
Speaker 1: a case like this serious enough to warrant impeaching the president.
Speaker 1: If the Republicans want to go ahead and do this,
Speaker 1: I think they disgrace themselves in a more profound way
Speaker 1: than President Quinton has by abusing the machinery of impeachment.
Speaker 1: Is it worth overturning the will of the people in
Speaker 1: order to impeach him. If the only thing you can
Speaker 1: prove is that he lies, is there is there not
Speaker 1: some concern of the public perception that this is in
Speaker 1: fact a kind of effort at a quote coup. Ophelia
Speaker 1: Ariano says it reminds her of a coup in her
Speaker 1: native Gudam. We like him here, he's doing that wood
Speaker 1: show the Republican Party who disliked him and what he
Speaker 1: stands for. Having been unable to beat him with the poles,
Speaker 1: have found another way to get him out of office.
Speaker 1: America wants Christmas Carols uninterrupted by political scandal. They have
Speaker 1: robbed from you, make no mistake about it. They have
Speaker 1: used a procedural device to steal from you. You're right
Speaker 1: to be democratically represented. Quote. You don't overturn the results
Speaker 1: of an American election on a whim unquote. If he
Speaker 1: takes the risk of going to try and he's convicted,
Speaker 1: that could be seen as an impeachable offense. If Trump
Speaker 1: were caught on a video camera sorting cocaine in the
Speaker 1: White House, maybe with one of his children, there was
Speaker 1: at least a chance he'd be impeached if he's not
Speaker 1: a legitimately elected president. In your mind, there are tools
Speaker 1: that Congress had. I don't see how that wouldn't be
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. That tweet fits the Republican definition of
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. I will fight every day until he
Speaker 1: is impeached paspty God and peach bodyd grounds for impeachments
Speaker 1: and impeachable offense. Perhaps impeachable offense is impeachment the appropriate
Speaker 1: remedy something for the Congress like impeachment. All that may
Speaker 1: be impeachable. That's an impeachable offense? Is that an impeachable offense?
Speaker 1: Is that an impeachable offense? To you? He's much more
Speaker 1: vulnerable to impeachment a potential ingredient of impeachment. Where do
Speaker 1: you see in a peachable offense? It is grounds for impeachment,
Speaker 1: for impeachment, potentially criminal for even impeachable, grounds for impeachment
Speaker 1: or does that not go far enough in your view?
Speaker 1: Grounds for impeachment? This tweet alone maybe an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about impeachment. Impeachment is on the table, rich
Speaker 1: impeachable offense fully stolen? And I said, baby, they talks
Speaker 1: because we're gonna go in there, We're gonna impeach them.
Speaker 1: So you see an impeachable set of offenses, it's an
Speaker 1: impeachable offense. If that's not impeachable, I don't know what is.
Speaker 1: The president shall be removed from office on impeach? Is
Speaker 1: it impeachable? Is impeachable? Very substantial evidence that the president
Speaker 1: is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanor grounds for impeachment.
Speaker 1: Tipping point to talk of impeachment reaches a fever pitch
Speaker 1: on Capitol health. That's three long years impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. Uh.
Speaker 1: And now Schumer's like everything that I said in ninety
Speaker 1: eight about the Clinton impeachment, Uh, never mind. But we
Speaker 1: should do it the way the Republicans wanted to do
Speaker 1: it back then, which Republicans did not that. How many
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of of of of transcripts do we
Speaker 1: now have between the audition shift show hearings, then the
Speaker 1: phony shift show hearsay bs shift show that they went
Speaker 1: on publicly, all these people testify, all the hearsay people,
Speaker 1: all the opinion people, not one fact witness out of
Speaker 1: the bunch of them, and the Ivory Tower people now
Speaker 1: they know there's no evidence, so now they say, well,
Speaker 1: maybe let's let's read the investigation in the Senate. You
Speaker 1: guys messed it up. We'll do it here. No, because
Speaker 1: that would be the role of the House. They impeached
Speaker 1: the president, and they give you specific reasons, they will
Speaker 1: present their case to the Senate. And because there is
Speaker 1: no fact witnesses that they're going to be able to
Speaker 1: call except one exculpatory fact witness, it's going nowhere is
Speaker 1: all it is is a fate to complete. At this point,
Speaker 1: they've made up their minds. They hate Trump. We've heard
Speaker 1: it all through the end of twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, and twenty nineteen, and these polls now reflect
Speaker 1: the American people are getting it all, they're understanding all
Speaker 1: of it, and they're sick of it. And I can't
Speaker 1: blame them. I'm sick of it too. And is it
Speaker 1: going to impact the president? Actually it will. It's helping
Speaker 1: the president. They will help reelect the president. This is
Speaker 1: one of the greatest things they could do in terms
Speaker 1: of a contribution to the Trump campaign and his reelect effort. Anyway,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and ninety four one Sean if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program. So we have
Speaker 1: the latest John Solomon piece that is out there. I
Speaker 1: am beginning to wonder about all these things. I went
Speaker 1: through this whole litany of issues, and I tweeted him
Speaker 1: out the other day because there is a big lie
Speaker 1: being told in the media mob circles about what conservatives
Speaker 1: think about Russian election interference. And they've got a conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory about no, it's really wasn't Russia, it was really Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And they don't even believe Russia tried to interfere in
Speaker 1: the elections. Okay, that's what they say. Now let's go
Speaker 1: back and take a trip down memory lane, because I
Speaker 1: think this is very, very, very critical and important. When
Speaker 1: you look, it was Devin Newness. Nevin Newness, remember in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen he warned everybody, Yeah, they're gonna try and impeach.
Speaker 1: Remember it was Devin Newness. Devin Newness is the one
Speaker 1: that said, oh, yeah, the Russians ill interfere. Of course,
Speaker 1: the Russians interfered, hostile regime, hostile actor of Tamir Putin.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be making deals and having more flexibility and
Speaker 1: talking to him privately. God only knows what he did there.
