Speaker 1: Eight hundred nine for one Seawan to free telephone number.
Speaker 1: You want to be a part of this extravaganzas so
Speaker 1: much news is breaking today, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: funniest bit of news that I'm seeing of anything is
Speaker 1: the New York Times today claiming that the Mulla report
Speaker 1: will send shockwaves through Washington even if Trump is exonerated.
Speaker 1: Is that not the biggest instance of fake fraud media
Speaker 1: spin that you can't even make that up in art school, if,
Speaker 1: for example, you lost your job, fear not, as our
Speaker 1: great hero warrior poet Acasio Cortes says, don't fear being
Speaker 1: automated out of work. Automation will mean more time for
Speaker 1: creating art. And that's pretty creative by the New York
Speaker 1: Times that it will quote send shockwaves throughout Washington even
Speaker 1: if President Trump and the rest of his campaign are
Speaker 1: exonerated and any and all charges that they collude with Russia.
Speaker 1: So let me get that straight. The New York Times
Speaker 1: is saying if Trump is found innocent after now three years,
Speaker 1: because the first the beginnings of this investigation were in
Speaker 1: July of twenty sixteen by the same people that exonerated
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. So it started then nine months later, MAYA,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, six hundred sixty five days in the Mueller investigation.
Speaker 1: Now after nine previous months, and they're saying that if
Speaker 1: Trump's found innocent, that's actually going to be worse than
Speaker 1: if he's found guilty. Now it's how, you know, you
Speaker 1: keep getting these little hints and tips and so on
Speaker 1: and so forth that that the left is a pretty
Speaker 1: afraid they're not getting. And this would be the extreme
Speaker 1: left media mob out there that has been pushing these
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories for two years. Sounds like they already know
Speaker 1: that Mueller is about to lay a big, fat goose egg.
Speaker 1: I don't know, times goes on. Andrew Weissman will helped
Speaker 1: lead the cases against the former Trump campaign officials Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort and Rick Gates, will be concluding his detail to
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel's office in the near future. Peter Carr,
Speaker 1: the Special Council's spokesman, said mister Weisman's decision to leave
Speaker 1: has been closely scrutinized for clues about what it says
Speaker 1: about the apparent conclusion of the Special Counsel's work. The
Speaker 1: inquiry findings seemed so short to send shockwaves through Washington,
Speaker 1: whether or not prosecutors found that Trump or any member
Speaker 1: of his inner circle worked with Russia to interfere in
Speaker 1: the election or obstruct the investigation. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: it's the type of only the left wing medium mob
Speaker 1: could come up with this nonsense, the rage Trump medium mob,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of hysterical. Anyway, it's just crazy. Hang on,
Speaker 1: I gotta send him. Oh got it, there we go.
Speaker 1: So this is just typical of what you get from
Speaker 1: your media. What do we get from fake new c
Speaker 1: And I wonder if he's going to be in trouble
Speaker 1: for referring to Paul Begala, another Clinton hack slam for
Speaker 1: referring to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as cockroaches. Wow,
Speaker 1: pretty amazing. You know. Then you have let's say, big
Speaker 1: labor complaining that this is great for the Republicans, this
Speaker 1: is great for the president, and you know, big labor
Speaker 1: complaints that Acasio Cortez's Green New Deal is gonna harm
Speaker 1: million of union workers. Yeah, but she said, don't worry now.
Speaker 1: You guys that work every day hard for a living,
Speaker 1: those of you in manufacturing, those of you that work
Speaker 1: in the factories and build the cars and make this
Speaker 1: country run every day and produce the goods and services
Speaker 1: that we all use and we desperately need and want
Speaker 1: and desire. Well, you know, don't worry about those millions
Speaker 1: of jobs, because automation will come in. Because Acasio Cortez
Speaker 1: says that government should control how businesses are run. And
Speaker 1: of course we're going to nationalize healthcare, and we're going
Speaker 1: to nationalize the energy industry. And now the president of
Speaker 1: the AFLCIO now says that Acasio's Green New Deal will
Speaker 1: harm million millions of union workers. Well, don't worry. They'll
Speaker 1: have more time for creating art. She's telling you we
Speaker 1: should not be haunted by the specter of being automated
Speaker 1: out of work, whether it's a tax rate, whether it's
Speaker 1: distributing wealth that is created by automation. If we talk,
Speaker 1: if we approach solutions to our system and start entertaining
Speaker 1: ideas like that, then we should be excited about automation
Speaker 1: because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves,
Speaker 1: more time creating art, more time investing and investigating in
Speaker 1: the sciences, more time focus st on invention, more time
Speaker 1: going to space, more time enjoying the world that we
Speaker 1: live in oh who cares if you're automated out of
Speaker 1: a job, whether your work or you don't work, you know,
Speaker 1: willingly or unwillingly. We already know what you get. We
Speaker 1: know you get guaranteed housing, and you guaranteed affordable housing,
Speaker 1: and medical leave and vacations guaranteed, and you get guaranteed
Speaker 1: healthy food, and you get guaranteed Medicare for all, but
Speaker 1: you can't have your own private insurance, and you get
Speaker 1: guaranteed retirement. Everything is free, free, free. But we're gonna
Speaker 1: make it all without any oil or gas because that's
Speaker 1: out in ten years. And we're also going to change
Speaker 1: all the cars. You're gonna have to get a new
Speaker 1: car because it's gonna be a plug in car, not
Speaker 1: a gas combustion engine car. And you're not gonna fly
Speaker 1: in airplanes. And you're not gonna eat cows any longer.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at what Comrade Deblasio said in a
Speaker 1: tweet less, I know, meet what do you call it?
Speaker 1: Meat free mondays, meatless, meatless mondays, meatless mondays. I know
Speaker 1: it's the right decision because the kids love it, and
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity hates it. Don't you're not gonna convince me
Speaker 1: that the kids love it, and he's doing it for
Speaker 1: climate change. Meatless mondays is for climate change. No meat
Speaker 1: in public schools in New York on Monday, the same
Speaker 1: city that won't let you buy a big gulp, The
Speaker 1: same city that, under Nanny Bloomberg, decided you can't have salt,
Speaker 1: and you cannot have pepper on your restaurant table because
Speaker 1: you have to ask for it because it's not healthy
Speaker 1: and maybe by not seeing it you won't use it.
Speaker 1: You can't meatless mondays because of climate change. It's insane.
Speaker 1: Do you think they're gonna kill fewer cows? Do you
Speaker 1: think it's gonna have that big an impact, because actually
Speaker 1: that means more cows will live, That means they will
Speaker 1: continue their flatulence in the release of CO two into
Speaker 1: the atmosphere. You can't believe I'm even arguing this is.
Speaker 1: This is how sick, this is. This is way way
Speaker 1: beyond anything any intelligent person would ever think of. All
Speaker 1: of this, by the way, is rooted in the same regurgitated,
Speaker 1: repeated false promises of every failed socialist society around. You
Speaker 1: know Ocasio Quartz knew green deal, no cars, no oil,
Speaker 1: no gas everything's free, or even college. Now they're gonna
Speaker 1: have college, preschool that'll all be free. Even daycare is
Speaker 1: gonna be funded. Then you're gonna be guaranteed your jobs
Speaker 1: and your vacations in your family and medical leave. And
Speaker 1: then you're gonna be guaranteed healthcare. Then you're gonna be
Speaker 1: a guaranteed retirement, guaranteed government healthy food. But we'll get
Speaker 1: rid of planes and we'll replace them with high speed trains. Okay,
Speaker 1: how do you get to Europe? First question? Did she
Speaker 1: takes the plane from New York to DC. She takes
Speaker 1: the plane from New York to Tech this, How are
Speaker 1: we going to get to Asia? How are we going
Speaker 1: to get to Australia? How fast are you going to
Speaker 1: be able to build that high speed trade? Explain to
Speaker 1: me the route from from New York to New Zealand.
Speaker 1: Explain how we're gonna build all the trains. You're gonna
Speaker 1: build above the water, below the water. How much do
Speaker 1: you think that's gonna cost in and of itself? I mean,
Speaker 1: just what they're promising is ninety four trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: ten years, and it doesn't include any of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And how do we survive? When oil and gas or
Speaker 1: the lifeblood of our society. And what do you do
Speaker 1: if you work in an industry where the oil and
Speaker 1: gas industry, what do you do? Then? What do you
Speaker 1: do when you work in manufacturing? And yeah, you use
Speaker 1: coal to fund your plant, to fuel your plant, use
Speaker 1: you know, gas and energy to heat your home and
Speaker 1: move your automobiles and your cars and everything else. It's unbelievable. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, So yesterday I want to get to uh,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of information on the deep state
Speaker 1: that we want to get to because it's important and
Speaker 1: we're going to get it all in in the course
Speaker 1: of the program. So we have now the third release.
