Speaker 1: There's a special prosecutor that's been announced. So who is
Speaker 1: this prosecutor and where did he come from. We're gonna
Speaker 1: give you the details on that. Also, a major spinning
Speaker 1: bill working its way through Congress. What does it actually
Speaker 1: mean and why is no one talking about it? Plus
Speaker 1: Democrats had some interesting things to say about your guns
Speaker 1: over the holidays, and some dark messages about Thanksgiving. This
Speaker 1: is verdict Sentator, Ted Cruz Sentator, gonna have me back
Speaker 1: with you after Thanksgiving. I hope you had a great
Speaker 1: time with your family. I know you played some basketball
Speaker 1: and beat up on some younger family members, so we
Speaker 1: should have that moment to gloat for you. Well, my nephew, Diego,
Speaker 1: who's now twenty three, I've been playing basketball with us
Speaker 1: since he was about three. I will say he was
Speaker 1: captain of his high school team and he's a very
Speaker 1: good ball player. And so we went out Friday, played
Speaker 1: about three hours, so there's good news and bad news.
Speaker 1: We went to his old high school gym. I teamed
Speaker 1: up with a coach. There. We played old guys against
Speaker 1: young guys. Old guys won. In fact, we won repeatedly.
Speaker 1: I think I think one game we won fifty to four,
Speaker 1: not that you were, not that you're keeping count at all, right, well,
Speaker 1: of course us. But the depressing thing is then at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, after about two hours of hoops,
Speaker 1: we then I then played Diego one on one for
Speaker 1: about an hour and unfortunately he beat me. Now, now
Speaker 1: it was it was pretty even for a kid who's
Speaker 1: twenty three and as a heck of a ball player.
Speaker 1: The last game he beat me sixteen fourteen. We played
Speaker 1: a fifteen win by two, So I was pretty happy
Speaker 1: with that. If I hadn't screwed up and missed a layup,
Speaker 1: I would have beaten him. But I screwed up in
Speaker 1: missed a layup. Say, I know that this will be
Speaker 1: admitted from the podcast probably about ten years from now,
Speaker 1: right when the scores changed. So we enjoyed the moment
Speaker 1: while absolutely all right. So a lot of people over
Speaker 1: the holidays took a break, and there was some news
Speaker 1: that broke right before Thanksgiving, and it was news about
Speaker 1: the special prosecutor looking at Donald Trump. And then we
Speaker 1: got the name of the guy who's going to be
Speaker 1: the special prosecutor. And the question is, obviously who is
Speaker 1: this guy? We now know something about him. We know
Speaker 1: that he's one not an unbiased guy, which is exactly
Speaker 1: what they tried to claim when they announced a special prosecutor.
Speaker 1: And two, he's a guy that also had deep connections
Speaker 1: to the lowest learner and the irs when they were
Speaker 1: targeting conservative and Tea party groups. Now, if that's your resume,
Speaker 1: so exactly a guy that's unbiased, it sounds like they
Speaker 1: brought in a killer to take down Donald Trump, using
Speaker 1: the government and everything that he could have his disposal
Speaker 1: with a special prosecutor. Well, I think they're five things
Speaker 1: to know about Jack Smith, and they're all relevant, they're
Speaker 1: all important, and they're all being underreported by the corporate media.
Speaker 1: Number One, remember this guy was hand selected by Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: Marek Garland could have appointed any special prosecutor he wanted.
Speaker 1: He picked Jack Smith. Marick Garland knows exactly what he's doing.
Speaker 1: The hard partisans at DOJ know exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 1: They appointed Jack Smith to indict Donald Trump. That's why
Speaker 1: he's in there, is to bring the indictment and to
Speaker 1: prosecute him. It was the deliberate choice of partisans at DOJ. Now,
Speaker 1: how do we know that their choice was actually a
Speaker 1: good one? From the perspective of a left wing partisan.
Speaker 1: Well for other facts, when Smith was head of the
Speaker 1: Public Integrity Unit, this is actually not the first presidential
Speaker 1: candidate or potential presidential candidate Smith is prosecuted. Smith his
Speaker 1: office led the prosecution of Bob McDonald. Bob McDonald was
Speaker 1: the governor of Virginia. The time he was governor of Virginia,
Speaker 1: he was viewed as a credible and even a serious
Speaker 1: potential Republican presidential candidate. And then Jack Smith's office prosecuted him.
Speaker 1: They prosecuted him for essentially bribery. And there was a
Speaker 1: big donor in Virginia that had given a series of
Speaker 1: gifts to McDonald and his wife that that certainly looked
Speaker 1: in proper and raised significant questions about at least appearances.
Speaker 1: But Smith got a conviction convicted him of multiple federal counts.
Speaker 1: That case went to the US Supreme Court. Do you
Speaker 1: know what the US Supreme Court did with it? I'm
Speaker 1: guessing it was probably one of those moments they said no,
Speaker 1: so they reversed the conviction. And what do you think
Speaker 1: the vote was in the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction?
Speaker 1: Only because I feel like I haven't said her information here.
Speaker 1: It was not good if you were on the team
Speaker 1: of the prosecution trying to go after him. Well, the
Speaker 1: vote was unanimous. It was nine to zero. And that
Speaker 1: means every single justice, all of them, including the left
Speaker 1: wing justices, voted to vacate the conviction. Now, let me
Speaker 1: tell you why what happened. You had this donor that
Speaker 1: gave gifts to the governor and his wife. But in
Speaker 1: order to convict him, you had to show that the
Speaker 1: governor did an official act, essentially, that it was bribery
Speaker 1: in exchange for an official act like signing a bill
Speaker 1: or vetoing a bill or issuing an order. Well, he
Speaker 1: didn't do any of that. What he did is he
Speaker 1: set up a couple of meetings and he hosted a party.
Speaker 1: And the theory of Jack Smith's office was that was
Speaker 1: enough to be bribery. And here's what the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts troth the opinion. It's a unanimous opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to read it. Setting up a meeting,
Speaker 1: hosting an event, or calling an official or agreeing to
Speaker 1: do so merely to talk about research study to gather
Speaker 1: additional information, however, does not qualify as a decision or
Speaker 1: action on the pending question of whether to initiate the study.
Speaker 1: Simply expressing support for the research study at a meeting
Speaker 1: event or call, or sending a subordinate to such a
Speaker 1: meeting event or call similarly does not qualify as a
Speaker 1: decision or action skipping forward. Otherwise, if every action somehow
Speaker 1: related to the research study were quote an official act,
Speaker 1: the requirement that a public official make a decision or
Speaker 1: take an action on that study or agree to do
Speaker 1: so would be meaningless. Now let me tell you a
Speaker 1: little bit more about what the unanimous Spring Court said.
Speaker 1: Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials
Speaker 1: on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.
Speaker 1: The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials
Speaker 1: were here from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns.
Speaker 1: Whether it is the union official worried about a plant
Speaker 1: closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five
Speaker 1: days to restore power to their nameborhood after a storm.
Speaker 1: The government's position would cast Apaul a potential prosecution over
Speaker 1: these relationships. If the union had given a campaign contribution
Speaker 1: in the past, or the homeowners invited the official to
Speaker 1: join them in the annual outing at the ballgame. Officials
Speaker 1: might wonder whether they could respond to even the most
Speaker 1: commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might
Speaker 1: shrink from participating in democratic discourse. Now, who all agreed
Speaker 1: with this? Let me turn to the next paragraph of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court opinion. This concern is substantial. White House counsel,
Speaker 1: who worked in every administration from that of President Reagan
Speaker 1: to President Obama, warned that the government's quote breathtaking expansion
Speaker 1: of public corruption law would likely chill federal officials interactions
Speaker 1: with people they serve and thus damage their ability to
Speaker 1: effectively perform their duties. Six former Virginia attorneys general for
Speaker 1: Democrat and two Republicans also filed an amicus brief in
Speaker 1: this course, echoing those concerns, as did seventy seven former
Speaker 1: state attorneys general from states other than Virginia, forty one Democrats,
Speaker 1: thirty five Republicans, and one independent. Now I want you
Speaker 1: to realize that means the guy who's been appointed to
Speaker 1: head this led a prosecution against someone who was a
Speaker 1: sitting governor, against someone who was a serious presidential candidate.
Speaker 1: It ended his presidential candidacy and his career in essence
Speaker 1: ended his career, and he got the entire thing thrown
Speaker 1: out unanimously by the Supreme Court as a breathtaking expansion
Speaker 1: of federal authority. That's who Merrick Garland is appointed. Almost
Speaker 1: no one has reported on this fact. That's a pretty
Speaker 1: bad initial characteristic. But there's more. You mentioned, Lois Learner. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's talk about Lewis Lerner, Senator. I want to go
Speaker 1: into the media and how they're covering this. But before
Speaker 1: we get to that, I want to tell everybody about
Speaker 1: our amazing sponsor, Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone,
Speaker 1: and nine nine percent of Americans do, how would you
Speaker 1: like to know that with every phone call you make,
Speaker 1: you're supporting conservative causes. Well that's what Patriot Mobile does.