Speaker 1: But we're now watching and witnessing something that is There's
Speaker 1: nothing that they offer we the people at this point.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you, I don't care what they say.
Speaker 1: They don't want to investigate Russia, a real dirty Russian
Speaker 1: dossier used to impact the twenty sixteen race, a race.
Speaker 1: They don't want to look at the obstruction of justice
Speaker 1: with the secret server and the bleach bit and the
Speaker 1: Hammers and the Deletians. They don't want to. They don't
Speaker 1: want to look at possible Ukrainian interference election interference, even
Speaker 1: though Ukrainian court said so, and then we have politicos
Speaker 1: saying so in great detail. They just they have one
Speaker 1: set of standards that they have set up for Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and an entirely different set of standards for everybody else.
Speaker 1: Breath taking hypocrisy. I've never seen it like this or
Speaker 1: this bad. By the way, So the shift show went
Speaker 1: back to his district and apparently didn't go over pretty
Speaker 1: well there. Listen to this president, and one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why this is so important, that it was so
Speaker 1: my partisan and so overwhelming, is that this shouldn't be
Speaker 1: a partisan issue. The Vaccini facci issue. They will not
Speaker 1: be denied. So far a war. I'm grateful. Jail a
Speaker 1: lawyer by jail for guilty. Friar, you're a lawyer. Peach,
Speaker 1: Dont peach a blawyer. Jail. You are a disgrace to
Speaker 1: their house of repretative. You will be going to jail. Treason,
Speaker 1: treason to you guys? Are n n n n n
Speaker 1: n n n got it out? Then don't tell me
Speaker 1: to gut you. Just sit down? Everything appropriate? Her wispected?
Speaker 1: Are you an autz? Are you an agent? Were getting journey? Well,
Speaker 1: I've been calling it a shift show and then you
Speaker 1: know it's nothing but bullshift from shift and that is
Speaker 1: his town hall. Great job dividing the country. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to our phones. Let's say hi to Christopher
Speaker 1: a new Joysey. Christopher, Hi, how are you glad you called? Sir? Hi?
Speaker 1: My name is doctor Christopher Banetti. I'm actually a political
Speaker 1: scientist and a liberal Democrat. Are you a professor? Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm an act professor at a community college for you,
Speaker 1: and a liberal professor. I'm shocked. Go ahead. Actually, you'd
Speaker 1: be surprised how a few real liberals are in college.
Speaker 1: They're all progressives. Now it's a completely different balls, completely
Speaker 1: differ I kind of look at liberalism progressivism. It's sort
Speaker 1: of the parties gone hard left. But anyway, what's on
Speaker 1: your mind today? Right? Right? Well? Having to tell you
Speaker 1: all the stuff. But so, I'm a level democrat, I'm
Speaker 1: an academic, and I oppose impeachment. I'm against impeachment, and
Speaker 1: as you might imagine, this is a problem for me.
Speaker 1: And the reason I'm against impeachment is a I'm a
Speaker 1: political theorist and I study history, and the Roman Republic
Speaker 1: on which our constitution is based basically fell apart because
Speaker 1: of almost exactly the same situation we have now. And
Speaker 1: I feel like our institutions are more valuable than impeachment.
Speaker 1: And I also think that the evidence for impeachment is weak.
Speaker 1: And I you know, I'm not Trum supporter. I would
Speaker 1: never in a millionaires vote for Trump. I'm a Democrat,
Speaker 1: but I do feel like if we impeach him, even
Speaker 1: if he doesn't get removed what you want to remove,
Speaker 1: but I think the Republic won't recover from it. Because
Speaker 1: all right, to stay there, I want to find out.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna put you on hold. We'll talk to you
Speaker 1: on the other side, And why is a liberal professor
Speaker 1: a political science why you are against impeachment? It's pretty
Speaker 1: interesting to all of us. All Right, as we continue
Speaker 1: at Christopher, New Jersey, Christopher, all right, so you're against impeachment,
Speaker 1: but you'd never vote for Trump. Obviously, your fellow liberal
Speaker 1: leftist Democrats are doing this. So why would you reward them.
Speaker 1: What have they done for the American people the last
Speaker 1: three years except hate Donald Trump? Well, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it comes down to my values are democratic values,
Speaker 1: and while I disagree with the party elites on a
Speaker 1: few things. For example, Chairman Tom Poris is basically trying
Speaker 1: to purge the party at pro lifers. I happen to
Speaker 1: be pro life even though I'm liberal, so I'm not
Speaker 1: a huge fan of that. But I do feel like
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I'm a Democrat in
Speaker 1: my values, and even if the party does things I
Speaker 1: find distasteful, I can't just leave. I actually disagree with
Speaker 1: Jeff Andrew when he left. I don't think that even
Speaker 1: when the party does something that's dishonorable that you should leave.
Speaker 1: Can you name one specific accomplishment, one thing they done
Speaker 1: for we the people in the last three years. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, at the state level, I think the Democrat No, no, no,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about the state law. I'm talking about Congress.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about your House of Representatives. The Democrats in Washington.
Speaker 1: What have they done for we the people? They haven't
Speaker 1: done that much. But I would argue that the Republicans
Speaker 1: haven't done that much either. Well, I would argue Donald
Speaker 1: Trump gave us the largest tax cut in history. He
Speaker 1: kept his promise on originalists and constitutionalists on the Court,
Speaker 1: kept his promise on moving America towards energy independence. For
Speaker 1: the first time in seventy five years. We're a net
Speaker 1: exporter of energy. Keystone Pipeline, Dakota Pipeline up and running,
Speaker 1: an Moir's open. We now have the president found the
Speaker 1: way and he's gonna have four hundred miles of border
Speaker 1: wall built by October of next year. It's on track
Speaker 1: four as hundreds now built already. Then, of course, he
Speaker 1: said he's gonna fight for free and fair trade deals.