Speaker 1: Last week it was Bruce Oars testimony. Yesterday, we learned
Speaker 1: so much with Lisa Page and and her testimony. We
Speaker 1: learned that in fact, it was Lisa Page telling us that, yeah,
Speaker 1: we didn't really know, we didn't make the decisions, that
Speaker 1: everything was kind of set up and in the DOJ
Speaker 1: and they were making most of the calls here, and
Speaker 1: we knew it was improper and the irregular, and we
Speaker 1: knew a broke protocol, and we also knew that we
Speaker 1: as she's not going to be found guilty or charge
Speaker 1: for anything because they're all Democrats working over there, and yeah,
Speaker 1: they're gonna put the fix in. That's what we got
Speaker 1: from Lisa Page. Pretty scary, it's it's a lot. And
Speaker 1: now we're getting Collins releasing testimony from the Russia Gate
Speaker 1: co conspirator, their boyfriend and girlfriend, Peter Struck, and Collins
Speaker 1: releases this behind door, closed door testimony, the most explosive
Speaker 1: witness in the conspiracy to hijack the FBI and use
Speaker 1: it to sabotage Trump. Remember, Struck was involved in writing
Speaker 1: the exoneration before interviewing Clinton and other key witnesses, with
Speaker 1: James Comey taking out the words the legal standard gross
Speaker 1: negligence and putting in recklessness. And then it was the
Speaker 1: DOJ we learned from Lisa Page that added, well, you
Speaker 1: need to be able to show intent, even though intent
Speaker 1: is not in the clear statute about gross negligence in
Speaker 1: any way anyway. So now that we have this, he
Speaker 1: released the transcript to the American people so they can
Speaker 1: read it themselves. One exchange, you've got Congressman John Ratcliffe
Speaker 1: asking Struck if Muller or his investigative team an inquiry
Speaker 1: into his anti Trump text with Lisa Page. Page was
Speaker 1: worried Trump would become the next president. Struck, Struck sent comfort, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: he's not. Will stop it. Oh, well that then we
Speaker 1: get to the dossier part that comes up later. You know,
Speaker 1: at one point, Trey Gouty grilling Struck on the text
Speaker 1: rooting against Trump and he's a loathsome human being and
Speaker 1: all that, and he points out that Trump had not
Speaker 1: yet become the nominee and that at the time Struck
Speaker 1: was heading the investigation into Clinton. A little bit of
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say? And Gouty grilling
Speaker 1: Struck on the Clinton server case. Struck admits Clinton misshandel
Speaker 1: classified information just like you're admitting. It's a felony. Struck
Speaker 1: tries to explain away the insurance policy, but makes no
Speaker 1: sense at all whatsoever. You know, he thinks it's an
Speaker 1: analogy to say, well, you know every posters saying that
Speaker 1: Clinton's gonna win be elected, and me responding, well, that
Speaker 1: may be true. We need to be responsibly investigating all
Speaker 1: of this and the unlikely event, based on the polls,
Speaker 1: the pundits, the experts, that candidate Trump is elected. Miss
Speaker 1: Lee Jackson Lee interrupts, Why did you advocate for continuing
Speaker 1: the investigation? Let me move to another question. Did you
Speaker 1: mean you had no insurance policy to prevent Trump from
Speaker 1: becoming president? No, it was, well, that was for after
Speaker 1: the president. That's what this whole thing is all about.
Speaker 1: Because we remember they exonerate Hillary the same guy that
Speaker 1: interviewed her, Peter Struck, the same guy that interviewed Manafort,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, that interviewed General Flynn. The same guy then
Speaker 1: begins in July twenty sixteen, the investigation into Trump Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: But as his girlfriend said, he was brought in there
Speaker 1: for the very purpose of finding Russia collusion. But nine
Speaker 1: months later, just before the appointment of Muller, they found nothing,
Speaker 1: just like Nunez's committee found nothing, just like Senator burst
Speaker 1: committee found nothing related to collusion, just like anybody you've
Speaker 1: heard indicted nothing from the Trump campaign process crimes having
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Russia at all, or the president
Speaker 1: or the campaign. Biggest abuse of power. And now we're
Speaker 1: getting the information. You know there are more than thirty
Speaker 1: four million American smokers. I bet that finding a satisfying
Speaker 1: alternative to cigarettes is at the top of your list.
Speaker 1: If you're a smoker. Look, I've been there before, But
Speaker 1: after many years of smoking, I finally made the switch
Speaker 1: to Jewel. Is no more worrying about the way my
Speaker 1: clothes smell, worrying about what people are gonna say. With Jewel,
Speaker 1: everything is so much easier Now. Jewel is a vaporizer
Speaker 1: that contains nicotine for a satisfying transition. When I found Jewel,
Speaker 1: it was a complete game changer. Jewel was designed by
Speaker 1: smokers for smokers to be an alternative to cigarettes. From
Speaker 1: it's simple to use interface to its clean technology. Well,
Speaker 1: Jewel has no cigarette ash, odor or mess. So if
Speaker 1: you're one of the thirty four million adults who smoke,
Speaker 1: know that there is an alternative to cigarett. How to
Speaker 1: discover the smoking alternative that's nothing like you've tried, visit
Speaker 1: Juul dot com slash switch America. That's Juul dot com
Speaker 1: slash Switch America. And warning, this product does contain nicotine
Speaker 1: and nicotine is an addictive chemical. All right, as we
Speaker 1: roll along Sean Hannity Show, Um, looks like we have
Speaker 1: some breaking news. Uh, Linda, are you watching this in
Speaker 1: Tel Aviv? I'm pulling it up right now. Um, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: my computers are working. Really ships right now, Israel military
Speaker 1: there there's rockets. It's fired to Tel Aviv. So rockets
Speaker 1: sirens in Tel Aviv. Now, if you remember when we
Speaker 1: went on our two trips to Israel, the second trip,
Speaker 1: well the first trip we were in Tel Aviv also,
Speaker 1: but that was during the last conflict, during the last war.
Speaker 1: First one we did was during the conflict, and then
Speaker 1: we went down into the tunnels that were built by
Speaker 1: Hamas by using Israeli cement in Israeli electricity. And what
Speaker 1: they were doing is these these tunnels were so huge,
Speaker 1: what was its sixty feet underground, incredibly sophisticated, elaborate, ironically,
Speaker 1: money that was given and cement that was given, an
Speaker 1: electricity that was given by Israel to build schools and
Speaker 1: hospitals for kids on the other side of this conflict,
Speaker 1: and they use it to build these long, elaborate tunnels.
Speaker 1: There were numerous ones. We went in one of the
Speaker 1: deeper ones and then they would come out kill Israelis,
Speaker 1: get back in the tunnel and go back home. Well,
Speaker 1: we one of the first things that happened, I think
Speaker 1: the first time we landed, and that was on the
Speaker 1: trip and The first thing we heard was a siren
Speaker 1: go off. When siren goes off, that means the missiles
Speaker 1: in the air. And then they have their missile system,
Speaker 1: which you know, thank god, takes them out of the
Speaker 1: air if it's going to hit a populated area. What's
Speaker 1: a patriot system? What's their system called the Iron Dome?
Speaker 1: The Iron Dome? And so um. Now, the second time
Speaker 1: we went there, we actually were trying to paint a
Speaker 1: picture of just how small Israel is. It's about the
Speaker 1: size of New Jersey at the tiniest country in the region,
Speaker 1: surrounded by enemies, you know, hence forty eight, sixty seven,
Speaker 1: seventy three and the conflicts that existed at the time.
Speaker 1: So when you got we flew in a helicopter from
Speaker 1: the Mediterranean right up the coast. Well, what's you know,
Speaker 1: literally bordering and you're in the New city, the old city.
Speaker 1: What was it fifteen minutes. It's it's very it's very
Speaker 1: few New York. It's it's so tiny and uh and
Speaker 1: then of course we took you on the tour of that,
Speaker 1: but it's, um, it's the amount of room to defend
Speaker 1: Israel is almost non existent. All right, quick break right
Speaker 1: back we have more to the deep state news Hannity
Speaker 1: watch straight ahead, and it looks like the rockets. We
Speaker 1: have two rockets sirens in Tel Aviv. Eve looks like
Speaker 1: they were fired from Gaza Am. I reading that right.
Speaker 1: We don't know for sure. Initial reports say two sirens
Speaker 1: and that loud explosions were heard. Iron Dome reportedly intercepted
Speaker 1: one of the rockets. The other one landed in an
Speaker 1: open area. This is what's amazing about the Iron Dome.
Speaker 1: We land and we finally get landed in Israel and
Speaker 1: at the airport and we immediately had to hit the
Speaker 1: road and you know, long trip, so taking ll ou
Speaker 1: Great Airline and so we're there. The first thing we
Speaker 1: do is we go and we see the Iron Dome.
Speaker 1: And what their amazing technology is in America helped develop
Speaker 1: this is they can ascertain while the rocket being fired
Speaker 1: is in the air before the Iron Dome makes the
Speaker 1: decision whether to take it out of the year, whether
Speaker 1: that missile let's being fired is going to land in
Speaker 1: a populated area or if it's if it's an unpopulated area.
Speaker 1: They're very expensive. They decide just let it land and
Speaker 1: let it blow up. Um. We were during the wartime. Um.
Speaker 1: I've lost the picture. I don't remember why I lost it,
Speaker 1: but I got a picture of literally, you know, I
Speaker 1: had my camera out for some reason. I hear, I
Speaker 1: hear an explosion, took a picture, and you know there
Speaker 1: was like the beginnings of a mushroom cloud, obviously small
Speaker 1: comparatively to a really big one. Um. And then we
Speaker 1: went to a border city of Gaza cult Sardo Did
Speaker 1: I say that right? And Stetot all right? Uh? And
Speaker 1: a kabbutz as we call it in a neighborhood in
Speaker 1: other words. And so we're there, we go to eat
Speaker 1: that day. Forgot where we ended up staying that night.
Speaker 1: You know, the whole big group of us UM. The
Speaker 1: night before that town had been hit with a rocket
Speaker 1: and you know, all the shrapnel. I mean, it's babies,
Speaker 1: it's glass, it's everything sharp that you can think of
Speaker 1: to maximize you know, death, maximize damage to an individual
Speaker 1: if they were in the area. And I remember taking
Speaker 1: the pictures of that um Stoat is fascinating in its
Speaker 1: own right because it's so close. It's a border city
Speaker 1: and over the course of ten years they've had over
Speaker 1: ten thousand rockets fired into their community. And I remember
Speaker 1: asking parents, well, why don't you leave, why don't you
Speaker 1: move more inland? And they're like, we're not leaving our home.
Speaker 1: This is where we live. What if I told you
Speaker 1: to leave your home? And even the kids they're in
Speaker 1: their playgrounds are indoors. Yeah, well it actually wasn't just indoors.
Speaker 1: It was the JNF underground playgrounds. We literally went, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're literally indoor playgrounds. They're playing in bunkers like you'd
Speaker 1: have a whatever, you know, all the different things you'd
Speaker 1: have in a playground. They've had that in there, but
Speaker 1: they couldn't play outside because of the close proximity. As
Speaker 1: soon as the siren goes off, no kid would be
Speaker 1: able to get to safety and time. And that they
Speaker 1: lived that nightmare every day. And everyone gave me the
Speaker 1: same answer, why don't you you don't think about moving inland?
Speaker 1: This is my home. I live here, I grew up here.
Speaker 1: I'm not doing that. I'm not I'm not giving up anyway.
Speaker 1: So the two rockets to tell avise. Tel Aviv is
Speaker 1: one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen. I
Speaker 1: will say that right on the Mediterranean, just beautiful. It
Speaker 1: was gorgeous, well, we stayed at some hotel one night.