Speaker 1: And they use the same cell towers that you're on
Speaker 1: right now, meaning you get the same exact coverage that
Speaker 1: you're getting right now. Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian
Speaker 1: conservative mobile phone provider. They are a force for conservative values.
Speaker 1: Why because they take a portion of every bill that
Speaker 1: you pay and they find conservative causes, candidates and organizations
Speaker 1: that believe in the sanctity of life, freedom of speech,
Speaker 1: and the Second Amendment, and they're winning. If you're ready
Speaker 1: to have your dollars matter when you're paying a bill,
Speaker 1: switch to Patriot Mobile. They can save you money over
Speaker 1: what you're paying right now. They can save you and
Speaker 1: your family money, and they even can save your business
Speaker 1: or small business money because they have an entire section
Speaker 1: of the business that's just dedicated to businesses. They offer
Speaker 1: the same nation wide coverage as all the other major carriers,
Speaker 1: but the difference is you actually get to stand up
Speaker 1: for what you believe in every time you pay that bill.
Speaker 1: So go online to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict. You'll get free activation
Speaker 1: and other major offers and you can call them nine
Speaker 1: to seven to Patriot. That's nine seven to Patriot, use
Speaker 1: the promo code Verdict. All right, now, Well, let's go
Speaker 1: back and remind people because they may have forgotten where
Speaker 1: what Hulois owner was, what was going on at the time,
Speaker 1: what administration was in charge. When you use the the
Speaker 1: irs to go after an attack conservative and Tea party
Speaker 1: groups and Christian groups, groups of faith, just because you
Speaker 1: wanted to silence him and the federal government was used
Speaker 1: to do this. Well, that's right. So this is during
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, and what happened during the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: Lois Learner headed a section of the IRS that the
Speaker 1: Treasury Inspector General called out for improperly targeting TEA Party groups,
Speaker 1: conservative groups, pro life groups, pro Israel groups, and for
Speaker 1: persecuting them. And it's worth noting. So my new book
Speaker 1: that just came out, Justice Corrupted, how the Left has
Speaker 1: weaponized the legal system. There's an entire chapter called the
Speaker 1: IRS Comes Knocking that details and lays this out. So
Speaker 1: I would encourage folks go by the book Justice Corrupted.
Speaker 1: You can read all about this. But you know today's
Speaker 1: sort of fevered partisan pitch. Democrats might say, oh, there
Speaker 1: was no IRS scandal. Well, you know who disagrees with that,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama. Barack Obama. Here's what Barack Obama said publicly.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm reading from the New York Times
Speaker 1: quote Americans have a right to be angry about it,
Speaker 1: and I'm angry about it. This is a quote from Obama.
Speaker 1: It should not matter what political stripe you're from. The
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate
Speaker 1: with absolute integrity. So that's what Obama said the day
Speaker 1: after the Treasury Inspector General report came out. So he
Speaker 1: was embarrassed. They were caught weaponizing the IRS and targeting
Speaker 1: their opponents. Now what happened subsequently too, And by the way,
Speaker 1: it was a brilliant point in his career when he
Speaker 1: had that press conference. He played it perfectly politically because
Speaker 1: he came out and looked like he was angry. How
Speaker 1: dare the government do this? How dare the irs do this?
Speaker 1: I'm angry, this is wrong. I'm on your side, America,
Speaker 1: even though he was the guy that was in charge
Speaker 1: of them actually doing this. And yet understand the timing. Also,
Speaker 1: the Tea Party rose up in two thousand and nine
Speaker 1: and two and ten in response to Obama's excesses. In
Speaker 1: two thousand and ten, we had a tidal wave election
Speaker 1: retook the House with a massive majority that was fueled
Speaker 1: by the Tea Party. Yeah, Obama was going into his
Speaker 1: reelect in twenty twelve, and he was worried about the
Speaker 1: Tea Party. He was worried about millions of Americans he
Speaker 1: had angered. Look, I got elected in twenty twelve. I
Speaker 1: was elected by the Tea Party those activists. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be in the Senate without the Tea Party and so
Speaker 1: the IRS targeting the Tea Party it was a very
Speaker 1: real political threat that the White House was concerned about
Speaker 1: that they sicked the government on to try to stop
Speaker 1: and it had a real effect. These activists began getting subpoenas,
Speaker 1: began getting investigations, began spending thousands and tens and hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees I detail in
Speaker 1: the book Justice Corrupted how Tea Party activists It wasn't
Speaker 1: just the IRS, OSHA FED. All sorts of federal agencies
Speaker 1: would descend upon them as they used the muscle the
Speaker 1: machinery of the federal government to target their enemies. Well
Speaker 1: what's Jack Smith's involvement in this, Well, he is at
Speaker 1: the time the head of the Public Integrity Unit at
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. Can you explain what that unit
Speaker 1: supposed to do in general? Because it sounds like it's
Speaker 1: a do good or position. It sounds like this is
Speaker 1: above reproach kind of position. Why would we even bring
Speaker 1: that up that that's where he was. So so it's
Speaker 1: an important role, but it's a role that prosecutes public officials,
Speaker 1: So whether Democrats or Republicans, when there's official corruption, when
Speaker 1: there's bribery, the job of it is, look if you
Speaker 1: if you have a crook in office who's on the take,
Speaker 1: they ought to be prosecuted and sent to jail. So
Speaker 1: that's an important office. The question is what kind of
Speaker 1: job did Jack Smith do when he ran it? And
Speaker 1: we know number one, he went after Bob McDonald and
Speaker 1: the unanimous Supreme Courts slapped him down for a breathtakingly
Speaker 1: overbroad reading of the law. That does not that's not
Speaker 1: a point in his column unless you want a partisan
Speaker 1: to go after Donald Trump, in which case it's a
Speaker 1: great point in his column if if you're looking at
Speaker 1: it from a left wing partisan lens. But but how
Speaker 1: about Lois Lerner? So in twenty ten, The New York
Speaker 1: Times wrote an article entitled donor Names Remain Secret as
Speaker 1: rules Shift, which opened with an anecdote about a conservative group,
Speaker 1: and that was much of the basis for what Lois
Speaker 1: Lerner did subsequently targeting the irs. What did Jack Smith do?
Speaker 1: After reading it, Smith wrote to DJO colleagues and let
Speaker 1: me quote check out the article on the front page
Speaker 1: of the New York Times regarding misuse of nonprofits for
Speaker 1: indirectly funding campaigns. This seems egregious to me. Could we
Speaker 1: ever charge eighteen USC. Section three seventy one conspiracy to
Speaker 1: violate laws of the USA for misuse of such nonprofits
Speaker 1: to get around existing campaign finance laws and limits. IRS
Speaker 1: Commissioner Sarah ingram oversees these groups, let's discuss tomorrow, but
Speaker 1: maybe we should try to set up a meeting. So
Speaker 1: he saw this and said, hey, let's go after these
Speaker 1: tea party groups. Let's set up a meeting. Let's go
Speaker 1: after them and an opportunity. He sought to basically abuse
Speaker 1: the office which he was supposed to be in that
Speaker 1: was supposed to be looking at corruption of the fish.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the IRS in turn sent twenty
Speaker 1: one discs containing one point one million pages of nonprofit
Speaker 1: tax return information, including confidential taxpayer information, to the FBI
Speaker 1: in advance of this meeting with lois Lerner. The documents
Speaker 1: were sent to then FBI Supervisory Special Agent Bryan's Fitzpatrick.
Speaker 1: The fact that Jack Smith's reaction to this is let's
Speaker 1: get another overbroad interpretation of the law to go persecute
Speaker 1: and notice he's not concerned about people on the left.
Speaker 1: He's not concerned about Democrat dark money. He's concerned about
Speaker 1: the same conservatives that Lois Lerner was targeting, the same
Speaker 1: political enemies of the Obama White House. And by the way,
Speaker 1: here's what the Treasurer Inspector General concluded in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: Quote the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review
Speaker 1: TEA Party and other organizations. And when the IRS settled
Speaker 1: the case, ultimately, the IRS explicitly admitted that his actions
Speaker 1: quote were wrong and quote for such treatment, the IRS
Speaker 1: expresses its sincere apology. You know, it didn't happen. Lois
Speaker 1: Learner was never prosecuted, which if you go back to
Speaker 1: there were Republicans that were calling for a special prosecutor
Speaker 1: back then. To look at all this, you're talking to
Speaker 1: one of us who loudly called for a special prosecutor.