Speaker 1: He's got them done. Then he said he didn't want
Speaker 1: long entanglements abroad. But he beat the Caliphate and Syria.
Speaker 1: Baghdaddy and his closest allies are dead I'd say he's
Speaker 1: done a pretty good job of keeping a lot of
Speaker 1: his promises. But see, I don't believe in his values.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just that wasn't the question, professor. Keep
Speaker 1: your focus now. I'm sure you have to say this
Speaker 1: to some of your students. You said to me, I
Speaker 1: don't think the Republicans have done much either. I just
Speaker 1: mentioned all of those. Those are not small items. Those
Speaker 1: that's the big list. The presidents also created seven million
Speaker 1: new jobs. The President's also gotten seven million people off
Speaker 1: of food stamps. Well, okay, we can talk about food
Speaker 1: stamp politics, because I think it comes down to my
Speaker 1: last question, what have the Democrats done? I gave you
Speaker 1: the list of what Donald Trump has done. It's really
Speaker 1: hard to do anything when you're do you don't have
Speaker 1: the presidency. It's very hard to do anything when you
Speaker 1: just have one half of cast. So you're making excuses
Speaker 1: for them. But when they did have power, we had
Speaker 1: thirteen million more Americans on food stamps and eight million
Speaker 1: more in poverty. That was the Obama Biden legacy. I
Speaker 1: would disagree, no disagreeing. You have food stamps the way
Speaker 1: I think that food stamps. Sometimes you have to increase
Speaker 1: the role. Is it better to have people have a job.
Speaker 1: We have the best employment situations in nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 1: Is it better to have a job or better for
Speaker 1: government assistance? I would say it's better to have a job,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that Donald Trump has now given
Speaker 1: us jobs, and I think it's better. I think we
Speaker 1: all as human beings are designed to be workers and
Speaker 1: to serve others. Life isn't about serving yourself. I got
Speaker 1: a role though. Thank you, my friend, professor, you got
Speaker 1: a C minus today. But keep working on a course back.
Speaker 1: We'll see if you can do better. Quick break right back,
Speaker 1: stay right here for our final news round up and
Speaker 1: information overload. But I do think the aha moment for
Speaker 1: the country was the action taken by the things President
Speaker 1: Trump appointee, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who
Speaker 1: said that there was a incredible report from a whistleblower
Speaker 1: of great concern and that Congress should be aware of that.
Speaker 1: And that is the facts of the Ukraine situation have
Speaker 1: just changed everything. The polls went from fifty nine opposed
Speaker 1: to impeachment, thirty four in favor to it that even
Speaker 1: thank you, mister speaker, mister speaker, today is a tragic
Speaker 1: day for our country, because while our young people are
Speaker 1: fighting in the Persian Gulf and bringing honor to our country,
Speaker 1: we are bringing dishonor to it with our hypocrisy here
Speaker 1: in this chamber today, the Republican macharity is not judging
Speaker 1: the President with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance
Speaker 1: and the investigation of the president. Fundamental principles which Americans
Speaker 1: hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances have been seriously violated.
Speaker 1: And why because we are here as we are here today,
Speaker 1: because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred
Speaker 1: of President Clinton. And until the Republicans free themselves of
Speaker 1: this hatred, our country will suffer. This is a crime
Speaker 1: in progress against the Constitution and against American democracy. We
Speaker 1: cannot take the risk that the next election will be
Speaker 1: corrupted through foreign interfere and solicited by the President, which
Speaker 1: is clearly trying to do that. It has not earned
Speaker 1: the confidence of the American people. Than any action we take,
Speaker 1: especially if we seek to overturn the result of a
Speaker 1: free election, will be viewed with great suspicion and could
Speaker 1: divide a nation for years to come. We do not
Speaker 1: need a decade of candidates running for office accusing each
Speaker 1: other of railroading and democratically elected president out of office,
Speaker 1: or of participating in a thinly veiled could day time.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons we all feel so angry
Speaker 1: about what they are doing is that they are ripping
Speaker 1: from us. They are ripping us under our votes. They
Speaker 1: are telling us that our votes don't count. There must
Speaker 1: never be a thoroughly voted impeachment, or an impeachment substantially
Speaker 1: supported by one of our major political parties and largely
Speaker 1: opposed by the other. The American people have heard the
Speaker 1: allegations against the president, and they overwhelmingly opposed impeaching him.
Speaker 1: They elected President Clinton, they still support him. We have
Speaker 1: no right to overturn the considered judgments of the American people.
Speaker 1: This partisan coup data will go down in infamy in
Speaker 1: the history of this nation. By the way, that is
Speaker 1: a crime in progress. Well, then somebody needs to the
Speaker 1: president he's not doing what is the crime in progress?
Speaker 1: Never mind too, that the second article of obstruction was
Speaker 1: blown out of the water by the Supreme Court that
Speaker 1: clearly by taking on the issue of executive privilege when
Speaker 1: there's a conflict between the executive branch legislative branch. It
Speaker 1: is the role of the judicial branch to settle disputes
Speaker 1: when one of the branches seeks remedy, which is now happening.
Speaker 1: As we've been telling you, now I stand. I have
Speaker 1: not changed my view. I do not believe that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in any way polls like any conventional politician. It's
Speaker 1: just the way it is. But with that said, the
Speaker 1: real clear politics average now has impeachment underwater. That was
Speaker 1: not the case from the very get go. We've got
Speaker 1: new polling numbers from our friend Matt Towery USA tond
Speaker 1: numbers that we're going to share with you. But you
Speaker 1: hear the rank hypocrisy of Schumer and of Nadler and
Speaker 1: of Pelosi and the compromise corrupt Adam Schiff. They've had
Speaker 1: all their hearings, they brought all their hearsay and opinion witnesses,
Speaker 1: the one fact witnesses on the table. Now they want
Speaker 1: to because they know it's so weak in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Now they want to let's try for another impeachment attempt.