Speaker 1: I know, we weren't there long. It was one of
Speaker 1: these four hour nap things, and then you go and
Speaker 1: I remember just it was at night and I looked
Speaker 1: out and there was a beautiful pool underneath. And then
Speaker 1: you know, I woke up in the morning and I
Speaker 1: just saw the water. I was like, wow, this is spectacular.
Speaker 1: That's when we wanted a little bit more time there. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So we're gonna watch the monitor very closely. And but
Speaker 1: you know, not unusual. They have an election coming up there.
Speaker 1: You just got to hope and pray. I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything like the way they treat prime ministers in Israel.
Speaker 1: I just never seen anything like it. You know, for
Speaker 1: like a box of cigars and maybe a bottle of
Speaker 1: Champagne as a gift, which is just normal in the
Speaker 1: course of doing, you know, being gracious to somebody. I
Speaker 1: can say that I've been to the Prime minister's residence
Speaker 1: in Israel. It's not the White House, you know what.
Speaker 1: It really looks like the equivalent of like a three
Speaker 1: bedroom apartment in New York, except you have a lot
Speaker 1: of walls and a lot of guards. It was unbelievable.
Speaker 1: And it is not a lavish lifestyle in any way.
Speaker 1: They don't even have a plane. They have to charter
Speaker 1: from l when the Prime Minister comes to the US.
Speaker 1: It's not like they're not spending money that way. All right,
Speaker 1: back to this whole thing now that so we had
Speaker 1: Bruce Ors testimony released last week, we had now Lisa
Speaker 1: Pages testimony. Now today out we have Peter Struck's testimony
Speaker 1: out tries to I mean, his explanation try and explain
Speaker 1: away his insurance policy is just laughable. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: so bad. And you on the Clinton Department of Justice
Speaker 1: striking a deal that blocked the FBI access to the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation emails a private server. This is an interesting exchange.
Speaker 1: So there was a mix of emails on the server
Speaker 1: and Struck answer, sure, that's correct. Yes, what do you
Speaker 1: mean by mix all these categories you just described? Question?
Speaker 1: There was a variety of things in that server, including
Speaker 1: those categories of things that I described. That was the
Speaker 1: answer question. So the Clinton Foundation was on the server answer,
Speaker 1: I believe on one of the servers, if not others. Question,
Speaker 1: were you given access to those emails as part of
Speaker 1: the investigation? We were not we did not have access.
Speaker 1: My recollection is is that access to those emails were
Speaker 1: based on consent that were negotiated between the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton, which goes to what
Speaker 1: Lisa Page was saying. They ran it right through Loretta
Speaker 1: Lynch's office. On top of the fact that Page and
Speaker 1: Struck wanted Clinton to win anyway, they loathed Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So now this whole issue of well, even James Baker,
Speaker 1: the Chief Council General counsel the FBI under Comey, said
Speaker 1: she should have been indicted for violating the Espionage Act
Speaker 1: with the server and the Mom and pop bathroom closet,
Speaker 1: and he thought the case was a slam dunk. It
Speaker 1: was Komi going before Loretta Lynch. Well, this investigation into Clinton,
Speaker 1: it's not an investigation, it's a matter. Then you add
Speaker 1: another factor as it relates to Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch's running,
Speaker 1: according to Lisa Page, making every decision. This all cover
Speaker 1: up Clinton now goes straight into the Attorney General, Loretta
Speaker 1: Lynch's office, whose boss is Barack Obama. Now it raises
Speaker 1: questions how much of all of this was he involved in.
Speaker 1: And Struck testifying that the FBI's ability to search these
Speaker 1: emails was constrained by consent agreement. We had a significant
Speaker 1: filter team that was put in place to work through
Speaker 1: the various items of various consent agreements, and those could
Speaker 1: be and this is not an exclusive list, limits of
Speaker 1: domains and dates and ranges of people. That's not an
Speaker 1: exclusive list. And then he detailed the editing process of
Speaker 1: gross negligence. Gross negligence was the legal standard. And remember
Speaker 1: Lisa Page mentions, oh, they needed to also have a
Speaker 1: standard not written into the law, which was intent. And
Speaker 1: then they change the words gross negligence to extreme carelessness.
Speaker 1: At any point did the words gross negligence appear in
Speaker 1: the director's statement? This is to instruct Yes, My recollection
Speaker 1: is that it did. Question and when were those changed?
Speaker 1: At some point? And those were changed at some point
Speaker 1: they were question and what were they changed too? I
Speaker 1: believe extreme carelessness is the phrase that was used instead.
Speaker 1: Question do you recall the discussion surrounding that change or
Speaker 1: why it was deemed necessary and who was involved? Answer?
Speaker 1: I remember generally a discussion about the topic, amongst many
Speaker 1: other topics. My recollection as attorneys brought it up, and
Speaker 1: these of course were d o J attorneys, and the discussion,
Speaker 1: as I recall, it was kind of getting into the
Speaker 1: nitty gritty of how gross negligence is defined as a
Speaker 1: term of art in a legal statute and whether or
Speaker 1: not that should be used. But it was the OGC,
Speaker 1: It was the legal folks director, the director, people who
Speaker 1: had kind of the legal experience turning that around question
Speaker 1: did you make that change or did someone else do it?
Speaker 1: I believe it was done from my computer because I
Speaker 1: had the biggest office, and so my recollection as several
Speaker 1: of us sat down, made the first cut, taking eight, nine,
Speaker 1: ten people's comments and putting it all into the first
Speaker 1: revision or revision, and then I'm sure you've seen from
Speaker 1: production there are about eighty billion subsequent revisions by a
Speaker 1: similar number of people. They took it out. That again
Speaker 1: brings it right to the office of the Attorney General
Speaker 1: and before her. Since you know, let me just stay
Speaker 1: with this for a second, you know, Page, you know,
Speaker 1: Page Struck says that admitted Muller never asked them about
Speaker 1: anything about the texting about protecting the country, about struct's
Speaker 1: explanation of the insurance policy. Mueller hired this guy for
Speaker 1: the very purpose. If you listen to Lisa Page to
Speaker 1: go after Russia collusion, weener laptop has first mentioned in
Speaker 1: connection with an email. It didn't even bring up the
Speaker 1: whole thing about the acid washing and deleting of thirty
Speaker 1: three thousand emails. And you know what you learn here
Speaker 1: is and also Lisa Page brought the CIA director Brennan
Speaker 1: into this. Now that's new. Also, so now you got
Speaker 1: Brennan involved. Now you see that they're claiming that it
Speaker 1: was all run by the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who
Speaker 1: met on the tarmac with Clinton just to talk about
Speaker 1: grandkids for forty five minutes. Just happens to be just
Speaker 1: a few days before the decision is going to be
Speaker 1: made about indicting her wife, his wife, and then she's
Speaker 1: making all the decisions running the FBI, which is not
Speaker 1: normal protocol. It's a matter of fact, so out of
Speaker 1: the ordinary that you know, Lisa Page is saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: that hardly ever, maybe never happened before, it, structs Ratcliffe
Speaker 1: on August eighth, twenty sixteen, in response to a text
Speaker 1: message from Page making inquiries Trump could win No, no, no,
Speaker 1: we'll stop him. Struck. Is that correct? You wrote that, yes,
Speaker 1: did the Special Counsel, anyone with the Special Council of
Speaker 1: the investigative team make any inquiry as to whether or
Speaker 1: not what is reflected in that text impacted your actions,
Speaker 1: your decisions, the manner in which you collected evidence, either
Speaker 1: as part of the Russian investigation or during your involvement
Speaker 1: with the Special Council team. No, wow, you know, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: It really is unbelievable. By the way, we now know
Speaker 1: that it looks like the Clinton email scandal may not
Speaker 1: be over after all. There is some hope. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: there's a lot that's going to be happening now. The
Speaker 1: first of several former administration officials of Obama and former
Speaker 1: aids to Clinton set to be deposed Thursday, after a
Speaker 1: judge ruled in January that they must answer questions under
Speaker 1: oath about the twenty twelve Benghazi terror attack and the
Speaker 1: Clinton emails scandal. Judge Joyce Landberth ordered the discovery after
Speaker 1: a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch seeking on cover whether
Speaker 1: Benghazi and that scandal was one of the reasons for
Speaker 1: keeping Missus Clinton's email secret. Anyway, they announced Wednesday that
Speaker 1: Justin Cooper, a former Clinton Foundation adviser played a role
Speaker 1: in setting up the administering the unauthorized private email server,
Speaker 1: will answer questions under oath in person on Thursday. All
Speaker 1: that would be today, Well, no, that would be yeah today,
Speaker 1: thank you. Eight other depositions of former Obama officials, So
Speaker 1: we'll find out. That's keep your eye on that. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you there's stuff happening. You've been waiting. You've been waiting,
Speaker 1: you've been waiting, you've been frustrated, you've given up at times.
Speaker 1: But it's all happening because you can't. They can't hide
Speaker 1: this anymore. Oh and then we got Andrew Weissman is leaving.
Speaker 1: Why he was ever hired is beyond my comprehension. You know,
Speaker 1: all these people that you know swear he's a marine,
Speaker 1: he's a man of integrity. But we'll find out very quickly.
Speaker 1: Why would anyone be a special counsel and only hire
Speaker 1: Democratic donors? Why would you hire if you're investigating you know, Trump,
Speaker 1: Why would you hire Hillary Clinton's lawyer, Genie Ray and
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation If you're investigating collusion and you find
Speaker 1: out that Clinton bought a dossier full of Russian lies
Speaker 1: that were disseminated to the American public before the election.
Speaker 1: Why wasn't that part of the investigation. Also, if you
Speaker 1: find out that, in fact, everybody in the FBI and
Speaker 1: DOJ were warned it's unverified, and that there was a disdain.