Speaker 1: And that's the first time you probably heard this guy's
Speaker 1: name because they kept using his own words as part
Speaker 1: of the reason why they said we need a special
Speaker 1: prosecutor for the way that he was acting. Well, and
Speaker 1: it's even more than that. So the Inspector General report
Speaker 1: comes out, the President of the United States says he's
Speaker 1: angry in the American people have a right to be angry.
Speaker 1: Eric Holder is the Attorney General, incredibly at the time,
Speaker 1: the most partisan attorney general would ever had until Lorenda Lencha,
Speaker 1: now until Merrick Garland. They keep ratcheting it up and
Speaker 1: getting more and more partisan. Eric Holder, when this happened,
Speaker 1: pointed not a special prosecutor, but just appointed a prosecutor
Speaker 1: withindoj to examine it. That prosecutor happened to be a
Speaker 1: major donor to Democrats, a woman, I think her name
Speaker 1: was Barbara Bossman, if I remember correctly, who had given
Speaker 1: over six thousand dollars to Obama and to the DNC.
Speaker 1: I stood on the Senate floor and publicly called on
Speaker 1: Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor who was not,
Speaker 1: in fact a major donor to democratsdojag nort it. Not
Speaker 1: only that when Lois Lerner was subpoened and came before
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, she pled the fifth she refused
Speaker 1: to testify. The House of Representatives voted to hold her
Speaker 1: in contempt of Congress. You know what never happened. She
Speaker 1: would never prosecuted for a contempt of Congress. You know why,
Speaker 1: because the only person that can prosecute is the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: is the Department of Justice, and Eric Holder refused to prosecutor.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Eric Holder was held in contempt
Speaker 1: of Congress, never prosecuted. Amazingly enough, he chose not to
Speaker 1: prosecute himself. I mean, the corruption is deep, but it's
Speaker 1: not just that. So you have number one, Jack Smith
Speaker 1: is handpicked by Merrick Garland. You have number two the
Speaker 1: debacle of the failed prosecution of Bob McDonald unanimously reversed
Speaker 1: by the US Supreme Court. You have number three Smith's
Speaker 1: involvement and significant involvement in the cover up of Lois
Speaker 1: Lerner and the irs targeting of Conservatives and the refusal
Speaker 1: to prosecute it. But you have something else also, you
Speaker 1: have his wife. Now, who is his wife? Looked, normally
Speaker 1: someone's spouse shouldn't be central to it. But his wife.
Speaker 1: You know what, His wife reminds me of. His wife
Speaker 1: reminds me of the prosecutor that Eric Holder chose his wife.
Speaker 1: It turns out like that prosecutor is a donor, a
Speaker 1: donor to whom to Joe Biden, what year twenty twenty
Speaker 1: his wife gave a thousand dollars to Joe Biden. Okay,
Speaker 1: so she's a Democrat. She supported Joe Biden, she's opposed Trump,
Speaker 1: all right, A lot of people fall into that category.
Speaker 1: There are whole bunch of people that gave money to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. That's not necessarily disqualifying. What else did she do?
Speaker 1: She was a producer of a documentary on Michelle Obama
Speaker 1: entitled Becoming Now you start getting out there, Wait a second,
Speaker 1: she's a donor to Biden. She's a producer of a documentary.
Speaker 1: I would ask even look, ask yourself, how many partisan
Speaker 1: democrats do you know? Yeah? Did any of them produce
Speaker 1: a movie a puff piece on Obama? No? And by
Speaker 1: the way, that's not the only movie she produced. She
Speaker 1: also produced a movie called Dark Money, which is an
Speaker 1: attack on Citizens United, an attack on free speech. So
Speaker 1: his wife, as a MovieMaker, has been an activist, but
Speaker 1: a left wing activist that is both pumping up democratic
Speaker 1: politicians and also leading the propaganda effort to tear down
Speaker 1: the ability of individuals to speak in the political world.
Speaker 1: And those individuals are almost always on the right, the
Speaker 1: left opposed is sure. Suddenly you read his comments a
Speaker 1: little bit differently that when Jack Smith is reading The
Speaker 1: New York Times. He says, hey, can we creatively prosecute
Speaker 1: them and go after them? This is a prosecutor who
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland put in there for one purpose and one
Speaker 1: purpose only, and that is to indict and to prosecute
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And it is the weaponization of the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, and I think it's disgraceful. Let's go back
Speaker 1: to the prosecution of Bob that you mentioned a moment ago,
Speaker 1: and how important that is, because the people need to
Speaker 1: understand the definition of success here is just getting an indictment.
Speaker 1: Even if you get him in indictment and you prosecute
Speaker 1: and you find him guilty, right, that would be a dream.
Speaker 1: But if it gets overthrown down the road, does it
Speaker 1: really matter, Because, as you mentioned, Bob's career was over
Speaker 1: the moment he got indicted, really the moment they started
Speaker 1: the investigation. You don't come back from that. And so
Speaker 1: my point is it's not necessarily putting Donald Trump in jail.
Speaker 1: They just as you said, just want to indict them.
Speaker 1: They want to do it in a place it's going
Speaker 1: to be easy. We mentioned that on the last podcast
Speaker 1: when we talked about this, and then it's just saying okay,
Speaker 1: we'll keep you out of the White House. That is success.
Speaker 1: They hate Donald Trump, but they also have a self
Speaker 1: righteous certitude that they believe what they are doing is
Speaker 1: just and good, and therefore everything in the furtherance of
Speaker 1: it is just and good as well anything that hurts
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, or for that matter, hurts Republicans. Remember, this
Speaker 1: is the same Merit Garland that has signed off as
Speaker 1: authored a memo to the FBI telling them to target
Speaker 1: parents as domestic terrorists if they speak up at school boards.
Speaker 1: This is the same Merrick Garland that has authorized FBI
Speaker 1: agents to storm the homes of pro life activists with
Speaker 1: machine guns drawn at the crack of dawn while their
Speaker 1: children scream in the background. The left and part of
Speaker 1: the reason they do this is because the corporate media
Speaker 1: doesn't report on it. So the facts I'm talking about
Speaker 1: it had no one's talked about it. Have you seen?
Speaker 1: You can read it in something like the Washington Examine,
Speaker 1: or you can read it on right wing media. But
Speaker 1: where's ABCCBS, NBC. How come they haven't talked about the
Speaker 1: failed Bob McDonald prosecution And why did Biden put the
Speaker 1: guy in charge of that by the way, why not
Speaker 1: go interview the guy and go what did this doud
Speaker 1: your career? Would this dud your life? Would this doud
Speaker 1: your family? How much did it cost you financially? Where's
Speaker 1: that profile piece that should have immediately come out? Hey,
Speaker 1: you were prosecuted by this individual. This is what they
Speaker 1: did to you. It all got overturned. Did you ever
Speaker 1: get your life back? And the answer I think we
Speaker 1: all know would be no, I didn't get my life back. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I will say so. Trump put out a statement blasting
Speaker 1: Smith and in particular focusing on his wife, and immediately
Speaker 1: the left has risen up. How dare you attack his wife?
Speaker 1: And listen, If that were the only criticism, it would
Speaker 1: raise questions, but it might not alone be disqualifying when
Speaker 1: you put his wife being a Democrat don or his
Speaker 1: wife producing a movie on Barack Obama, his wife producing
Speaker 1: a propaganda film on on so called dark money, on
Speaker 1: top of leading the failed McDonald prosecution unanimously reversed by
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and Smith's deep involvement in the lowest
Speaker 1: learner scandal. You know, it's like, actually, I don't even
Speaker 1: have to say what it is like. It is almost
Speaker 1: exactly like what Merrick Garland did, which is taking the
Speaker 1: person in charge of the troit Field office of the FBI,
Speaker 1: who had the absolute disgrace of a sham going after
Speaker 1: the people that allegedly targeted Governor Gretchen Whitman to kidnap
Speaker 1: and murder. And when that story broke, we were horrified, said, okay,
Speaker 1: if they want to kidnap and murder someone, they should
Speaker 1: go to jail for a long long time. Well doj
Speaker 1: brought the prosecution and ended up everyone they prosecuted. Not
Speaker 1: a single one they took to trial was convicted on
Speaker 1: any account. And the reason, the basis for their getting
Speaker 1: off was entrapment. That the FBI had essentially suggested the
Speaker 1: idea and was pushing the idea the special agent in
Speaker 1: charge of that office. That I mean, you want to
Speaker 1: talk about one of the ugliest black eyes on the FBI.
Speaker 1: That and again I discuss this at length and justice corrupted?
Speaker 1: What did what did Merrick Garland do? That special agent
Speaker 1: was moved to DC and put in charge of the
Speaker 1: January six prosecutions, again going after the political enemies of
Speaker 1: the Biden White House. You do your political work well,
Speaker 1: no matter what the outcome is we give you a promotion,
Speaker 1: but even worse, you do your political work horribly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you demonstrate you're a partisan, even though you're an incompetent partisan,
Speaker 1: and you lose either having the jury throughout your case
Speaker 1: or having the Supreme Court unanimously throughout your case. That's fine.