Speaker 1: To hear if you will, another cool attempt anyway, John McLaughlin,
Speaker 1: the poster is with us poster strategist McLaughlan and associates
Speaker 1: and also syndicated calmnist Attorney is now taken on the
Speaker 1: new role of being the official poster for all of
Speaker 1: the Fox own owned stations across the country, which is
Speaker 1: a really big job, any of them in swing states,
Speaker 1: important states like Florida, Georgia and elsewhere. Separate and apart
Speaker 1: from the Fox national polls, which I've not been too
Speaker 1: particularly pleased with their methodology. Guys, welcome back. Why is
Speaker 1: the methodology so flawed by so many of these groups. Well,
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that you see, as
Speaker 1: Sean is that, of course I've argued against cell phones,
Speaker 1: although there is a way to make cell phone pulling effective.
Speaker 1: And also, I think the biggest law is that there's
Speaker 1: an insistence on waiting these polls heavily towards younger voters.
Speaker 1: We see an over polling, over sampling of Democrats. And
Speaker 1: of course there's also the reluctance for individuals to tell
Speaker 1: people that they support Donald Trump after they see him
Speaker 1: attacked on virtually every news network and on every talk
Speaker 1: show other than of course Yours and Rushes and a
Speaker 1: few that are at the top of the heap, I
Speaker 1: might add, but also on late night comedy in the like,
Speaker 1: they realize that they are charious if they tell people
Speaker 1: that they support Donald Trump. There are ways to get
Speaker 1: them to do it. We have new polling numbers, which
Speaker 1: we'll talk about it in a minute in one state
Speaker 1: that we're doing. And by the way, those are separate
Speaker 1: from the Fox Ahilli poles. I'm doing my own polls
Speaker 1: this year because I got it right in two thou sixteen,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to make sure I get it right,
Speaker 1: and We're only going to air them on your show. So,
Speaker 1: by the way, it's been you, John McLaughlin and Scott
Speaker 1: Rasmussen that have been right. Zogby wasn't there. Yeah, Zogby
Speaker 1: has been right. But look look at the eggs of poles.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's go through what we see. We
Speaker 1: now have six poles, even a c ANM pole, showing
Speaker 1: that opposition is now outpacing support for impeachment. This is
Speaker 1: a big turnaround. Why are we seeing it at this
Speaker 1: late hour, John McLaughlin, Oh, because they have no facts.
Speaker 1: First of all, those polls that you mentioned, I agree
Speaker 1: with Matt. They're biased in their samples. They're biased in
Speaker 1: their questions. They randomly dial phone numbers. They don't use
Speaker 1: voter lists. They're samples of adults or registered voters, not
Speaker 1: likely voters, because likely voter polls determine who actually votes.
Speaker 1: There's one hundred and thirty nine million people who voted,
Speaker 1: but there were ninety million people eligibles that didn't vote,
Speaker 1: So they pollute the polls and the Republicans. On election
Speaker 1: Day twenty sixteen, there was thirty seven percent Democrat, thirty
Speaker 1: three percent Republican. All these polls that you just mentioned
Speaker 1: that you're referring to, even though they're trending our way
Speaker 1: and show the majority you're close to a majority now
Speaker 1: opposes this impeachment, those polls are all biased, with Republicans
Speaker 1: well under thirty percent. Now, what I want to tell
Speaker 1: you is you've seen you referred to the Real Clear
Speaker 1: Politics average, that curve or that graph. When they started
Speaker 1: doing these hearings, they went down. There's no evidence America
Speaker 1: was bored by it. They can't prove their case that
Speaker 1: the president did anything wrong in spite of all their
Speaker 1: biased reporting. And would you would your people on this
Speaker 1: show and on your TV show you have people that
Speaker 1: stick to the facts and present a case. You've got
Speaker 1: these these other networks and these other shows where they're
Speaker 1: literally making stuff off about the president, and the American
Speaker 1: public's realizing it's a railroad, the process is unfair. And
Speaker 1: back at the end of October, we had a national
Speaker 1: poll that said fifty nine to thirty three Americans thought
Speaker 1: this as a waste of time and going nowhere. Well,
Speaker 1: these hearings by the Democrats, by Pelosian shifts have proven it,
Speaker 1: and also the Republicans like Doug Doug Collins have exposed
Speaker 1: it that this is a political impeachment all about stopping
Speaker 1: the president from being reelected. And we had national poll
Speaker 1: saying that fifty two to thirty six that this is
Speaker 1: not a legal proceeding, it's it's a political proceeding. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's go to your new poll that just came out.
Speaker 1: We have it up on Hannity dot com and also
Speaker 1: the USA Today poll. What we see is Donald Trump
Speaker 1: defeating former Vice President Biden and that poll and Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders by five points and Warren by eight points. And
Speaker 1: if you look at the hypothetical had to add contest,
Speaker 1: Trump also is ahead of Mayor Pete by ten points.
Speaker 1: Mayor Bloomberg by nine points. That's another turnaround. And you
Speaker 1: did the state at Georgia. Tell us what you found
Speaker 1: in Georgia, Matt Towery, Well, what's interesting about Georgia is
Speaker 1: the University of Georgia, in conjunction with the Atlanta Journal Constitution,
Speaker 1: did a poll just about a month ago, and quite frankly,
Speaker 1: the results, if you've taken at face value, which I
Speaker 1: wouldn't necessarily, but I don't want to quipal with other polls.
Speaker 1: Right now, you've had a complete reversal of fortunes in Georgia.