Speaker 1: As Bruce Horse said, Christopher Steele was biased and desperate
Speaker 1: to defeat Trump. So Hillary Clinton funnel's money to the
Speaker 1: law firm, hires Fusion GPS, hires Christopher Steele, creates a dossier,
Speaker 1: its own author, doesn't stand by it, and everybody in
Speaker 1: August of twenty sixteen is warned she bought and paid
Speaker 1: for it, and it's hers, and it's political, and it's unverified,
Speaker 1: and the guy that wrote it hates Trump. And then
Speaker 1: in October they still used it. That means and they
Speaker 1: didn't tell the court and Untillery paid for it. They
Speaker 1: didn't verify it even though they signed it. You know,
Speaker 1: remember James Comey signed that first FISA in October twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: but in January of twenty seventeen, when he went to
Speaker 1: Trump Tower and told him about the dossier, said it
Speaker 1: was silacious, but it's unverified. Well he was telling the
Speaker 1: FISA court again. Grassly Graham memo bulk of the information
Speaker 1: and the application that it was verified. He testified to
Speaker 1: that put a signature on it. So that's where we are.
Speaker 1: This is unbelievable. All right, well more on this, So
Speaker 1: we're just this is now the beginning. There will be
Speaker 1: a beautiful downpour cascading information and criminal referrals coming next.
Speaker 1: All right, glad you're with us, right down our toll
Speaker 1: free telephone number. It's eight hundred and ninety four one,
Speaker 1: sean if you want to be a part of this program.
Speaker 1: All right, A lot going on today, and we have
Speaker 1: two missiles have been fired at Tel Aviv. One was
Speaker 1: picked up by the Iron Dome. One exploded, but in
Speaker 1: a non populated area. Those are reports. Now, I would
Speaker 1: expect a strong fierce response from Israel because that's what
Speaker 1: they do. You don't get to fire rockets into Israel
Speaker 1: and Israel not hit back. And unfortunately this has been
Speaker 1: their history. And why this country, as small as it is,
Speaker 1: our number one ally in the region, the only democracy
Speaker 1: in the region. You know, it's been under fire since
Speaker 1: you know, the forty eight piece partition plan that was
Speaker 1: supposed to end all conflicts. And remember Bengorian offered his
Speaker 1: hand of a friendly neighborhoodiness at the time, and the
Speaker 1: next day Israel's attacked and the sixty seven war. In
Speaker 1: the seventy three war, Israel was surrounded, you know. And
Speaker 1: rocket attacks are not new. Um. We had been to Studote,
Speaker 1: which is in Israel, and you know one next to Gaza.
Speaker 1: It's ten thousand rockets in ten years, and we had
Speaker 1: one fire the night before we arrived there looking at
Speaker 1: the shrapnel, and a neighborhood of kabuts in that town
Speaker 1: went to the police station and literally we're taking pictures
Speaker 1: of all the rockets that have been recovered over the
Speaker 1: many years. It's a small sampling, and how much bigger
Speaker 1: and more powerful they've gotten over the year. Just sad
Speaker 1: when you have kids that cannot play outside because they
Speaker 1: have to play in an underground playground because you don't
Speaker 1: have enough time from the time the sirens go off
Speaker 1: to the time that rocket is about to hit. And
Speaker 1: that's that is the existence every single day. Imagine any
Speaker 1: town in America. Anyway, we continue our Hannity Watch on
Speaker 1: the Deep State. A lot happening today. So last week
Speaker 1: it was Bruce Or's testimony. Thanks to Congressman Doug Collins
Speaker 1: of Georgia releasing all of it. Then yesterday it was
Speaker 1: Lisa Page, and today it was Peter Struck. And I've
Speaker 1: been going through my analysis of all of this, and
Speaker 1: we've found a lot. And we bring in John Solomon,
Speaker 1: who's been on this from the beginning, and David Shone
Speaker 1: is back with us, and we appreciate both of you
Speaker 1: joining us. John, you've been reading it all day. I've
Speaker 1: been reading it all day, and I found my things.
Speaker 1: What did you found? Fine? What stood out to you?
Speaker 1: You know, I think at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the purely political nature of the origins of this case
Speaker 1: and the oddities of how this case began. Every counterintelligence
Speaker 1: case I've ever covered in my life before the two
Speaker 1: involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, were always done in
Speaker 1: the field by the experts closest to the case. It
Speaker 1: was a Russia case, it was done in Russia. If
Speaker 1: it was an English case, it was done in London.
Speaker 1: Here it gets both of these cases get sucked into headquarters,
Speaker 1: away from the rank and file members who do their
Speaker 1: job without partisanship, and it's put into the hands of
Speaker 1: these extraordinarily political leaders of the FBI, and they're taking
Speaker 1: all sorts of actions that violate the manual and the
Speaker 1: normal daily way in which investigations are conducted. I just
Speaker 1: broke the story a second ago. It just went up
Speaker 1: a few seconds ago, Sean. But I think it's really significant.
Speaker 1: For the first time we can say affirmatively the FBI
Speaker 1: not only knew that the person that was giving the
Speaker 1: evidence to them, Christopher Stilla, was political biased, paid by
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, leaking to the media, lying. Those are all
Speaker 1: the things that we focused most of the FBI abuses on.
Speaker 1: So far, we can say, before the FISA warrant, the
Speaker 1: very price of warrant was issued, that the FBI had
Speaker 1: positive evidence of innocence on behalf of a George Papadopolis
Speaker 1: and Carter Page evidence of innocence that they didn't, but
Speaker 1: they had exculpatory evidence of Popadopolis and Page before the
Speaker 1: first FISA warrant. Absolutely, they had an informant who met
Speaker 1: with both of them, who captured them saying. There was
Speaker 1: no collusion, There was no meeting in Moscow with the
Speaker 1: two senior Russian officials, there was no effort to hack
Speaker 1: Clinton emails. In fact, Papadoppolis says in the conversation, he
Speaker 1: would have thought Trump engaging in hockey would be treason,
Speaker 1: and no one in this campaign wouldever commit treason. These
Speaker 1: are dispositive statements of innocence unwittingly given to an undercover
Speaker 1: FBI informant and are kept from the court. If the
Speaker 1: court knew this, the chances of the FISA warrant being
Speaker 1: issued would be much much less likely. Well, we know
Speaker 1: that that McCabe had said the deputy FBI director, no,
Speaker 1: no dossier, there would be no FISA, So we knew
Speaker 1: that existed, and so I want to go back into this,
Speaker 1: so they had the exculpatory evidence. Now, Bruce Or we
Speaker 1: learned last week that he had said that he told
Speaker 1: everybody that Steele had a hatred and it was invested
Speaker 1: in Trump losing, and that it was paid for by
Speaker 1: Hillary also the DNC that money she was controlling, and
Speaker 1: also by a Russian oligarch. And now we also know
Speaker 1: that Steele was being paid by the FBI interesting all
Speaker 1: for the same material, and that Hillary paid for it
Speaker 1: and it was unverified. And then we know that when
Speaker 1: questioned under oath, Steele was asked about his own dossier
Speaker 1: and he couldn't stand by it. So anybody that says
Speaker 1: they verified it. That would be impossible to verify something
Speaker 1: that the author of can't verify. That's right, And I
Speaker 1: think that now you're saying, go over the exculpatory evidence again.
Speaker 1: So up to this point, everything that we've talked about
Speaker 1: from an exculpatory standpoint involved Steele's credibility who he is paid.
Speaker 1: From the fact that the dossier wasn't yet verified, it
Speaker 1: was being used that he expressed the bruces or that
Speaker 1: he would do anything to stop Donald Trump from becoming president,
Speaker 1: that there were other sources of Democrats feeding the FBI
Speaker 1: clearly politically tainted democratic motive allegations against Trump. We've never
Speaker 1: been able to say before for a certainty that the
Speaker 1: FBI would haven't intercepted evidence of innocence meeting the people
Speaker 1: they were looking at the George Papadopoulos's and the Carter pages,
Speaker 1: that those people were making statements not knowing they were
Speaker 1: meeting with an informant, thinking they were meeting with everyday
Speaker 1: people where they were saying, No, I didn't meet in
Speaker 1: Russia with those two Russian intelligence agents. I would never
Speaker 1: get that level. That didn't happen. No, we didn't change
Speaker 1: the Ukraine platform at the GOP convention for Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: We did it for other reasons. No, none of us
Speaker 1: did anything to work with the Russians to hack Hillary
Speaker 1: Couln's email. In fact, we would find it reprehensible if
Speaker 1: any American tried to work with the Russians to do
Speaker 1: the hacking. Those sort of statements undercut the entire reason
Speaker 1: they open the investigation, and they do this before they
Speaker 1: get the FIS warrant. It's really remarkable. September and August
Speaker 1: of sixteen, these statements are made by the key witnesses
Speaker 1: that they're targeting to an informer of the FBI. Wow, unbelievable,
Speaker 1: David shown But before I get to this, you just
Speaker 1: got back from Israel and you see that two missiles
Speaker 1: have been fired to Tel Aviv. I'm sure there'll be
Speaker 1: a pretty swift and strong response. It's amazing what people
Speaker 1: don't know about the security threats of this country that
Speaker 1: I know you and I love so much. But I
Speaker 1: am confident that the Prime Minister has now brought his
Speaker 1: war cabinet together, is prepared. Yeah, and I just left
Speaker 1: Tel Aviv this morning. I actually he drove right by
Speaker 1: where these rockets had hit. Um, yes, he's convened to
Speaker 1: Security Cabinet. But let me say this, not only uh,
Speaker 1: do you and I love Israel, but having just come
Speaker 1: back from Israel and spend the weekend conferences um about
Speaker 1: legal challenges Israel's facing, I have to tell you that
Speaker 1: you are absolutely loved in Israel. Everybody knows you. Everybody
Speaker 1: knows that you're great. Love for the State of Israel,
Speaker 1: love the state of all on principle, all on the facts. Well,
Speaker 1: the facts are the facts that you know, they're surrounded
Speaker 1: by people that have been trying to destroy them. They're
Speaker 1: openly stated their their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Um,
Speaker 1: And Uh, it's it's unbelievable to me, especially in light
Speaker 1: of you know, Congresswoman Omar's virulent anti Semitism and the
Speaker 1: rise of anti Semitism in Europe, and you know, and
Speaker 1: these crazy, you know, Nazi nut jobs that say they're
Speaker 1: on the right and they are not, and they're just lunatics.