Speaker 1: Your job is to be a pitbull and bite. What
Speaker 1: happens next is not your concern. That's what how this, Biden,
Speaker 1: and we'll give you your next big keep biting. That's
Speaker 1: the job they expect is attack, attack, attack, facts be damned,
Speaker 1: lawb damned, and that is incredibly dangerous. Last question on
Speaker 1: this before we move on to the spending bill. That's important,
Speaker 1: but I think people want to know how does this
Speaker 1: move forward now? Is it gonna be quick? What's the
Speaker 1: timetable here? Or do they drag it out and try
Speaker 1: to hold over Trump's head since he's decided he's going
Speaker 1: to run president, or do they try to get him
Speaker 1: indicted quickly and then try to actually go to a trial.
Speaker 1: I mean, give us your guests on the playbook here
Speaker 1: of what they're looking at. I think they want to
Speaker 1: move quickly. When Merritt Garland appointed Smith, he said that
Speaker 1: the appointment is not going to slow down the timetable
Speaker 1: at all. I think that was one of the conditions
Speaker 1: of its Smith has a reputation for being a very
Speaker 1: aggressive prosecutor, for moving quickly. He is an attack dog.
Speaker 1: That's why they brought him in attack. I believe we
Speaker 1: will see Trump indicted within a year, and I think,
Speaker 1: in all likelihood within the next six months. I think
Speaker 1: by June of twenty twenty three, this dj will have
Speaker 1: indicted Donald Trump. And that's all for political calendar reasons. Yes,
Speaker 1: we exactly that that they want to go after him,
Speaker 1: they want they hate him. It is not driven it's
Speaker 1: not driven by facts or law that they view it. Look,
Speaker 1: if you were a vampire hunter in the fifteenth century,
Speaker 1: facts or law didn't matter. If you encountered a vampire,
Speaker 1: you wanted to drive a stake into him. That's how
Speaker 1: they view Donald Trump. And it is with the same
Speaker 1: self righteous indignation that they're going after him and that
Speaker 1: this is an indictment. They started with a conclusion, we're
Speaker 1: going to indict Trump. Now they're trying to figure out
Speaker 1: on what go Let's go figure out some basis. Who
Speaker 1: knows they're going to figure out whatever has something because
Speaker 1: they don't even care it sticks down the road. They
Speaker 1: want to nail him to the wall and they'll figure
Speaker 1: out a basis. Look, these are the same This is
Speaker 1: the same political team that impeached Trump not once but
Speaker 1: twice and is now suddenly discovering that the shoe is
Speaker 1: on the other foot. Sah, I want to move to
Speaker 1: the spending bill. That looks like Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: try to ram through some serious spinning measures before Republicans
Speaker 1: gain control of the House. This is something you're going
Speaker 1: to try to do. Write before the holidays. I'm referring
Speaker 1: to Christmas, obviously. What's going on with this bill real quick,
Speaker 1: because people need to understand they're about spend a lot
Speaker 1: of our money. So yeah, So there are two ways
Speaker 1: that the federal government is funded. One is through appropriations bills.
Speaker 1: And in an ordinary cycle, you have thirteen appropriation bills
Speaker 1: that cover each of the different cabinet agencies and that
Speaker 1: are passed through the ordinary regular course. Congress almost never
Speaker 1: does that anymore. There's so much dysfunction in Congress that
Speaker 1: regular appropriation bills don't don't move anymore. Congress doesn't do
Speaker 1: its job. That means that instead government is funded either
Speaker 1: with what's called an omnibus, which is grabbing a bunch
Speaker 1: of those appropriation bills lumping them all together in one gigantic,
Speaker 1: trillion dollar plus bill. What does omnibus means? So many
Speaker 1: people hear this, it's a big Washington word. What does
Speaker 1: it actually mean for people? Because I get asked it
Speaker 1: all the time on my show, I don't know. Lots
Speaker 1: of buses, I comnibus. I was wondering if there was
Speaker 1: some way to that where that even came from. I
Speaker 1: am sure there's someone that knows the etymology of it.
Speaker 1: It means a whole lot of crap crammed into one.
Speaker 1: It costs us a lot of money. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they contrast that sometimes they refer to a minibus, and
Speaker 1: a minibus is basically a smaller omnibus, and and many
Speaker 1: is modifying. But omnibus is grabbing the appropriation bills and
Speaker 1: all ramming him into one giant bill that you then
Speaker 1: pass up or down, usually with no amendments whatsoever. The
Speaker 1: other way government is funded is through what's called a
Speaker 1: continuing resolution YEP. Now, continuing resolution is much shorter, and
Speaker 1: it usually just continues government spending at the level it
Speaker 1: is at currently for a fixed period of time. Sometimes
Speaker 1: you have a continuing resolution. It's usually referred to as
Speaker 1: a c are. Yeah. Sometimes you have it for a
Speaker 1: day or a week. Sometimes you have it for a
Speaker 1: few months. And that's usually what happens from the third
Speaker 1: of a government shed down, right, we see we see
Speaker 1: it midnight on a Saturday evening. A CR that's going
Speaker 1: to last for a week or six days or three
Speaker 1: days whatever, so the government keeps functioning. So we are
Speaker 1: right now in a CR. The CR expires the second
Speaker 1: week of December. Now there's a reason that Democrats wanted
Speaker 1: it the second week of December. They wanted at number one,
Speaker 1: after the election when they knew what would happen. Ye.
Speaker 1: But number two, they want it right before Christmas because
Speaker 1: lawmakers get really fidgety before Christmas. They want to go home,
Speaker 1: they want to be on vacation, and historically they're willing
Speaker 1: to pass all sorts of bad crap just to get home,
Speaker 1: to get out of town and go home for Christmas.
Speaker 1: And so there is right now a pending and important
Speaker 1: debate in the United States Senate. Should we pass an
Speaker 1: omnibus in December or should we wait until next year
Speaker 1: to take up appropriation bills. Now, I view the answer
Speaker 1: as a no brainer. Hell no, we should not pass
Speaker 1: a Democrat omnibus in a lame duck session. And here's why.
Speaker 1: Why would we want to pass into law funding for
Speaker 1: the government through September thirtieth of next year through the
Speaker 1: end of the fiscal year with all the Democrat priorities
Speaker 1: that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have signed off on.
Speaker 1: When a month from now we're going to have a
Speaker 1: Republican House of Representatives where we will have far greater
Speaker 1: leverage to pass appropriations that reflect Republican priorities, sure, rather
Speaker 1: than Democrat priorities. So that means we'd be you'd be
Speaker 1: in favor basically a CR yes, until the new Congress
Speaker 1: gets in that everybody just voted for, which obviously makes sense.
Speaker 1: If you care about the voters, you care about what
Speaker 1: they said and the will of the people, you would
Speaker 1: wait until them to do it. So, and I help
Speaker 1: lead a group of conservative senators and a handful of
Speaker 1: us publicly urged our colleagues, let's pass a CR until
Speaker 1: January February of next year. Wait till the new Congress
Speaker 1: gets in and then pass an appropriations bill, either appropriation
Speaker 1: bills or an omnibus. With a new Republican House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: there's a big battle playing out. What is happening is
Speaker 1: Republican leadership, and in particular Mitch McConnell, and also the
Speaker 1: outgoing ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Richard Shelby,
Speaker 1: who's retiring, and also the incoming ranking member the Appropriations Committee,
Speaker 1: Susan Collins. All of them want to pass this omnibus
Speaker 1: bill in the lame Duck. They're perfectly fine with the
Speaker 1: priorities of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. And it is
Speaker 1: an open question whether all it will take is ten
Speaker 1: Republicans rolling over and agreeing with the Democrats and they'll
Speaker 1: pass this omnibus. And a bunch of those Republicans who
Speaker 1: are likely to roll over are retiring Republicans who are
Speaker 1: getting ready to be FatCat lobbyists. They want all the
Speaker 1: things in there, the pork bill spending that helps them
Speaker 1: with the lobby and an omnibus is filled with pork
Speaker 1: barrel spending. It's filled with I mean, it can be
Speaker 1: a couple thousand pages. Nobody has read the thing. It
Speaker 1: is put together but throw it in there your line
Speaker 1: of what you want and to get your vote. Now,
Speaker 1: let me give you a historical context, because you might say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: what typically does one do in modern times when there
Speaker 1: has been a change of control of Congress. No Congress
Speaker 1: in modern times has passed an omnibus and let me
Speaker 1: let me, let me focus on it. Since nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 1: control of the House has changed hands in four midterm
Speaker 1: election cycles nineteen ninety four, two thousand and six, two ten,
Speaker 1: and two eighteen. Never before has the outgoing House majority
Speaker 1: passed an omnibus appropriations bill during the lame duck session
Speaker 1: following the election. Let me give you those four Let's
Speaker 1: break it down a little bit to give some substance.