Speaker 1: At that time, you had over fifty percent saying that
Speaker 1: the president should be removed from office. Is approval rating
Speaker 1: was at forty two percent according to the Atlanta Journal
Speaker 1: Constitution Guga Pole. Now you see the complete opposite. The
Speaker 1: president's approval rating is at fifty two disapproval with forty
Speaker 1: two in Georgia. And by the way, Georgia is a
Speaker 1: swing state. It is is on the verge of being
Speaker 1: a purple state, can be critical. It's also the eighth
Speaker 1: largest state in the nation. So it's important for us
Speaker 1: to look at as far as the impeachment goes, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden and Georgia fifty percent opposing impeachment and removal,
Speaker 1: and you have just around thirty something percent who say
Speaker 1: that president should be removed and a very small number
Speaker 1: who say he should have even been impeached in the
Speaker 1: first place. So now these hearings, as John alluded to,
Speaker 1: and John John's Pope a month or two out, was
Speaker 1: very predictive of where we are now because what's happened
Speaker 1: is the more they accelerate. They hit the accelerator on
Speaker 1: this impeachment inquiry, and then all the news around it
Speaker 1: and of course the hyperbole that's involved in it, the
Speaker 1: President's numbers just keep going up. So the very best
Speaker 1: at Christmas present that Donald Trump could have it's the
Speaker 1: gift that keeps on giving is impeachment. I hate to
Speaker 1: say it. No one wants to have that moniker around them,
Speaker 1: But right now his numbers are just explore, not exploding
Speaker 1: in the sense that most people can see it, but
Speaker 1: John and I can see it, and they're moving very
Speaker 1: rapidly in his favor. About two months ago, Zogby had
Speaker 1: picked up the president's support among African Americans at twenty percent,
Speaker 1: and I talked about it. There are now eight Poles
Speaker 1: that have recently come out. One has an all credible poles,
Speaker 1: One has the president at a thirty four point five
Speaker 1: percent approval rating with African Americans, another thirty four, another
Speaker 1: thirty three. Zogby yesterday had it at I believe twenty
Speaker 1: seven or twenty eight. The lowest of the eight poles
Speaker 1: now is sixteen, which would be exactly twice what the
Speaker 1: president had in terms of support from African Americans in
Speaker 1: twenty and sixteen. John Yep, how do we interpret that? Well,
Speaker 1: remember in twenty sixteen we did net eight points better
Speaker 1: than Romney, but the exit polls had is losing the
Speaker 1: African Americans eighty nine to eight. And what's going on though,
Speaker 1: is the president as he reaches out and he reminds
Speaker 1: people that look, you've got full employment. Now, you've got
Speaker 1: the lowest Black unemployment ever in history. You can find jobs.
Speaker 1: Plus the idea that he's taking on the idea that
Speaker 1: they've been taken for granted, and he's standing up for
Speaker 1: school choice, he's standing up for things that the average family,
Speaker 1: whether the African American or not, needs, as well as
Speaker 1: criminal justice reform. These polls have shown that we can
Speaker 1: get someplace between maybe fifteen and twenty five or maybe
Speaker 1: even thirty percent of the African Americans based on their
Speaker 1: approval ratings of the job the president is doing. So
Speaker 1: it's always been a theory that I think, and I
Speaker 1: saw this in Georgia with Governor Deal, when we got
Speaker 1: double digits African American votes. We defeated the Democrats strategy
Speaker 1: because they wanted to hold us to five percent. And
Speaker 1: when you all of a sudden, when you're getting ten
Speaker 1: or twenty percent from that core Democrat constituency, you're going
Speaker 1: to win, and you've got to win decisively. So they're
Speaker 1: in a pack because the theory is we can get
Speaker 1: African American votes more easily than we can get white
Speaker 1: liberals who think they want to vote from Warren and Sanders.
Speaker 1: So let's get those votes and let's keep that growing
Speaker 1: and watch the Democrats panic. And it's not just African Americans.
Speaker 1: I gotta take a break. We'll pick it up on
Speaker 1: the other side more with John McLaughlin Matt Towery. These
Speaker 1: polls are fascinating eight hundred and by the way, they
Speaker 1: are our posters all throughout twenty twenty, the official posters
Speaker 1: of the Sean Hannity Show quick break right back, eight
Speaker 1: hundred ninety four one, Shawn, you want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program, we'll continue, all right. As we continue,
Speaker 1: our posters John McLaughlin and Matt Towery with us. All right,
Speaker 1: So they're gonna have this trial I assume in January. Okay?
Speaker 1: Does that continue the bleeding? And how do they manage that?
Speaker 1: Now as we're heading into the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire
Speaker 1: primary and South Carolina And who do you guys see
Speaker 1: winning on the Democratic side, John McLaughlin On the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: it's absolute chaos right now. It's really volatile. What you've
Speaker 1: seen the Warren surge in that state and Sanders come
Speaker 1: back up, and you've seen Buddha Judge have a little
Speaker 1: moment too. But there's really a primary going on between
Speaker 1: which moderate's going to come out ahead and which socialists,
Speaker 1: whether Warren or Standers, will come out ahead. And then
Speaker 1: you've got the minority vote of African Americans and Hispanics.
Speaker 1: So it's really volatile and the process. It all hurts
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden because he's the collateral damage in this
Speaker 1: impeachment scandal because of what he did in Ukraine, not
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump did So what do you think, Matt Towery,
Speaker 1: how does it shake out? Well, it's interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: we're beginning to see the emergence of sort of a
Speaker 1: Biden on one side and the Warren and Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: on the other, which of course they represent the extreme liberal,
Speaker 1: quote social side of the party. So as if that
Speaker 1: continues to emerge. Our theory early on, if you remember
Speaker 1: when we're talking about this in the spring and summer,
Speaker 1: was that that there'd be a consolidation between Sanders and Warren,
Speaker 1: someone would have to step aside, and then you'd end
Speaker 1: up having a very liberal nominee. Now I still have
Speaker 1: my eyes peeled onto all Patrick. I know he's not
Speaker 1: done anything yet, but I'm suspicious about his emergence because
Speaker 1: it came from nowhere, and I believe that if he
Speaker 1: had the right support, which would come from the Obama group,
Speaker 1: he could become a very viable candidate and a bit
Speaker 1: of a warrisome candidate for the president. But that hasn't
Speaker 1: developed yet. So as we stand right now, I think
Speaker 1: where we are is we're looking at Biden continuing to survive.