Speaker 1: It's a little scary right now seeing seeing this congresswoman
Speaker 1: saying things that are just unbelievable. Yeah. I'm of the school,
Speaker 1: quite frankly, and I don't hesitate to say this and
Speaker 1: I'm only speaking for myself. I'm of the school that
Speaker 1: the greatest threat right now anti Semitism in this country
Speaker 1: comes from this so called progressive left, which in my
Speaker 1: view is anything other than progressive. But I'm talking specifically
Speaker 1: about Omar Clabe and Ocasio Cortez. Remember they are all advocates,
Speaker 1: formal advocates of BDS, which is anti Semitic, and only
Speaker 1: singles out the state of Israel for a boycott when
Speaker 1: the Israel is a leader in all of the fields
Speaker 1: that so called progressive should care about, for anything from
Speaker 1: the environment to gay rights, etc. It's pure and simple
Speaker 1: anti semitism by any stretch of the imagination. And for
Speaker 1: them to try to turn people on the defensive and
Speaker 1: say they're being attacked because their Muslim is nonsense. If
Speaker 1: anybody said what they're saying, they'd be called out for
Speaker 1: being anti Semitic and sanctioned. But you know, back to
Speaker 1: your point, I just want to cover one thing that
Speaker 1: you were discussing with John. But John's article really points
Speaker 1: out is too conceptually different things. One, there's this exculpatory evidence,
Speaker 1: huge body of evidence that shows underlying facts were withheld
Speaker 1: and not true that would show attempting the gait even
Speaker 1: what the claim is. But the other is impeachment evidence.
Speaker 1: There's specific evidence that now destroys the credibility of Steel
Speaker 1: and anyone who was involved in this because they didn't
Speaker 1: disclose all the facts, and all of this violates the
Speaker 1: express rules of the FISA Court. This is a story
Speaker 1: of the decade at least. Well, I agree, and I
Speaker 1: think what John's saying here today. You're right, we had circumstance.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even circumstantial. You couldn't you couldn't verify. Now
Speaker 1: here's an interesting question about James Comey, and I'll start
Speaker 1: with you, David, because you're the lawyer. So James Comey
Speaker 1: signs the first Fiser agreement. Rod Rosenstein said, you're putting
Speaker 1: your full faith credibility. The new Nest memo, the Grassly
Speaker 1: Graham memos both said the bulk of that original FISA application. Again,
Speaker 1: John breaking news today that the exculpatory evidence withheld. What
Speaker 1: was the dossier? They never verified it, They never told
Speaker 1: the FISA Court judges she paid for it. They never
Speaker 1: said that they didn't verify it. McCabe had said without
Speaker 1: the dossier, there's no warrant Now that's James Comey signs
Speaker 1: that in October twenty sixteen. In January goes to Trump Tower,
Speaker 1: talks to President elect Trump about dossier that is salacious
Speaker 1: and unverified. So if he's saying that in January but
Speaker 1: signed off as being true, did he commit a will
Speaker 1: fill fraud on a FISA court And did he commit
Speaker 1: a conspiracy? Was he involved in a conspiracy to deny
Speaker 1: an American citizen his constitutional rights? And was he involved
Speaker 1: in a conspiracy to alter an election by getting the
Speaker 1: information VISA via the Trump campaign through Carter Page's emails.
Speaker 1: I think the facts absolutely support that and nothing less.
Speaker 1: And the next step, of course, was his decision to
Speaker 1: leak documents to his friend for that specific purpose to
Speaker 1: get the special counsel appointed, etc. But also to affect
Speaker 1: the election. And Rob Rosen's team is all over that too.
Speaker 1: But you know John mentioned earlier there was no showing
Speaker 1: of trees and that sort of thing. On the opposite
Speaker 1: side of things, what we know now from Struke's testimony
Speaker 1: is Tolmy was specifically considering and other Department officials were
Speaker 1: considering Espionage Act charges against Hillary and that was shut
Speaker 1: down too. One of the biggest things, of course, we
Speaker 1: get from Struke's testimony, which Washington Post is trying to
Speaker 1: put a spin on today, but the Examiner reports more clearly,
Speaker 1: is that a deal was struck, a pun intended. The
Speaker 1: ideal was struck to avoid any investigation of the Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation emails. Filters were put up so the dj didn't
Speaker 1: look into them. I mean, this is outrageous that there
Speaker 1: were these kinds of private agreements going on. And by
Speaker 1: the way, the lawyer for Hillary Clinton during that investigation
Speaker 1: was Jeanie Ree, who is now part of the Muller team.
Speaker 1: This is incestuous. There are a lot of lawyers out there.
Speaker 1: They could have been chosen for that Mueller team. It's
Speaker 1: not coincidental, all right, Respond to that, John Solomon. He's
Speaker 1: right on the money on everything, and very insightful analysis
Speaker 1: on all this. You know, there's a lot of signs
Speaker 1: of what the future holds for this investigation. Today, Andrew
Speaker 1: Weisman stepped down, so Mueller's top deputy is now gone.
Speaker 1: He's been obviously an object of a lot of criticism
Speaker 1: for his past conduct in cases. The Mueller investigation is
Speaker 1: winding down. It will wind down without a finding of
Speaker 1: Russian collusion. When that happens, what should wind up is
Speaker 1: an intensive investigation of how the FBI had two systems
Speaker 1: of justice. One for Hillary Clinton, one where Lauretta lynchous
Speaker 1: people say we're not going to prosecute her under the law,
Speaker 1: even if that's what the standards, don't do it, one
Speaker 1: where they allow people to have immunity and destroy evidence
Speaker 1: without any consequence. And another one where a Republican for
Speaker 1: which there's an absence of evidence is put through a
Speaker 1: two year investigation that from the beginning all the signs
Speaker 1: indicated there was innocence, not guilt, and that there was
Speaker 1: a political dirty trick going on. So what's happening on
Speaker 1: that front today? I just saw something move across the
Speaker 1: wires here a few seconds ago. Lindsey Graham is now
Speaker 1: officially calling for a special prosecutor to look at a
Speaker 1: dual system of justice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department treat these two presidential candidates entirely different.
Speaker 1: I think the body of evidence we have in the
Speaker 1: public the answer already is yes. But if we get
Speaker 1: a special prosecutor, there can be consequences. Devin noonez criminal
Speaker 1: referrals are coming. John Solomon with this new evidence, and
Speaker 1: now we're getting all of these we're getting just the
Speaker 1: beginning of a cascade of information, with so much more
Speaker 1: to come. Right, how many people do you think are
Speaker 1: going to be in legal trouble? Thirty seconds for each
Speaker 1: of you. Well, I can tell you right now that
Speaker 1: the House Republicans I've talked to have prepared referrals on
Speaker 1: nine people is what they've been working on over the
Speaker 1: last week. So at least nine people are going to
Speaker 1: be sent over on top of those already referred, like
Speaker 1: Glenn Simpson and people like that. And your thoughts on that,
Speaker 1: David Shoe. Look, I'm a skeptic, you know. I hope,
Speaker 1: I know they'll be referred. I hope there's action taken.
Speaker 1: We've seen too much inaction, even on the referrals made
Speaker 1: already under the most recent attorneys general. But I hope
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman isn't going to escape by stepping down now.
Speaker 1: I don't know how with a straight face. He spoke
Speaker 1: the Manifold sentencing about the harm from keeping things from
Speaker 1: the American public. That's the hallmark of his career, keeping
Speaker 1: exculpatory facts from the American public and lying and cheating,
Speaker 1: and when the judge said democracy only works when the
Speaker 1: American people have the facts, she should have been looking
Speaker 1: at Andrew Weissman. Well all said all right, we'll take
Speaker 1: a break. Continue more on the other side, its roundup
Speaker 1: and more. This case is about the widening corruption of
Speaker 1: elite college admissions to the steady application of well combined
Speaker 1: with fraud, there can be no separate college admission system
Speaker 1: for the wealthy, and will add that there will not
Speaker 1: be a separate criminal justice system either. Every year, hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of hard working, talented students strive for admission
Speaker 1: to elite schools. As every parent knows, these students work
Speaker 1: harder and harder every year in a system that appears
Speaker 1: to grow more and more competitive every year. And that
Speaker 1: system is a zero sum game for every student admitted
Speaker 1: through fraud and honest, genuinely talented student was rejected. The
Speaker 1: parents charged today, despite already being able to give their
Speaker 1: children every legitimate advantage in the college admissions game, instead
Speaker 1: shows to corrupt and illegally manipulate the system for their benefit.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about donating a building so that a
Speaker 1: school's more likely to take your son or daughter. We're
Speaker 1: talking about deception and fraud. Fake test scores, fake athletic credentials,
Speaker 1: fake photographs, bribed college officials. All right there. It is
Speaker 1: the ongoing scandal, the biggest ever in the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice history. Now we're hearing it may go as high
Speaker 1: as eight eight hundred clients this guy had, and that
Speaker 1: would be a system that is rigged to get kids
Speaker 1: SAT scores that they could never achieve, or even get
Speaker 1: them scholarships for sports that they never even played, which
Speaker 1: would be fraudulent. I you know, it's pretty unbelievable the
Speaker 1: depth of all of this. Twenty years in jail, these
Speaker 1: these parents face and you know, it's remarkable to me.
Speaker 1: But by the way we joined, we're joined by Jonathan
Speaker 1: Gillham and Danielle McLaughlin. What's remarkable to me is, you know,
Speaker 1: you would think the standardized tests are the most heavily
Speaker 1: proctered tests, that that was issue one of my mine.
Speaker 1: But there apparently were the special centers where they had
Speaker 1: their inn I guess because they bought their way in
Speaker 1: and the proctors would help or give the answers after
Speaker 1: the tests, etcetera, etcetera. You know, as it relates to
Speaker 1: any if anyone is involved in any serious sport that
Speaker 1: would rise to the collegiate level, and I know from
Speaker 1: my own experience is that you will have a record
Speaker 1: that goes back for you know, since you were probably
Speaker 1: preteens in terms of where you played, how you played,
Speaker 1: where you were ranked, etc. So to me, Jonathan, that's like,
Speaker 1: there's no due diligence going on in any of these cases.