Speaker 1: Nineteen ninety four historic massive Republican victory. Republicans won a
Speaker 1: majority in the House for the first time in forty years.
Speaker 1: But the one hundred and third Congress, the Congress there
Speaker 1: had already done its job. It had already passed the
Speaker 1: thirteen appropriations bills before the lame duck session, so there
Speaker 1: were no appropriations bills before it. It didn't pass any
Speaker 1: so ninety four it didn't happen, all right, How about
Speaker 1: two thousand and six. Two thousand and six, she had
Speaker 1: a Republican president, George W. Bush, and Democrats took both chambers,
Speaker 1: the House and Senate. Yeah, the outgoing Congress proposed eleven
Speaker 1: appropriations bills for fiscal year two thousand and seven, just
Speaker 1: two had been passed before the lame duck session. During
Speaker 1: that session, what had Congress do passed two short term
Speaker 1: continuing resolutions extending the date of appropriations through February. So
Speaker 1: that's what happened. When Republicans were losing control to the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They said, Okay, we can't pass our appropriations. We'd like to,
Speaker 1: but we can't. And by the way, they had a
Speaker 1: Republican president, so you want to talk about a very
Speaker 1: comparable situation, And they said, let's do a cr and
Speaker 1: let the new Congress figure it out. How about twenty ten,
Speaker 1: another big Republican takeover. Republicans retake the House in twenty ten,
Speaker 1: the one hundred and eleventh Congress failed to pass even
Speaker 1: a single regular appropriations bill, so instead three continuing resolutions
Speaker 1: were passed to extend government funding. And then finally twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: not that long ago, Democrats took control of the House
Speaker 1: Prior to the twenty eighteen lame duck session, Congress passed
Speaker 1: two minibus appropriations bills, so not all of them crammed together.
Speaker 1: They contained five smaller spending bills and a continuing resolution
Speaker 1: that was before the lame duck. During the lame duck,
Speaker 1: lawmakers passed to continual resolution to provide funding through December
Speaker 1: twenty first. Congress then failed to agree on another short
Speaker 1: term continued resolution, resulting in a funding lapse, a government
Speaker 1: shutdown until the next Congress convened. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that was driven by the Democrats. That was the Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer shutdown, which of course the press didn't cover because
Speaker 1: it was a Democrat shutdown and so that that doesn't count.
Speaker 1: So literally, since nineteen ninety four, this has never happened,
Speaker 1: and it comes down to the exact same question. Listen,
Speaker 1: this uh this podcast is coming out Monday morning. Monday
Speaker 1: at five thirty pm, we're going to have the cloture
Speaker 1: vote on the marriage bill, and we're going to find
Speaker 1: out today at five thirty pm whether three of the
Speaker 1: twelve Republicans who decided to embrace gay marriage are going
Speaker 1: to stand up for religious liberty or not. And it
Speaker 1: will come down to if three of those twelves say
Speaker 1: I will vote no on cloture unless Mike Lee's religious
Speaker 1: liberty amendment is added to the bill, not given a
Speaker 1: fake updown that it will love to be one and
Speaker 1: the same written into the bill. We'll find out at
Speaker 1: five thirty to day whether three of those twelve have
Speaker 1: the courage to do that. The question on this omnibus
Speaker 1: is the same thing. Are there forty one Republicans in
Speaker 1: the United States Senate who say, hell no, we are
Speaker 1: not passing a Schumer Pelosi year long appropriations bill in
Speaker 1: the lame duck session when we're getting ready to have
Speaker 1: a Republican House of Representatives. It ought to be that
Speaker 1: Republican House who negotiates with sadly the Democrat Senate and
Speaker 1: adopts appropriation bills in January or February. That's a critical issue.
Speaker 1: I can tell you our leadership in the Senate wants
Speaker 1: to pass the Schumer Pelosi bill, which is just a
Speaker 1: shocking I say shocking. It's not shocking if you know
Speaker 1: the players, but it is shocking when you just run
Speaker 1: back the house you're even in this situation. I also
Speaker 1: want to ask you about this you know, is there
Speaker 1: a possibility if this gets into a fight, because this
Speaker 1: is the new threat. You and I are both fans
Speaker 1: of the West Wing. There's a great episode in the
Speaker 1: West Wing about why you don't shut down the government
Speaker 1: when they were going through a government shutdown. I remember
Speaker 1: watching one of the characters, Josh Slime, and he's like,
Speaker 1: you don't shut down the government, and here's why they
Speaker 1: blame you. They'll find every person to claim they're having
Speaker 1: the worst day of their lives. They'll put it on
Speaker 1: TV and this is why you don't do it. And
Speaker 1: now we see that be the threat anytime someone's like, well,
Speaker 1: if you don't do a cr or you don't do
Speaker 1: what we tell you we're gonna do, and you shut
Speaker 1: down the government, right, all hell's going to break loose.
Speaker 1: Is that now basically used every single time you guys
Speaker 1: get to this point where it's a moment where you
Speaker 1: must stand up with that, well, you will blame you
Speaker 1: for shutting down the government. So it is, and we
Speaker 1: will have subsequent podcasts that go into depth on government shutdowns,
Speaker 1: on the history of it, what they mean, because we're
Speaker 1: getting ready to move into a new era where that
Speaker 1: could happen with a Republican House and a Democrat president
Speaker 1: where we could face shutdowns in the next two years.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've talked on this pod about how
Speaker 1: I helped lead the leadership fight against Mitch McConnell, and
Speaker 1: one of the central questions I said is are we
Speaker 1: willing to use the lever of government funding to fight
Speaker 1: for anything? And leadership was unwilling to commit to fighting
Speaker 1: literally for anything for the next two years, which is
Speaker 1: a big part of why people are so frustrated. What
Speaker 1: I will say on this fight right now, will the
Speaker 1: media characterize it as Republicans want to shut down the government? Yes,
Speaker 1: because the media is the left wing of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: They are dishonest and propagandists, so they've always characterized it
Speaker 1: as that. The irony of Josh Lyman in the TV
Speaker 1: show The West Wing is he was suggesting the media
Speaker 1: would blame the Democrats for shutdown, and the corrupt corporate
Speaker 1: media never does that. It's always the Republican fault, no
Speaker 1: matter whether it's the Democrats or not who do it.
Speaker 1: But here it's a simpler question because we can easily
Speaker 1: pass a CR. Yeah, we can pass a CR and
Speaker 1: extend funding through January February, which means the government doesn't
Speaker 1: shut down. The only reason we wouldn't pass the CRS
Speaker 1: if Democrats refuse to do so. If they say, nope,
Speaker 1: give us the Pelosi Schumer funding bill, or will shut
Speaker 1: down the government. Now, will the Biden White House and
Speaker 1: the krupt corporate media even then say it's Republicans shutting
Speaker 1: down the government. Yes, Will Republican leaderships say the same thing? Maybe?
Speaker 1: One of the great ironies of these battles is Republican
Speaker 1: leadership is often on the side of a Democrat White House.
Speaker 1: But here the question ought to be real simple. Let's
Speaker 1: kick the can down the road a couple of months
Speaker 1: and let the new Congress elected by the American people
Speaker 1: that have given Republicans the majority. Let the new Congress
Speaker 1: decide do the spending bill for the new Congress in essence.
Speaker 1: But by the way, what the Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: want to do is they're gonna want to roll everything
Speaker 1: they can in the lame Ducks. So they're gonna want
Speaker 1: to roll not just the nominitivus spending bill, They're gonna
Speaker 1: want to roll the debt sailing into this also, because
Speaker 1: those are the only two levers the new Congress has.
Speaker 1: If you want to change any policies, you either have
Speaker 1: spending or the death ceiling, the two and only two.
Speaker 1: So what are Schumer and Pelosi going to do. Let's
Speaker 1: take both of those levers away and let's kick it
Speaker 1: down as far as we can so that we render
Speaker 1: the new incoming Republican House toothless. I get why Pelosi
Speaker 1: wants to do that. I get why Schumer wants to
Speaker 1: do that. I get why Biden wants to do that.
Speaker 1: But why in the hell would the Republicans do it?
Speaker 1: Would the Republicans do it? And so I can tell
Speaker 1: you we've already had some really vigorous arguments in the
Speaker 1: Senate Republican conference room, and we're going to have really
Speaker 1: vigorous arguments over the next couple of weeks. Over Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: there was something else that happened that I think was shocking.