Speaker 1: I think you'll survive through several primaries. But when we
Speaker 1: get when we get further in, We're going to see
Speaker 1: either Warren or Sanders take control of that left side
Speaker 1: of the equation. And then the battle's going to be
Speaker 1: can the Centrist get a candidate or will it be
Speaker 1: an extreme George McGovern type nineteen seventy two nominee, which
Speaker 1: I still believe in the end is what we will see.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, our official poster Sean Hannity Radio Show
Speaker 1: eight hundred and nine four one Shawn is our number
Speaker 1: of Matt Towery and John McLaughlin. Thank you both. Will
Speaker 1: take a quick break. We have an awesome Hannity Tonight
Speaker 1: nineties start on the Fox News channel and we'll get
Speaker 1: to your calls on the other side. And so I
Speaker 1: was actually doing the finals, but I got to see
Speaker 1: enough of it, and certainly I spoke to my people.
Speaker 1: It's a witch hunt, it's a sham, it's a hoax.
Speaker 1: Nothing was done wrong, zero was done wrong. I think
Speaker 1: it's a horrible thing to be using the tool of impeachment,
Speaker 1: which is supposed to be used in an emergency, and
Speaker 1: it would seem many many many years apart, to be
Speaker 1: using this for a perfect phone call where the president
Speaker 1: of that country said there was no pressure whatsoever, didn't
Speaker 1: even know what we were talking about. It was perfect.
Speaker 1: The relationship is perfect. I've done much more for them
Speaker 1: than Obama did for them. It's a scam. It's something
Speaker 1: that shouldn't be allowed, and it's a very bad thing
Speaker 1: for our country. And you're trivializing impeachment. And I tell
Speaker 1: you what, someday there'll be a Democrat president and there'll
Speaker 1: be a Republican House, and I suspect they're going to
Speaker 1: remember it because when you do, when you use impeachment
Speaker 1: for absolutely nothing other than to try and get political gain,
Speaker 1: I think that the whole peachment thing hoax. I guess
Speaker 1: you could call it, because it is a hoax, and
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi knows it, by the way they duped her. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: she was on an interview and she said, we've been
Speaker 1: working on this for two and a half years, so
Speaker 1: she was working on it, in other words, two years
Speaker 1: before we ever spoke to you. Gran She said, we've
Speaker 1: been working on a peachment for two and a half years.
Speaker 1: And the reporter was shocked when they got this answer
Speaker 1: because it showed she's a liar. So it's a very
Speaker 1: sad thing for our country. But it seems to be
Speaker 1: very good for me politically. And again, those people, because
Speaker 1: I watched some of the dishonest, fake media, they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: the poles have remained the same. No, the polls have
Speaker 1: not remained the same. I think you understand that, John,
Speaker 1: The poles have gone through the roof for Trump because people,
Speaker 1: especially with independent voters and especially in swing states. I
Speaker 1: could show you numbers that nobody has ever seen numbers
Speaker 1: like this before. So the impeachment is a hoax. It's
Speaker 1: a sham. It started a long time ago, probably before
Speaker 1: I came down the escalator with the future first Lady.
Speaker 1: Started a long time ago. And when you look at
Speaker 1: the IG report and you look at these horrible FBI
Speaker 1: people talking about we've got to get them out. Insurance policies,
Speaker 1: you know, the insurance policies just in case she loses,
Speaker 1: meaning croocket Hillary, who's crooked, is a three dollar bill
Speaker 1: just in case crooked Hillary loses. We've got an insurance policy.
Speaker 1: But we've been going through the insurance policy now for
Speaker 1: three years. And it's a disgrace. All right. That's the
Speaker 1: President in his own words, And I don't know where
Speaker 1: the media is reporting the polls. They're missing the polls
Speaker 1: story on purpose, even a lot of them their own poles,
Speaker 1: they don't want to talk about the key findings and them,
Speaker 1: even as distorted as they are, it is tanking, it
Speaker 1: is cratering. There is a real palpable panic now within
Speaker 1: all Democratic circles. They can't get this out of the
Speaker 1: House fast enough. And in spite of Schumer, you know,
Speaker 1: putting on a show, it's already been established. The House
Speaker 1: does the impeaching. And then when they're done and they
Speaker 1: decide if they want to impeach the president, and then
Speaker 1: the Senate their role is to convict or quit. Well,
Speaker 1: even he realizes there's no evidence here and it's a
Speaker 1: laughing stock. And as they go forward and present their
Speaker 1: so called case, it'll again remind people there's no there there.
Speaker 1: How petty they are, How little to nothing they've done
Speaker 1: for the American people, you know, all this flurry of activity,
Speaker 1: last seconds, acting as though they're doing some work. Where
Speaker 1: have they been all year? What have they done except Russia? Russia, Russia. Stormy, impeach, impeach,
Speaker 1: impeach three years now. With that said, the President just
Speaker 1: keeps driving forward. He yes, he deals with this, Yes,
Speaker 1: he comments on this, and then he goes into one
Speaker 1: hundred meetings for the rest of the day. Or he's
Speaker 1: doing a new trade deal, or he's ending more burdensome bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: or he's figuring out other ways to get more moneys
Speaker 1: for the wall, or he's increasing defense spending, which we
Speaker 1: desperately needed thanks to the Obama military let down, and
Speaker 1: it goes from there. I mean, it's I've never see
Speaker 1: It's like a tale of two styles. And I think
Speaker 1: that all in all, the polls are now accurately reflecting
Speaker 1: that people have had it, and I think it only
Speaker 1: gets worse. And they so minimize what impeachment means anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't think it means a thing. It means nothing.