Speaker 1: There's no due diligence, And to me, I think it's
Speaker 1: a little I'd like to really know how long this
Speaker 1: has been going on, because I don't think it's something
Speaker 1: that just started. And if that's the case, there's there's
Speaker 1: no telling how deep this could reach. Definitely potentially in
Speaker 1: the politicians that we that are active right now, not
Speaker 1: just actors. And that's what I'd like to see is
Speaker 1: for the DOJ to redeem themselves a little bit in
Speaker 1: this circumstance where they don't play fast and loose with
Speaker 1: politicians or people that are from the deep state. I'd
Speaker 1: like to see anybody that was accountable for this, anybody
Speaker 1: that was involved in this, to be brought before the
Speaker 1: DOJ and haven't been an FBI agent. This is a
Speaker 1: type of case that people long for because of the
Speaker 1: the it's I know people are going to say this
Speaker 1: isn't the mob, or this isn't murder, But what this
Speaker 1: is is it's total disregard for any type of system
Speaker 1: and people that will do something like this and go
Speaker 1: this far in this much bribery and be involved in
Speaker 1: this knowingly they're willing to do probably just about I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a whole other host of moral things that codes
Speaker 1: that are going to violate in life. So bad people
Speaker 1: do bad things. They just got caught at this one.
Speaker 1: And I'd like to see the DJ go full bore
Speaker 1: on this. What do you think, Danielle, I'm in full agreement. Now.
Speaker 1: This is a perfect storm of privilege, of wealth, of
Speaker 1: arrogance and fraud. And I would like to say that
Speaker 1: all the hard working parents and students out there that
Speaker 1: this is one for the good guys. I think it's
Speaker 1: disgusting and to the point of the prosecutor in Boston,
Speaker 1: this is a zero sum gang. So these kids who
Speaker 1: were not qualified to go to these schools, some of
Speaker 1: them Ivy League schools, they kicked off or kicked out.
Speaker 1: There's one student for each of those kids that didn't
Speaker 1: get to go in and I think this is disgusting
Speaker 1: and I want the book to be thrown at these parents.
Speaker 1: You know, it's so funny. I'm gonna put as Linda
Speaker 1: to put on our microphone because we went over this
Speaker 1: and over this yesterday and you know, one of the
Speaker 1: things that we kept bringing up, and the attorney there,
Speaker 1: the US attorney made the case as he was discussing this,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about a parent buying an expensive building
Speaker 1: in the school. Well, if you buy a building and
Speaker 1: your kid gets in that way, how is that any different?
Speaker 1: It really isn't. Or if you know, we have what's
Speaker 1: called legacy admissions and a lot of these schools that
Speaker 1: have been around a long time and kids will get
Speaker 1: in because legacy doesn't mean just that the parents went
Speaker 1: there or the grandparents went there and then the parents
Speaker 1: went there. It also is associated with some money. And Linda,
Speaker 1: go ahead, jump in. Yeah, I mean you know, I
Speaker 1: just listen, hire people any Hi, Danielle hid Jonathan's it gone?
Speaker 1: So you know, thanks for inviting that. We have to
Speaker 1: waste all that time, go oh my god, twenty seconds
Speaker 1: Basans hound stommable. So my whole thing was I just
Speaker 1: think this is a whole bunch of hoopla, And I
Speaker 1: don't really care about it, because you know, this is life.
Speaker 1: You know, movers and shakers make moves and shake things up,
Speaker 1: and they do what they want and they pay to
Speaker 1: get there. And I'm not saying that this isn't important.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that there's a whole lot of uproar
Speaker 1: about this one incident. And there's been plenty of incidents
Speaker 1: like this. I mean to me, getting your kids private
Speaker 1: tutors and you know, paying for piano lessons and you know,
Speaker 1: this lesson and that lesson, and you know, doing things
Speaker 1: for them that other kids wouldn't be able to do.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're paying for it. In this case, they
Speaker 1: light I'm not saying it's not wrong. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: it's not the only thing that's wrong. Well, let's slow down.
Speaker 1: If I'll go back to the example of football. We
Speaker 1: were talking a lot about Clemson in Alabama yesterday. They're
Speaker 1: gonna have great football programs, and it enriches the school
Speaker 1: experience for every other kid. Never very rich my experience. Okay,
Speaker 1: So let's say football or basketball or baseball, whatever it
Speaker 1: happens to be the sport that draws the biggest crowds.
Speaker 1: All the students have to be there, they want to
Speaker 1: be there. They're having the time of their lives. So
Speaker 1: this other talent that these athletes have enriches the school also,
Speaker 1: you know, as they go out to try and win
Speaker 1: championships and bring prestige to the school. Now, maybe some
Speaker 1: of the athletes, okay, the academic standards are a little lower,
Speaker 1: but they're bringing an off bring the school something that
Speaker 1: nobody else, a talent that that other kids can't bring.
Speaker 1: That benefits the school immensely. Now as a result, it
Speaker 1: also brings in massive amounts of money because they're almost
Speaker 1: like pro athletes in football. I mean they're in basketball,
Speaker 1: many of them now, although many of them won't make
Speaker 1: it to the pros. But I think college football is
Speaker 1: more exciting than the NFL. But school is for education.
Speaker 1: It's not for football. It's not the basketball, it's not
Speaker 1: for playing the violin, all right, excuse me. It's not
Speaker 1: just about the ABC's. It's also about personal enrichment. And
Speaker 1: so if you have school spirit, school bonding, etc. The
Speaker 1: school makes money, but part of that money is used
Speaker 1: to take kids who maybe academically wouldn't have made it
Speaker 1: through the emissions process, and yeah, some of that money
Speaker 1: is spent to tutor the kids that so they'll get
Speaker 1: up to that level. And then some of the money
Speaker 1: is used to build out new facilities, and some of
Speaker 1: the money is used to build more athletic facilities for everybody.
Speaker 1: That benefits everyone. So in that sense, it's it's enriching everybody.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been a lot of talk about maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, really high level athletes in college should get
Speaker 1: paid with some kind but then that opens up a
Speaker 1: Pandora's box that for a different day. But I think
Speaker 1: that you know, if you leave Clemson or Alabama and
Speaker 1: you won national championships in those years, you will forever
Speaker 1: talk about it. Everybody I know that has graduated from
Speaker 1: any college, they always think their college is the best college,
Speaker 1: best experienced, best time in their life. And they all
Speaker 1: want to go back to the football games. They all
Speaker 1: want to go back to the basketball games. They all
Speaker 1: want to you know, it's sort of like they want to.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous. That again, that's ridiculous. That's not what school
Speaker 1: is for. School is for education. When I went to school,
Speaker 1: I learned I didn't care about the basketball in the football.
Speaker 1: It's nice. You don't even you You don't even know
Speaker 1: what a field goal is, nor do I care? How
Speaker 1: many do you get for a field goal? Jonathan? I
Speaker 1: haven't know. How many points do you get for a fig?
Speaker 1: No idea? You don't how many points do you get
Speaker 1: for a touchdown? But you know what I do know?
Speaker 1: How many people know what I do know? I know
Speaker 1: how to balance my checkbook? How many no history? How
Speaker 1: many points do you get for a touchdown? I was
Speaker 1: a straight a student. How many points do you get
Speaker 1: for a touchdown? Stop, Ethan, I have no idea. You
Speaker 1: really don't know. By the way, this is the only
Speaker 1: person in America you know. What you're not understanding is
Speaker 1: what's look. I didn't have the college experience that all
Speaker 1: of my friends and colleagues have had because I didn't
Speaker 1: have any money to pay for college. Now I did
Speaker 1: go to college. I went to a Delphia a year,
Speaker 1: went to MYU a year, went to college in Rhode
Speaker 1: Island for a year. But I had to keep dropping
Speaker 1: out because I was working full time. Like you, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have had time to go see a football game
Speaker 1: if there was one, and I ended up you know,
Speaker 1: not finishing. That's why they always right Sean Hannity, college
Speaker 1: drop out, Well, I didn't have any money to go
Speaker 1: back to college, so and then I got into radio.
Speaker 1: My whole life change. But you know, Jonathan, don't you
Speaker 1: agree with me? The kids musical talent, theater talent, kids
Speaker 1: that field hockey, soccer or whatever. Lacrosse there are kids
Speaker 1: in Long Island and Lacrosse in like eighth and ninth grade.
Speaker 1: They make verbal commitments to schools at that age. I've
Speaker 1: did unbelievable. You know. First of all, I don't know
Speaker 1: what happened to guys when you went to Vietnam he
Speaker 1: came back. Now you sound like an old couple that's
Speaker 1: arguing I don't know what happens on the flights there.
Speaker 1: But second, but the thing is about when it comes
Speaker 1: to this, you know, and I understand where Linda, where
Speaker 1: you're coming from. When you're saying that, you know, just
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense, like it's that big. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing. We've gotten into a point in this country
Speaker 1: where we hold certain people to standards and then we
Speaker 1: hold other people not to those standards. I mean, we
Speaker 1: see it's with the Clintons versus somebody who took pictures
Speaker 1: of a submarine, a sailor who took because of jail.
Speaker 1: The Clintons don't well when it comes to school and
Speaker 1: it comes to these things. These things are so egregious
Speaker 1: that if kid was caught cheating on their SAT, they
Speaker 1: would never get in any of these schools. Their crew
Speaker 1: would be ruined forever. I totally agree with you. My
Speaker 1: opinion is just that we're blowing this one thing up
Speaker 1: and out of proportion with all of the other things
Speaker 1: that are happening concurrently. And that's what I said. Okay,
Speaker 1: why is it okay? The assistant attorney said, it's not
Speaker 1: like buying a building in the hopes that your kid's
Speaker 1: gonna get in. Now, I'm just guessing if you if
Speaker 1: you bought a building, you'd probably have a better chance
Speaker 1: of getting in. Is that wrong? Yes? Yeah, I agree,
Speaker 1: I agree that that. I think there was a stupid
Speaker 1: statement on his part. So wrong. No, I thought I
Speaker 1: thought it was all right. What about the legacy kids?
Speaker 1: What about the kids who's mommy and daddy went there
Speaker 1: wrong and donated a lot of money? All wrong? You
Speaker 1: should get in on your own merit. It should be
Speaker 1: based on merit only. How is it that possible? How
Speaker 1: many we looked it up yesterday? What is Harvard's endowment?