Speaker 1: My phone blew up. Full disclosure. I have a family
Speaker 1: in law enforcement on a gun store, and I started
Speaker 1: getting text messages because Joe Biden came out and said
Speaker 1: something about this basically lame duck session that you're about
Speaker 1: to come back to coming after people's guns, but not
Speaker 1: just guns that they've been talking about for years, all
Speaker 1: now semi automatic weapons. And I want you to see
Speaker 1: the clip from Biden and tell the American people, is
Speaker 1: this something to worry about or not? Take a look.
Speaker 1: The idea we still allow semi automatic weapons to be
Speaker 1: purchased is sick. It's sick. It has no social redeeming value,
Speaker 1: zero none, not a single solitary rational for it. It's
Speaker 1: a profit through your gun manufacture. Can you do anything
Speaker 1: about gun laws during the lame doctor, I'm gonna try.
Speaker 1: What will you find it. I'm gonna try to get
Speaker 1: rid of a saltway. I'm gonna try. That came out
Speaker 1: of nowhere. Obviously, never let a crisis go to waste
Speaker 1: democratic motto. Here, they see an opportunity because of the
Speaker 1: shooting that happened, and they said, okay, let's go after
Speaker 1: guns again. Now it's all semi automatic weapons. They even
Speaker 1: put out a press statement from the White House. Could
Speaker 1: this go somewhere in the lame duck? So I don't
Speaker 1: believe it will. One of the things to understand watching
Speaker 1: that clip, Joe Biden has no idea what he's talking about,
Speaker 1: Like when he says there's no socially redeeming purpose behind
Speaker 1: some automatic weapons. If you asked him what's the semi
Speaker 1: automatic weapon, he doesn't know. Yeah, I know, it's hard.
Speaker 1: Probably doesn't even realize he's been hunting with semi automatic shotguns,
Speaker 1: which is a semi automatic weapon that he now says
Speaker 1: no one should own, even though he probably has used
Speaker 1: one of his life. In fact, it's based on the paperwork.
Speaker 1: The gun that hunter Biden's you know ex lever threw
Speaker 1: away his ex sister in law was a semi automatic
Speaker 1: weapon as well. So and look that this. Folks that
Speaker 1: listen to Verdict are smart or educated and informed, you
Speaker 1: know what terms mean. But many of the Democrat advocates
Speaker 1: of gun control have no idea what terms mean. Many
Speaker 1: of the reporters and editors in the corrupt corporate media
Speaker 1: have no idea what terms mean. So they use the
Speaker 1: word assault weapon, which is a made up term that
Speaker 1: essentially means scary looking weapons. It's weapons that look like
Speaker 1: machine guns. But let's take the words semi automatic. For
Speaker 1: someone that doesn't know anything about guns, they hear the
Speaker 1: word automatic and they're like, well, okay, that's got to
Speaker 1: be a machine gun, right, and it's worth just explaining
Speaker 1: the listeners. And you guys know this, but maybe not
Speaker 1: everyone knows this. An automatic weapon, a fully automatic weapon
Speaker 1: is a machine gun and you hold the trigger down
Speaker 1: and multiple bullets come out. Think Rambo spraying a machine gun.
Speaker 1: The military uses M sixteens. They're fully automatic machine guns.
Speaker 1: Those are weapons of war. That's a phrase the Democrats
Speaker 1: like to use. Machine guns are weapons of war. They
Speaker 1: have also been functionally illegal in the United States for
Speaker 1: over eighty years. That means if you and I actually
Speaker 1: you can buy one because you have a gun store.
Speaker 1: You can have a very specialized permit to get a
Speaker 1: fully automatic machine gun. And it's very hard to do,
Speaker 1: by the way, even with our permits, even in the store,
Speaker 1: the amount of government paperwork, and I'm not necessarily complaining,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it is still not easy. As a
Speaker 1: practical matter, it is functionally illegal for an ordinary citizen
Speaker 1: to own a fully automo matic machine gun. So what
Speaker 1: a semi automatic mean? Semi automatic means and you know this, well,
Speaker 1: you pull the trigger once a single bullet comes out.
Speaker 1: You pull the trigger a second time, a second bullet
Speaker 1: comes out. So for each trigger pull, another bullet is fired.
Speaker 1: Now you can contrast that to say a revolver. A
Speaker 1: revolver where you have to cock the hammer and then
Speaker 1: pull the trigger, and then you cock the hammer and
Speaker 1: pull the trigger, that's not semi automatic. There is an
Speaker 1: additional action, or say a bolt action rifle, where you
Speaker 1: have to cock the bolt and then fire. An enormous
Speaker 1: percentage of firearms in the United States are semi automatic.
Speaker 1: A great, a great many pistols, shotguns, rifles are semi automatic.
Speaker 1: That is, when Joe Biden says there's no reason to
Speaker 1: sell a semi automatic weapon, he's talking about banning a
Speaker 1: vast swath of fire arms in America. The majority of
Speaker 1: them that are bought and sold every day are semi
Speaker 1: automatic in this country. And the one that say my
Speaker 1: life and shooting was semi automatic. The one that was
Speaker 1: given to my grandfather, to my dad, to me is
Speaker 1: semi automatic. The shotgun that I use hunting, that was
Speaker 1: given down for my family was semi automatic. This is
Speaker 1: not some new scary weapon of war thing that they're
Speaker 1: trying to obviously put out there. But it worries me
Speaker 1: because even but see, the Dems are taking advantage of
Speaker 1: people who don't know what the word semi automatic means,
Speaker 1: and when they hear him talking about they're picturing Rambo
Speaker 1: with a machine gun. That's what they see in the
Speaker 1: camera in their mind because they're ignorant. And I don't
Speaker 1: know if Biden ever knew what a semi automatic weapon is,
Speaker 1: But today, with his diminished mental capacity, I'm confident watching
Speaker 1: that clip, he has zero idea what he's saying. Is
Speaker 1: there anything that listeners need to do, do they need
Speaker 1: to call about this? Or do you think this was
Speaker 1: him just shooting off the cuff or is this genuinely
Speaker 1: something Democrats to try to sneak in their last minute?
Speaker 1: So I think it's him shooting off the cuff pun intended.
Speaker 1: I think the chances of it passing into law are
Speaker 1: zero point zero zero percent. Might the House take it
Speaker 1: up and pass it? Sure? I mean, look, I don't
Speaker 1: know what the House will do on the way out,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats might decide they want to want a
Speaker 1: virtue signal, but to have it passed in the Senate
Speaker 1: would take sixty votes, and even as bad as the
Speaker 1: Republican conference is, they're not going to be sixty votes
Speaker 1: for any sort of firearms ban. We had the battle
Speaker 1: over the gun control bill earlier this year that some
Speaker 1: Republicans signed up on. It didn't come remotely close to
Speaker 1: what Biden is talking about. And I will say, let's
Speaker 1: pause for a second and reflect on the predicate. Why
Speaker 1: is Biden talking about this now? And the reason is,
Speaker 1: of course, because you had this horrific shooting at the
Speaker 1: gay night club in Colorado. Now, look, I hate murderers.
Speaker 1: I think we need to be incredibly vigorous going after
Speaker 1: violent criminals. I think we need to I've been leading
Speaker 1: the fight for over a decade to vote more law
Speaker 1: enforcement resources to getting violent criminals off the street before
Speaker 1: they commit crimes. It is an amazing you know, this shooting,
Speaker 1: the incident broke, and of course that it was targeting
Speaker 1: gay and lesbian individuals at a gay nightclub. Corporate media
Speaker 1: was in paroxisms of joy the incident broke because it
Speaker 1: fit their narrative perfectly of targeting the LGBT community with
Speaker 1: a mass shooting. Therefore, we should confiscate everyone's guns. And
Speaker 1: then suddenly the narrative took a horrible wrong turn from
Speaker 1: their perspective. Number One, we found out initially that the
Speaker 1: mass murderer had previously threatened to blow people up, including
Speaker 1: his own family, with a bomb, and hadn't been prosecuted.
Speaker 1: That was kind of a wrinkle because it raised obvious
Speaker 1: questions why didn't they lock the guy up the last
Speaker 1: time he threatened a crime before he committed and killing
Speaker 1: his own family, threatening yes with the bomb, blowing up
Speaker 1: his own mother. But then the narrative came to a
Speaker 1: screeching halt when he filed a pleading in court that
Speaker 1: indicated that he identifies as non binary and uses the
Speaker 1: pronouns they and them, And suddenly you could hear the
Speaker 1: corporate media doing a collect it huh, what's it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: And magically the story disappeared, gone, just totally gone, instantly,
Speaker 1: And it is reminiscent of the horrific Christmas parade murder
Speaker 1: in Waukeshaw, where again you had a black left wing
Speaker 1: racist who a George Soros DA had repeatedly led out
Speaker 1: of jail with a slap on the wrist, who drove
Speaker 1: his red suv into a Christmas parade, murdering innocent people,
Speaker 1: running over the dancing grannies, murdering children. And that story
Speaker 1: was in the news for about four seconds because now, look,
Speaker 1: I will say this I think the Colorado shooter ought
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted and put to death. I believe in
Speaker 1: capital punish you could murder, especially mass murder, you deserve
Speaker 1: to die. See how many Democrats will say that. But
Speaker 1: I'll say this also, which is if this guy had
Speaker 1: been a right wing Trump supporter wearing a MAGA hat,
Speaker 1: it would still be leading the news tonight. The press
Speaker 1: would spend two months putting this guy front and center.