Speaker 1: I feel absolutely nothing about their stupid impeachment, Like that's
Speaker 1: who they are. This defines them. This in the end
Speaker 1: hurts them because when you are in power, you did
Speaker 1: nothing except destroy the economy and give mullahs an Iran
Speaker 1: a ton of money and draw red lines in the
Speaker 1: sand that you never meant and promise putin you'll be
Speaker 1: more flexible after you're reelected. And boy, what wouldn't I
Speaker 1: love to pay for that transcript. Anyone want to sell
Speaker 1: that transcript, and we supposedly those are records of that, right,
Speaker 1: we have records of these phone calls. Well, why don't
Speaker 1: why does an Obama the spirit of transparency release the
Speaker 1: calls with Putin and the Mullahs in Iran and the
Speaker 1: leaders of Iran and elsewhere around the world. And you know,
Speaker 1: I just see it all turning. This is now taken
Speaker 1: on a life of its own. There they are now
Speaker 1: locked into who they are, lazy, obsessed Trump hating do
Speaker 1: nothing democrats, the new extreme radical democratic socialist Party. With
Speaker 1: very few exceptions, there'll be a few people that say,
Speaker 1: you're not getting me to go over the cliff with you.
Speaker 1: You want to do you want to commit political suicide?
Speaker 1: You go right ahead. This is not what I signed
Speaker 1: up for. Your political games. Now, all the others are
Speaker 1: capitulating and they're getting a little pat on the back.
Speaker 1: That's a good that's a good little congresswoman, our congressmen,
Speaker 1: and you did good and you listen everything we told
Speaker 1: you to do. By the way, it was nice meeting you.
Speaker 1: Because you're going to probably be gone after the election
Speaker 1: day by November fourth, you're gonna regret this decision. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to our phones. Chat is in Indiana. Chat.
Speaker 1: How are you glad you called sir Hey Sean Drake
Speaker 1: to speak with you. You want to wish you are
Speaker 1: early merry Christmas? Same to you, my friend. What's going on?
Speaker 1: I love the line you're taking in the thing. My
Speaker 1: biggest thing in my heart is that the line has
Speaker 1: been crossed for any of these moderate Dems in these
Speaker 1: swing stakes to come back later and say that they
Speaker 1: were against the sham. We see them for who they are,
Speaker 1: who they truly are liberal party hacks. The whole sham
Speaker 1: was nothing but taking our tax payer money and funding
Speaker 1: for opposition research. And I wanted to leave you with
Speaker 1: the question, um I and I so appreciate you. But
Speaker 1: so my question is this, in the midst of all
Speaker 1: of this abuse of power that they were solemnly entrusted with,
Speaker 1: that we the people gave them. Who has been fighting
Speaker 1: for us, the forgotten men and women that get up
Speaker 1: every day and work and pay our bills and want
Speaker 1: to see our kids have a better life than we had,
Speaker 1: our wages crumbling and infrastructure crumbling, the opuloid epidemic. We
Speaker 1: all see what the Democrats only concern is the precious
Speaker 1: progressive liberal agenda. The only ones fighting for us is
Speaker 1: Trump and those who stood by him through this. You, um,
Speaker 1: some of the other greats that I don't want to
Speaker 1: speak on your show because um, but I put you
Speaker 1: in the Big three, um with Rush and and uh um,
Speaker 1: thank me, God bless us. Mark Levin, I've been just
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, Mark Levin, That's the one I was thinking
Speaker 1: my mind with. Nobody else is gonna say it there,
Speaker 1: said Mark Levin, So so so in all this, in
Speaker 1: the midst of all the who's fighting for us? The
Speaker 1: American people? I mean, it's like they've completely forgotten it.
Speaker 1: They're so incest. You know what I love about the
Speaker 1: President's style and I don't know what it is, but
Speaker 1: it's like the more they hate him, the more I
Speaker 1: like him. The more I like that he doesn't take
Speaker 1: their crap, the more I like that he fights with them,
Speaker 1: And the more that I like that he goes about
Speaker 1: the business of governing the country and keeping his promises.
Speaker 1: That's refreshing. You know, there's a lot of things that
Speaker 1: the factor into elections. Peace and prosperity always a big factor,
Speaker 1: and every economic measure, not only is holding strong, but
Speaker 1: all the talking of recession is now gone away, and
Speaker 1: we've had a major turnaround. We have all these millions
Speaker 1: of jobs created, millions of Americans off of food stamps,
Speaker 1: the best job situation since nineteen sixty nine, every demographic
Speaker 1: in the country, our entire American families benefiting from these
Speaker 1: good policies. And you just you see and you can
Speaker 1: pair and your contract. People are now used to his style.
Speaker 1: He's not the guy that fights day and night to
Speaker 1: keep his promises. Doesn't say, oh, okay, I'm going on
Speaker 1: Twitter now, I'm going to turn the fight switch off.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work that way. You are who you are,
Speaker 1: and he's sort of such the anti politician. Is what
Speaker 1: you see is what you get. All these other pretentious,
Speaker 1: self righteous, sanctimonious people. They usually present one face in public,
Speaker 1: but behind closed doors they're nothing like that. And that's
Speaker 1: the opposite. American knew what. Look, I'll tell you right now,
Speaker 1: America needed this disruption. This disruption has been great, and
Speaker 1: I'm telling you what's going to end up happening here.