Speaker 1: Thirty seven seven billion dollars? Wow, and that's incredible. It
Speaker 1: comes a hedge fund for DC and for the rich
Speaker 1: and for the elite in this country that they you know,
Speaker 1: that they continue to have their kids there, that the
Speaker 1: college continues to have funds, and this is a system
Speaker 1: that only benefits them. And you know, I don't want
Speaker 1: to sound like Danielle talking here when I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the rich versus the poor, but if there is any
Speaker 1: type of privilege in this country, it is of the
Speaker 1: elite rich and how they can do the and I
Speaker 1: will get away with it. I will add one thing
Speaker 1: to this, and it's something I thought about last night.
Speaker 1: I've talked to a friend of mine and I think
Speaker 1: that it made a lot of sense, which is, now
Speaker 1: we have these people right, so there are a bunch
Speaker 1: of liberals donating and paying for all of these criminal
Speaker 1: things and making up fake dossiers for their children's that
Speaker 1: they can get into schools that they don't actually belong
Speaker 1: in the first place. And then you mean, photoshop was
Speaker 1: just being funny, Get it okay? Moving on. So anyways,
Speaker 1: I hope someone enjoyed this on on our little thing here.
Speaker 1: But all that to say, now we have all of
Speaker 1: the kids who can't add one plus one, and now
Speaker 1: we have the next generation of liberals that are going
Speaker 1: to be the liberal elite. They're going to become congressmen
Speaker 1: and women because they went to these ivy league schools
Speaker 1: where they didn't deserve to be. They never learned anything
Speaker 1: because they paid their way through. They don't even want
Speaker 1: a talented athlete to get and they become a part
Speaker 1: of the swamp. This is how we get our deep.
Speaker 1: So you have a kid that has a different talent
Speaker 1: than another kid you have. Yeah, but see if you
Speaker 1: all do live the same lives. You know, Listen, I
Speaker 1: believe every human being is born with talent. Some people
Speaker 1: were born with natural athletic ability. Others work hard to
Speaker 1: become good at what they do. And so if if
Speaker 1: you have a football team where all these kids are
Speaker 1: phenomenal athletes, that they bring this to the school. The
Speaker 1: school recognizes in part that it brings a whole new
Speaker 1: extra experience to the school to enrich people in ways
Speaker 1: outside of academics. Everybody loves sports except for you. You're
Speaker 1: the only person in the world that doesn't know how
Speaker 1: many points are in a touchdown. Hey, listen, I have
Speaker 1: some tips how you. All right? Wrapping up this half
Speaker 1: hour with Jonathan Gilliman Danielle McLaughlin. All right, final thoughts
Speaker 1: fifteen seconds each. Jonathan, Well, I think, you know, when
Speaker 1: we look at things like this, we just have to
Speaker 1: remember the moral compass and the things that are going
Speaker 1: on in this country. When we talk about the deep
Speaker 1: state and we see things at this level, chances are
Speaker 1: that they're involved. And I think the DOJ should look
Speaker 1: into stuff like this. Isn't go after these people, all right, Danielle,
Speaker 1: you get the last word. You know, I just want
Speaker 1: to believe that America is a meritocracy, and that getting
Speaker 1: into college is a meritocracy. And honestly, whether you're buying
Speaker 1: a building, or your a legacy entrant or your appearance
Speaker 1: is spending one point two million to get you into Yale,
Speaker 1: some of it might be legal, some of it might
Speaker 1: be illegal, but ultimately I think it's all wrong and
Speaker 1: people should get in on a And Linda, you want
Speaker 1: to eliminate all sports in school and just give out calculators,
Speaker 1: and you know compassis. Right, I want to run the
Speaker 1: field with calculators. Calculators what do you call that? What
Speaker 1: are those things they used to put in their pocket?
Speaker 1: And for protector pocket pocket protections one every day just
Speaker 1: to irritate you, Oh my gosh. All right, when we
Speaker 1: come back the other news of the day, News roundup,
Speaker 1: Information overload and your calls eight hundred and nine for one,
Speaker 1: Seawan told free telephone number. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. Here for our final news roundup
Speaker 1: and information overload. Right, news roundup, Information overload and your
Speaker 1: calls eight hundred and nine for one seawn if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program. All right. Bozo'
Speaker 1: rourke announcing in a I guess it was a YouTube
Speaker 1: video that he put out social media video. He's running
Speaker 1: for president. Bozo running for president because this is him
Speaker 1: endorsing the Green New Deal. Climate change could lead to
Speaker 1: extinction based on previous predictions, we would be already extinct
Speaker 1: by now. And they've been wrong about everything. First it
Speaker 1: was oh, the next ice age is coming. Then it
Speaker 1: was global cooling, then global warming. Then it's just plain
Speaker 1: old climate change. Because if the climate changes would it
Speaker 1: has historically it has to do with man and man's
Speaker 1: desire for profit and capitalism. Here's what he says. The
Speaker 1: question is on the Green New Deal, and by extension
Speaker 1: of if you don't mind, I'll take the spirit of
Speaker 1: the question. We face catastrophe and crisis on this planet
Speaker 1: even if we were to stop emitting carbon today. Right now,
Speaker 1: at this moment, we know that the storms that we
Speaker 1: saw in Texas, Harvey, which don't the landfall record amount
Speaker 1: of rain on the United States of America as long
Speaker 1: as we've been keeping records to claim the lives of
Speaker 1: too many of our fellow Americans, flooded, people literally out
Speaker 1: of their homes and businesses. Storms like Harvey are only
Speaker 1: going to become more frequent, and more severe and more devastating,
Speaker 1: and ultimately they'll compromise the ability to live in a
Speaker 1: city like Houston, Texas. This is your twenty twenty cast
Speaker 1: of characters that want to be the next president. Unbelievable
Speaker 1: and that's what we got as a country. This is
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with now as a country. A radical,
Speaker 1: extreme left wing Democratic Socialist Party. Kasio Cortez accusing the
Speaker 1: Wells Fargo CEO of the financing of caging of children.
Speaker 1: I'm like, what is this woman talking about? Where does
Speaker 1: this all come from? Who makes this stuff up? I
Speaker 1: mean it is, it's my numbing where this come don't
Speaker 1: fear by the way being automated out of work. Automation
Speaker 1: will mean more time for creating art. Seventy percent tax
Speaker 1: rate for individuals, marginal tax rate, top moginal rate, ninety
Speaker 1: percent top marginal tax rate for corporations. Well, even the
Speaker 1: socialist utopias she talks about, they right now have a
Speaker 1: lower corporate tax rate than we do. Why Because it's smart.
Speaker 1: It's the only way you're going to get businesses to
Speaker 1: invest money in your country, or they're going to leave,
Speaker 1: just like businesses are leaving New York and New Jersey
Speaker 1: and Cali Fornia. You're about the killers in California, of
Speaker 1: you know, of course, Gavin Newsom thinks it's terrible to
Speaker 1: have the death penalty, and he signed an executive order
Speaker 1: halting the death penalty in the state. Means that means
Speaker 1: a reprieve for seven hundred and thirty seven death row inmates.
Speaker 1: And you know there's a Washington Examiner went over ten
Speaker 1: of them, ten who are now going to benefit from
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom's Compassion. Lonnie David Franklin Junior, known as the
Speaker 1: Grim Sleeper, convicted in twenty sixteen killing nine women one
Speaker 1: teenage girl between eighty five and two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: They believe he's the one behind at least twenty five
Speaker 1: separate murders. Became known as the Grim Sleeper because of
Speaker 1: the span of time between nineteen eighty eight two thousand
Speaker 1: and two where it appeared he wasn't involved in any
Speaker 1: more murders, and according to The La Times, Franklin sought
Speaker 1: out women who were prostitutes or suffered from drug addiction.
Speaker 1: He'd murder them, leave their naked bodies and garbage cans,
Speaker 1: or abandon them on the road. Laura Moore, who wasn't
Speaker 1: named in the criminal complaint against Franklin, claims she survived
Speaker 1: a gunshot from Franklin after he picked her up at
Speaker 1: a bus stop. Yeah, that's one of the guys. Then
Speaker 1: you have Rodney Alcala, known as the Dating Game Killer
Speaker 1: because of his nineteen seventy eight appearance in the Dating Game,
Speaker 1: convicted of killing seven women and girls, five of the
Speaker 1: victims in California, two in New York. Confessed to killing
Speaker 1: more women, and investigators believe he could have been responsible
Speaker 1: for more than one hundred murders, according to the Fresno
Speaker 1: b Wow. Then you have Carrie Steiner, convicted of killing
Speaker 1: four women within a span of five months near Yosemite
Speaker 1: National Park in ninety nine. Handyman Cedar Lodge, strangled guests,
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted them, killed their fifteen year old daughter. And
Speaker 1: it goes on from there. And then we have you know,
Speaker 1: one well known Sky Peterson, remember, reportedly reported that his
Speaker 1: wife was missing Christmas Eve two thousand and two. Police
Speaker 1: examined ten thousand tips, you know, they looked up sex
Speaker 1: offenders and potential suspects. But Peterson was ultimately arrested after
Speaker 1: the California Attorney General announced that Lacy and Connor's bodies
Speaker 1: were found days earlier in the San Francisco Bay shore area.
Speaker 1: And it goes well, Richard Allen Davis convest to the
Speaker 1: killing of polyclass I knew this, poor guy, the father
Speaker 1: of Polyclaus, has lived his whole life in pain. I mean,
Speaker 1: all these families live in pain after all of this. Anyway,
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine for one Shawn is our toll free
Speaker 1: telephone number if you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program we have. We're gonna have a lot on
Speaker 1: the deep state tonight, especially as it relates to Collins
Speaker 1: releasing this testimony from Peter Struck earlier today, Like we
Speaker 1: were talking about, you know, when Gaudy was grilling Struck
Speaker 1: on the text that was rooting against Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: he points out that Trump had not even become the
Speaker 1: nominee and that at that time Truck Struck was the
Speaker 1: one heading the investigation into then candidate Clinton. Well, that
Speaker 1: goes into Lisa Pages testimony release yesterday, in other words,
Speaker 1: that the dj had the fix in and controlled everything
Speaker 1: from the get go and they had no intention of
Speaker 1: ever doing a real investigation into Hillary. And then Goudy
Speaker 1: grilling Struck on the Clinton server case, and Struck admits
Speaker 1: that Clinton mishandled classified information. Well, that means that she
Speaker 1: committed a felony. And he's admitting itself himself. But of
Speaker 1: course that was the favored candidate. You know. Struck tries
Speaker 1: to explain away his insurance policy, you know, by saying, well,
Speaker 1: there's a tremendous amount read into this that is absolutely inaccurate.