Speaker 1: If he'd been the guy who allegedly attacked Jesse Smolley
Speaker 1: until we discovered it was made up, Yeah, then the
Speaker 1: press would have gone crazy. But suddenly because the mass
Speaker 1: murderer identifies as non binary, never mind, because the narrative
Speaker 1: matters more than anything, and so they'll find another instance
Speaker 1: to blow it up to advance their political agenda because
Speaker 1: it's not about journalism, it's not about facts, and it's
Speaker 1: not about stopping crime. No, it is about their political agenda. Well,
Speaker 1: and you'd think you've learned from the situation. If the
Speaker 1: guy threatened to blow up his own family, maybe we
Speaker 1: should prosecute that, Maybe we should put them into prison,
Speaker 1: Maybe we should get the mental help, whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: They will completely overlook all the warning signs that come.
Speaker 1: We start seeing this happen more and more. You see
Speaker 1: where there's multiple shooters. Now there was warning signs before,
Speaker 1: there's mug shots, before there's police interaction, before, there's serious
Speaker 1: mental issues before and immediately every time in many of
Speaker 1: these cities, the liberal prosecutors do not go after these people,
Speaker 1: and they never go back and look at that first
Speaker 1: part of the story there, which I think is the
Speaker 1: most frustrating for so many Americans and the victims who
Speaker 1: are hurt in these situations. Well, and look again, in
Speaker 1: my last book, Justice Corrupted, I have an entire chapter
Speaker 1: that walks through the George Soros prosecutors in case after
Speaker 1: case after case where they let violent criminals go and
Speaker 1: they turn around and commit more violent crimes. We're in
Speaker 1: the city of Houston where tragically we've seen left wing
Speaker 1: judges and a left wing county judge in particular, who've
Speaker 1: advanced cashless bailpol sees that have resulted in murderers being released.
Speaker 1: And an amazing thing, when you release murderers, they turn
Speaker 1: around and commit more murders. And that if you want
Speaker 1: to stop murders, mass murders, or even single murders, I'm
Speaker 1: against all murders. If you want to stop them, the
Speaker 1: answer is not to disarm law abouting citizens. It's to
Speaker 1: go after the criminals. Lastly, Center Thanksgiving was very weird.
Speaker 1: If you're watching the TV, it was almost like Democrats
Speaker 1: really didn't want you to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family.
Speaker 1: Joy Read came out with this diet tribe basically why
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be enjoying Thanksgiving. And before you play it,
Speaker 1: which we're going to your second, let me just point
Speaker 1: out on Thanksgiving, I wouldn't watch enjoy Read. I was
Speaker 1: watching football, And let me just say, you've been in
Speaker 1: this business two damn long. If you turn joy Read on,
Speaker 1: you're doing something wrong. Man. I got it sent to
Speaker 1: me and I was like, wow, that's interesting. This is
Speaker 1: how much these people can't enjoy even a holiday. Take
Speaker 1: a look at this. Thanksgiving, the day we gather with
Speaker 1: friends and family to enjoy turkeys, stuffing, mashed potatoes, and
Speaker 1: publican pie. We throw on the game, catch up on
Speaker 1: our lives, and then discuss or quite possibly argue about
Speaker 1: religion and politics. For millions of Americans, it's a day
Speaker 1: of cherished traditions and as Americans, we certainly value those traditions,
Speaker 1: but it's also important to unpack the myth of Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: It is a holiday riddled with historical inaccuracies, built on
Speaker 1: this myth that the Indigenous welcomed their colonizers with open
Speaker 1: arms and ears of corn, a simplistic, fairy tale interpretation
Speaker 1: of a sixteen twenty one encounter between Indigenous tribes and
Speaker 1: English settlers that erases the genocide that followed. It's the
Speaker 1: truth Republicans want banned from our textbooks, because here's the
Speaker 1: secret they want so desperately to keep. We are a
Speaker 1: country founded on violence. Our birth was violent. In sixteen nineteen,
Speaker 1: a ship with more than twenty enslaved Africans landed in Virginia,
Speaker 1: ushering in two centuries of America and slavery that left
Speaker 1: millions in chains are dead. And when those humans and
Speaker 1: bondage were finally free, a terrorist organization that was a
Speaker 1: card carrying member of Polite society, the Ku Klux Klan,
Speaker 1: picked up where the Civil War ended, using violence to
Speaker 1: maintain white supremacy. The clan and it's ilk are still active,
Speaker 1: and as Americans, we continue to choose violence. Where do
Speaker 1: you want to get on that clip. Look that clip
Speaker 1: is the modern American left. The hate America, and they
Speaker 1: are devoted to lying about America. They're also hopelessly naive.
Speaker 1: So her comment that America was founded on violence, alright, alright,
Speaker 1: I got news for you. Every country in the history
Speaker 1: of civilization was founded on violence. The history of mankind
Speaker 1: is tragically or not tragically, a history of violence. By
Speaker 1: the way, the Native American tribes who were here were
Speaker 1: conquering each other and going to war with each other.
Speaker 1: And throughout history, whether it is Europe, whether it is Africa,
Speaker 1: whether it is Asia, you have millennia of one nation
Speaker 1: conquering another, one tribe conquering another. That has been as
Speaker 1: Thomas Hobbs, the great Philosopher said, the state of nature
Speaker 1: is nasty, brutish, and short. Yeah. So one of the
Speaker 1: things the left tries to do is to suggest that
Speaker 1: aspects of human nature that are true about America are
Speaker 1: uniquely evil about America. So we were founded on violence,
Speaker 1: unlike the utopian souls that have lived everywhere else. Secondly,
Speaker 1: so she immediately goes to sixteen nineteen. This is the
Speaker 1: sixteen nineteen project, the incredibly revisionist history, false portrayal of
Speaker 1: America's History that was written by The New York Times
Speaker 1: now the sixteen nineteen Project postulates that America's history didn't
Speaker 1: begin in seventeen seventy six with the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker 1: It didn't begin with the signing of the Constitution. It
Speaker 1: began in six nineteen, when the first ship carrying slaves
Speaker 1: arrived on America's soil. It also postulates that America's history
Speaker 1: is irredeemably racist, and that today we are irredeemably racist.
Speaker 1: It also claims the American Revolution was fought in order
Speaker 1: to preserve slavery. That latter claim is so absurd that
Speaker 1: multiple very well respected historians like James McPherson, like Gordon
Speaker 1: Wood have denounced it as ridiculous, as false. It was
Speaker 1: so bad the New York Times was forced to issue
Speaker 1: a correction because it was indefensibly false. What the left
Speaker 1: doesn't tell you listen, was slavery horrific. Yes, slavery is
Speaker 1: the original sin of the United States of America. Did
Speaker 1: indescribable murders and tortures occur under slavery? Yes? What the
Speaker 1: left doesn't tell you is America is not unique in slavery.
Speaker 1: In fact, most societies Throughout history, slavery has been a
Speaker 1: significant component of it, whether in Europe, whether or not Africa,
Speaker 1: whether in Asia. Slavery has been consistent for millennia. What
Speaker 1: is unique about America's not slavery, Tragically, that's been much
Speaker 1: of human existence. What's unique about America's emancipations? What's unique
Speaker 1: about America's that we rode into our founding documents the
Speaker 1: Declaration of Independence says we hold these truths to be
Speaker 1: self evidence that all men are created equal. That was
Speaker 1: you want to talk about a radically revolutionary statement, all men,
Speaker 1: not just some, not just based on race. Those documents that,
Speaker 1: in turn those principles, and of course the Declaration goes
Speaker 1: on to say that are endowed by their creator with
Speaker 1: certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty in
Speaker 1: the pursuit of happiness. Those principles became the basis for
Speaker 1: the abolitionists, became the basis for incredible patriots like Frederick Douglas,
Speaker 1: who argued slavery was fundamentally incompatible with American values, and
Speaker 1: became the basis later for the civil rights movement. What
Speaker 1: she also doesn't say she talks about the Ku Klux Klan.