Speaker 1: This is going to be the new norm. Old establishment
Speaker 1: republicanism is dead. America first is alive and well fighting
Speaker 1: for the forgotten men and women alive and well looking,
Speaker 1: getting out of foreign conflicts, long engagements. That day is
Speaker 1: coming gone on. Why do you think the president's going
Speaker 1: to spend eight hundred billion on new weaponry? Well, because
Speaker 1: it's the next generation. We're not gonna have to send
Speaker 1: our sons and daughters banging on doors. This is transformational.
Speaker 1: You know this idiot that supported part Judge Gregg, you
Speaker 1: know establishment figure critical of me, and I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump's not a conservative. I'm like, well, or a Republican.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I don't think he is either. Actually, he's
Speaker 1: a registered Republican. I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative.
Speaker 1: Originalist on the court that's conservative. The largest tax cuts
Speaker 1: in history, that's conservative. Securing the border that's conservative. Energy
Speaker 1: independence that's conservative. You know, ending burdens and bureaucracy, that's conservative.
Speaker 1: If we're gonna win overwhelming force in war and conflict,
Speaker 1: win it. He beat the Caliphate, He beat Baghdaddy. Baghdaddy's
Speaker 1: dead along with four of his other top lieutenants. That
Speaker 1: is a conservative way to fight, in my view. Eric
Speaker 1: is in California. Eric, are you good? How are you
Speaker 1: doing today? Sean good? What's going on? Oh, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to wish you a merry Christmas and thank you
Speaker 1: again for another great year's hard work. Thank you well,
Speaker 1: you make this happen. And boy, I'm gonna rest up
Speaker 1: after this silly impeachment thing, and then we're gonna come
Speaker 1: back with all cylinders firing right on time. And they
Speaker 1: answer the previous Colors question, you're the one out there
Speaker 1: fighting for us smelly shoppers. I hate to tell you
Speaker 1: I am one of those smelly shoppers. So you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't understand one thing. Why when
Speaker 1: I go to a store. You know, my work is
Speaker 1: in public every but it's the same as everybody else where.
Speaker 1: We all are in the service industry. You create goods
Speaker 1: of the services for people. Mind's news and information, hopefully
Speaker 1: with a dose of entertainment once in a while. And people,
Speaker 1: what are you doing here? I'm like shopping and they're like, well,
Speaker 1: why do you shop? Yes? Why because I like to
Speaker 1: eat or I like, you know, I buy somebody at
Speaker 1: present or something. I don't know. Yes, because the Democrats
Speaker 1: have someone else do all their shopping for them. You have,
Speaker 1: no they just they just shop with our money. That's
Speaker 1: there's the big difference. Oh yeah, that's right. Do an
Speaker 1: impeachment on our money as well. Exactly. You have some
Speaker 1: wonderful guest speakers when you're on vacation, and I was
Speaker 1: wondering if you would consider giving Wind a day to
Speaker 1: do her own show. You know, She's like, no, you know,
Speaker 1: here's the problem. Well, the fines will be so great.
Speaker 1: There's not enough dump time built into this show to
Speaker 1: allow her to do her show. It. I think I
Speaker 1: think she'd do great. She's always welcome to do it
Speaker 1: if she wants to try it. She's got a great
Speaker 1: voice and she can talk to talk just with best
Speaker 1: of them. Well, first of all, first of all, let
Speaker 1: me first of all tell you that no no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: no no no, let me let me do the talking.
Speaker 1: I'm talking here first of all. Exactly. Anyway, thanks for
Speaker 1: the request, Eric, We appreciate your being out there. Laurie Illinois.
Speaker 1: Next Sean Hannity Show. What's up, Laurie, Hi there, Sean
Speaker 1: wanted to see. I loved your show with Levin last night.
Speaker 1: Watch that was really good. Oh, thank you. I wanted
Speaker 1: to just wake one point about Pelosi. Everybody's discussing if
Speaker 1: they're going to have the votes or not. In the House,
Speaker 1: I think it's a mute comment because you know, darn well,
Speaker 1: she's going to have those votes and we're going to
Speaker 1: have quick pro quote. But on her side, she's the one,
Speaker 1: I'm sure promising everyone, you know, all of the Democrats promising, blackmailing, bribing,
Speaker 1: doing whatever it is to make sure she's got those votes. Listen,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what Congress does all the time.
Speaker 1: That's true. There's a lot of that, which is a
Speaker 1: good point I wish I thought of. They're always saying, well,
Speaker 1: you vote for us here, we'll be able to help out.
Speaker 1: What do you need in your district? Again, Oh, you
Speaker 1: have soybeans in your district. Well we could probably help
Speaker 1: the soybean farming industry if you help us with this vote. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of that that goes on. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be blaming Trump for anything that they're doing. Anyway.
Speaker 1: It's all quid pro quo. You support my spending in
Speaker 1: my district, I'll support the spending in your district. You
Speaker 1: have a quid and a pro and a quote like Joe,
Speaker 1: It's amazing, Yes, sir, definitely, you have a Merry Christmas Fan,
Speaker 1: I'll be gotta keep listening and watching. Thank you. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna rest up after this stupid impeachment which is keeping
Speaker 1: me on my vacation week and not making me happy
Speaker 1: because it's a waste of our time. It is hurting
Speaker 1: the country anyway. Hannity Tonight, nine Eastern, Uh Wow from
Speaker 1: the FISA court, a beatdown based on the FBI abuse
Speaker 1: of power and there is now going to be accountability. Uh.
Speaker 1: The latest on the impeachment charade, of course, Greg Jared,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, Matt Gates, Congressman Scalise tonight. Uh. Senator Ron
Speaker 1: Johnson's going to join us time. He's been really good lately,
Speaker 1: Lara Logan, Sean Spicer, and buckle up for crazy impeach
Speaker 1: bed day tomorrow and then you'll go home with your family,
Speaker 1: and then you'll vote in three hundred and twenty two
Speaker 1: days and then we'll start all over again. All right,
Speaker 1: have a good night. We'll see you tonight at nine.
Speaker 1: Back here tomorrow.