Speaker 1: You know what she doesn't mention. There was a Democratic
Speaker 1: party that was the Party of the Kla Klan. The
Speaker 1: Klan was founded by Democrats, populated by Democrats. Nathan Bedford, forres,
Speaker 1: the founder of the Klan, was a delegate to the
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty National Democrat Convention. If you look at Klansman,
Speaker 1: by the way, fast forward to Jim Crow Laws. Jim
Speaker 1: Crow Laws, almost every single one of them was written
Speaker 1: by a Democrat politician in order to prevent the voters
Speaker 1: from voting Democrat politicians out of power. And by the way,
Speaker 1: Joy Reid would say, well that was that. That was
Speaker 1: long ago, not today. Well, let's go today. The governor
Speaker 1: of Virginia just over a year ago, and a guy
Speaker 1: named Ralph Northam chose to have a picture in his
Speaker 1: yearbook of a man dress as a klansman and a
Speaker 1: man in blackface, and he said he could have been
Speaker 1: one of those two, meaning it could have been the klansman.
Speaker 1: That was the Democrat governor of Virginia just over a
Speaker 1: year ago. How about today the sitting President of the
Speaker 1: United States, Joe Biden, the guy who doesn't know what
Speaker 1: day it is, Joe Biden, just over a decade Ago
Speaker 1: gave the eulogy of Robert Byrd, a grand cyclops of
Speaker 1: the ku Klux Klan, had been the Senate Democratic leader
Speaker 1: in the Senate. He described him as a great friend
Speaker 1: and mentor and even implied that America might be able
Speaker 1: to different if you want to become president, Joe Biden, Look,
Speaker 1: I gotta say, if you can't stand up and say,
Speaker 1: I've never given a eulogy at the funeral of a klansman, Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe I ought to be a little more cautious about
Speaker 1: giving hectoring race lectures. But Joy Reid doesn't tell any
Speaker 1: of that. Instead, she wants to advance the false and
Speaker 1: pernicious lie attacking America. And to be clear, look, were
Speaker 1: atrocities committed against Native Americans? Yes, that is part of
Speaker 1: our history, she claims. Republicans want to erase that history. Now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: not true. We tell the full history, just not the
Speaker 1: partisan slant that says America is evil and uniquely evil.
Speaker 1: And the answer is to become a communist society, which
Speaker 1: is what these advocates of the sixteen nineteen project and
Speaker 1: what these advocates of critical race theory, they are Marxists.
Speaker 1: They advocate communism, that is their solution to this. And
Speaker 1: so the reason joy Read and other leftists hates Thanksgiving
Speaker 1: is the same reason that they hate Columbus Day. It's
Speaker 1: because they hate America and they believe fundamentally the founding
Speaker 1: of the United States of America was an evil act
Speaker 1: and we are an evil country. I think that is
Speaker 1: perniciously false. And I believe the United States of America
Speaker 1: has done more good than any nation in the history
Speaker 1: of the world. And we have is that glorious history
Speaker 1: to be proud of. And I will point out the
Speaker 1: party that you and I are members of, the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: was founded to end slavery. We were founded in opposition
Speaker 1: of slavery. The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was elected
Speaker 1: and signed the Emancipation Clamation. And so it is a
Speaker 1: dishonest history if you only paint America as bad. But
Speaker 1: that's what leftist do. The other part that was hilarious
Speaker 1: is I was looking at the White House and their
Speaker 1: Twitter feed and I'm like, well, maybe joy Red took
Speaker 1: over the Twitter feed. Is part of her thanksgiving to
Speaker 1: the White House. I don't know, but if look at
Speaker 1: this tweet, and I love it because you can see
Speaker 1: right at the bottom is obviously scheduled nine am perfectly.
Speaker 1: Native American roots are deeply embedded in this land. The
Speaker 1: Native American the Heritage Day, we honor the enduring cultures
Speaker 1: and contributions of all Native Americans and recommit ourselves to
Speaker 1: fulfilling our nation's promise of equal dignity and respect for all.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with that, but it's like, can we just
Speaker 1: have a normal Thanksgiving and just enjoy our time with
Speaker 1: our family? Are do you have to, like somehow in
Speaker 1: essence remind everybody how bad America is. That's what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do here. Well, it is and it's interesting.
Speaker 1: So apparently all right, so leftists have renamed Columbus Day
Speaker 1: as Indigenous people, Yes, because the heroism Christopher Columbus and
Speaker 1: discovering the New World cannot be celebrated in their world. Now,
Speaker 1: apparently this is new to me that they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to call it Thanksgiving, that they've renamed Thanksgiving Native American
Speaker 1: Heritage Day. And look, I get the White House seal
Speaker 1: right there. So it's not a joe. Look, I think
Speaker 1: Native American heritage is wonderful, should be studied, should be celebrated.
Speaker 1: It's part of the history of this country, A very
Speaker 1: important part of the history of this country. But so's thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: Damn it. Yeah, But like the effort at renaming is
Speaker 1: because they're embarrassed. And I want to give a contrast.
Speaker 1: When our nation started, George Washington on October third, seventeen
Speaker 1: eighty nine issued a proclamation, And if you will indulge me,
Speaker 1: it's not very long. I want to read Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation,
Speaker 1: New York, three October seventeen eighty nine, by the President
Speaker 1: of the United States of America. A proclamation whereas it
Speaker 1: is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence
Speaker 1: of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful
Speaker 1: for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection and favor.
Speaker 1: And whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint Committee,
Speaker 1: requested me to recommend to the people of the United
Speaker 1: States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be
Speaker 1: observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors
Speaker 1: of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably
Speaker 1: to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. Now, therefore,
Speaker 1: I do recommend an assign Thursday, the twenty sixth day
Speaker 1: of November next to be devoted by the people of
Speaker 1: these states to the service of that great and glorious
Speaker 1: being who is the beneficent author of all the good
Speaker 1: that was, that is, or that will be. That we
Speaker 1: may then all unite in rendering unto Him our seer
Speaker 1: and humble thanks for his kind care and protection of
Speaker 1: the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation,
Speaker 1: for the single and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions
Speaker 1: of His providence which we experienced in the course and
Speaker 1: conclusion of the late War, for the great degree of tranquility, union,
Speaker 1: and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable
Speaker 1: and rational manner in which we have enabled to establish
Speaker 1: constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly
Speaker 1: the national one now lately instituted, for the civil and
Speaker 1: religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means
Speaker 1: we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge, And in general,
Speaker 1: for all the great and various favors which He hath
Speaker 1: been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we
Speaker 1: may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and
Speaker 1: supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of nations, and
Speaker 1: beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions. To
Speaker 1: enable us, all, whether in public or private stations, to
Speaker 1: perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually. To
Speaker 1: render our national government a blessing to all people, by
Speaker 1: constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws,
Speaker 1: discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, To protect and guide
Speaker 1: all sovereigns and nations, especially such as it have shown
Speaker 1: kindness onto us, and to bless them with good government,
Speaker 1: peace and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of
Speaker 1: true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among
Speaker 1: them and us, And generally, to grant un demand kind
Speaker 1: such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows
Speaker 1: to be best given under my hand. At the City
Speaker 1: of New York, the third day of October, in the
Speaker 1: year of Our Lord, seventeen eighty nine. George Washington. History matters,
Speaker 1: History matters. Can you imagine one sentence of this being
Speaker 1: uttered by the current President of the United States. This
Speaker 1: is a nation worth defending, And you know what it's
Speaker 1: not just Washington and knew that it's not just listeners
Speaker 1: to this podcast, it's millions of Americans across this country.
Speaker 1: And I got to say, there was a video you
Speaker 1: sent me on Thanksgiving. You texted it to me, and
Speaker 1: it warmed my heart. I turned around and I texted
Speaker 1: it to my entire family and I said, watch this.
Speaker 1: It is beautiful, and ultimately I tweeted it out to
Speaker 1: the world. But but I want to close this post
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving Verdict with just watching a video of of one
Speaker 1: American who still knows what is beautiful about this nation
Speaker 1: and still loves it. Can we play this video? Oh
Speaker 1: my god, maybe look at the Texas It's all okay saying,
Speaker 1: which everybody, I'd tell you what when I send that
Speaker 1: to you. It was one of the coolest videos. I
Speaker 1: rarely get choked up, but I watched that and to
Speaker 1: see that man talk about Cuba, talk about communism, talking
Speaker 1: about fedow Castro, and talk about this the first paycheck,
Speaker 1: as he put it, where every hour counted, it makes
Speaker 1: you not take this country for granted. And I love
Speaker 1: that moment because it was It made me. It reminded
Speaker 1: me of what how thankful I need to be to
Speaker 1: live in the greatest country in the world. It is
Speaker 1: utterly beautiful. Uh. It brought tears to my eyes on Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: It brings tears to my eyes now. And I just
Speaker 1: want to say to everyone, God bless America. I hope
Speaker 1: you had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and Merry Christmas to all.
Speaker 1: This is verdict.