Speaker 1: Boy I was making is it is unlikely that you
Speaker 1: will die before you're forty, but you still act in
Speaker 1: a way that addresses that possibility. That's like an analogy
Speaker 1: to somebody saying, hey, look, every poster and talking head
Speaker 1: thinks that Clinton's going to be elected. In my responding, well,
Speaker 1: that might be true, but nevertheless, we need to possibly
Speaker 1: and responsibly investigate this in the unlikely event, based on
Speaker 1: the polls and the pundits and the experts, that candidate
Speaker 1: Trump's elected. And then Jackson Lee steps and let me quickly,
Speaker 1: why did you advocate for continuing the investigation? Excuse me,
Speaker 1: let me move to another question. Did you mean that
Speaker 1: you had an insurance policy to prevent Trump from being president?
Speaker 1: And it just goes on and on from there. All
Speaker 1: of this hit, you know, and before her stint, by
Speaker 1: the way, with Fusion GPS, Nelly yor we found out
Speaker 1: today works for the Obama CIA, that was in the
Speaker 1: Epic Times. You know, you look at it is Struck,
Speaker 1: admitting Muller never asked him about whether or not he
Speaker 1: was biased against Trump according to the text messages that
Speaker 1: even Muller found and that Struck in page text about
Speaker 1: protecting the country, Admitting that Muller never asked about what
Speaker 1: he meant by that text. Muller didn't want to know
Speaker 1: the answer, apparently, and given the explanation of the text
Speaker 1: to Page, mentioning that his insurance policy again and admitting
Speaker 1: Muller didn't ask him about the meaning behind that text,
Speaker 1: and Struck was questioned about the text on impeachment, he
Speaker 1: admits Muller never asked him about that text. Meadows and
Speaker 1: Struck has Struck clarify and admit that the investigation showed
Speaker 1: evidence that it was Russia doing the meddling, not the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. That also came out in testimony, and Struck
Speaker 1: admitting Muller didn't inquire if the text he was rooting
Speaker 1: against Trump. Muller didn't care about what Struck and Page
Speaker 1: were doing, didn't care about their obvious bias, didn't care
Speaker 1: that they rigged the investigation into Hillary. Struck clarified that
Speaker 1: Muller never asked him any type of question as to
Speaker 1: whether or not his political affiliation or distaste of Trump
Speaker 1: impacted his decision making, why because everybody else he hired
Speaker 1: hated Trump. Also, he admits that if he had become
Speaker 1: if it had become public the FBI was investigating Russian interference,
Speaker 1: on the Trump campaign, it could have been used against him,
Speaker 1: and Wiener's laptop is first mentioned in connection with the
Speaker 1: Clinton email investigation, and Struck explains why the Clinton email
Speaker 1: investigation was made public as opposed to the Special Council
Speaker 1: investigation and some unbelievable Well, we do have some good news.
Speaker 1: I guess this really is coming to an end. The
Speaker 1: pitbull Andrew Weisman, as I said earlier, is leaving. You know,
Speaker 1: Jordan and Meadows are urging Elijah Cummings now to issue
Speaker 1: a criminal referral from Michael Kohn. And you know, but
Speaker 1: all of this now goes into the office of the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, the Attorney General, of course, being Lauretta Lynch.
Speaker 1: All right, eight hundred and ninety four one, Sean, if
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of the program, all right,
Speaker 1: let's go to Lisa Is in West Virginia. Lisa, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you glad you called? Hello? Hi? How are you?
Speaker 1: I'm great? How are you? Thanks for taking my call?
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling. Basically my comment was about this
Speaker 1: is that I feel like the fraud behind this um
Speaker 1: the college. The problem is just ridiculous and it's unfair.
Speaker 1: But I think that colleges should just openly say if
Speaker 1: you want your kid in, this is the price. If
Speaker 1: you want to pay us five hundred thousand dollars, by
Speaker 1: all means do it. It would solve a lot of
Speaker 1: the funding problems that colleges. But the problem is that
Speaker 1: would go to the you know, top thirty forty fifty
Speaker 1: colleges in the country and probably no more. But then
Speaker 1: it's that that is only going to be for people
Speaker 1: that have that kind of money that can do that. Now, listen,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to be naive here in the sense
Speaker 1: that you know, I always tell everybody that works for me,
Speaker 1: I'll play this little game with Linda. What I always say,
Speaker 1: Linda to everybody that works for me, save your money.
Speaker 1: Money equals freedom. Right, tell everybody that and set it
Speaker 1: on the air. Money equals freedom. Yeah, should it on
Speaker 1: the air. So the point is that if you save
Speaker 1: your money, you give you more options. Say, as a parent,
Speaker 1: if you have more money, that means you can put
Speaker 1: your kids and pay money for coaches and traveling in
Speaker 1: sports or battlet or theater or whatever whatever your kids
Speaker 1: you know area of interest is. And you know, like
Speaker 1: I never would have thought, for example, that crew would
Speaker 1: be such a huge sport in college. If you would
Speaker 1: have asked me when I was a kid, what crew is,
Speaker 1: I had no idea. We picked up our hockey sticks
Speaker 1: or basketball or baseball and we went to play and
Speaker 1: that was it. And but if everything has become more
Speaker 1: specialized now, if you're a parent that has money, you
Speaker 1: can afford coaching, you can afford travel, you can afford
Speaker 1: these other things. That's just based on the fact that
Speaker 1: you have the money to do it, you know, and
Speaker 1: very few of these athletes can get there just on
Speaker 1: their own without some help financially from their parents. Is
Speaker 1: it an advantage? Of course it's an advantage. Or kids
Speaker 1: that are able to their parents are able to help
Speaker 1: them with school by hiring tutors that they better understand things.
Speaker 1: Is at an advantage that other kids don't have. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: it's based on what money they have. Is it unfair?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, because how did the parents get
Speaker 1: the money If they're not drug dealers and they work
Speaker 1: hard and they produce goods and services that people want,
Speaker 1: need and desire, and they built up extra money and
Speaker 1: they want to invest it in their children. That is,
Speaker 1: you know, we live in a land where you know, life, liberty,
Speaker 1: and pursuit of happiness. And if you pursue happiness by
Speaker 1: giving these extra things to your kids, what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As I
Speaker 1: tell my children, you can't tell people how to spend
Speaker 1: their money. Doesn't mean they're doing it well, but you
Speaker 1: can't tell them how to spend their money. If they
Speaker 1: earned it, they should be able to do that. However,
Speaker 1: well they could think about it though. The parents could
Speaker 1: spend it on luxurious vacations and not give their kids
Speaker 1: tutors or you know, athletic coaching or whatever. I'm a parent.
Speaker 1: I spend my money on my kids sports. For one,
Speaker 1: I enjoy it. I enjoy watching my kids play. That
Speaker 1: also keeps what I like about sports is it keeps
Speaker 1: them out of trouble. Let's be honest. You know, if
Speaker 1: they're playing at the tournament every weekend, you know what
Speaker 1: they're not doing. They're not hanging out with a dopey friends,
Speaker 1: drinking beer, smoking potting and you know, hooking up. But
Speaker 1: I don't think I think it is a major thing
Speaker 1: as Linda seems to want to just not pay attention
Speaker 1: to this part. It's fraud. What they did. No, no, well,
Speaker 1: I never said it wasn't fraud. No no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: On second, now she'll tell you now, I never said
Speaker 1: it wasn't fraud. And I'm not saying that we should
Speaker 1: turn a blind eye. Understand, we got to open both
Speaker 1: eyes and both the ears and look at all of
Speaker 1: the inequities and all the discrepancies and all the fraud.
Speaker 1: This is just a hot topic because some celebrities got involved,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of other iniquities. Is a difference between hiring a tutor
Speaker 1: to coach your kids to take the SATs and get it.
Speaker 1: What about the buildings, Well, I'm not listening. What about
Speaker 1: the donations? What about the legacy? Granted, right, we're not
Speaker 1: talking about any of that. What we are, but nobody
Speaker 1: else is. So until we decide to really talk about
Speaker 1: the giant elephant in the middle of the room, which
Speaker 1: is that college is unfair. It's become a liberal bastion.
Speaker 1: It's run by liberals, most of the people donating to
Speaker 1: our liberals, and all they teach us liberal ideology. Until
Speaker 1: we take our schools back and our education back, this
Speaker 1: conversation is moot. All right, twenty five till the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. We're gonna get to a lot of
Speaker 1: calls here. Eight hundred and nine four one Sean. I'll
Speaker 1: let Linda make one more point here, um sean. First
Speaker 1: of all, this one that before I have a series
Speaker 1: of questions, Before you make a comment, you just give
Speaker 1: me a quick answer. Okay, okay, okay. How many points
Speaker 1: do you get if you get a touchdown in football?
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter? How many do you do? You know? I
Speaker 1: do know. You do not know. I do? What is it? Six?
Speaker 1: You know? Ethan? And Jason? No no, no, let me
Speaker 1: tell you why I know this. Let me tell you why.
Speaker 1: I just told me in the hand. No, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: I know how much a goal touchdown is because because
Speaker 1: Alabama recently had that big game against the Clemson team,
Speaker 1: and I went to see it with some friends and
Speaker 1: I didn't know what was happening. You would go into
Speaker 1: a ball. I went to a ball drink it. I
Speaker 1: did not drink. I may have had one cocktail anyway.
Speaker 1: All that to say, I didn't actually know what was happening.
Speaker 1: People were very upset at that game because Clemson won
Speaker 1: and Alabama was supposed to win and right right, right,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know. It's a process. You got
Speaker 1: to feed after you get the touchdown, do you make
Speaker 1: any other points anyways? Yes, And I got very confused
Speaker 1: by that. But I know how much the touchdown is?
Speaker 1: All right? What do you get for a field goal?
Speaker 1: I'm a little confused by that because I thought it
Speaker 1: was two or three, and then somebody said it was one.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's two. I don't really understand it. If you
Speaker 1: shoot a ball in the basket from the foul line,
Speaker 1: not a foul shot, just a regular shot, how many
Speaker 1: points you get? I don't even know what the foul
Speaker 1: line is. How if you shoot a foul shot, how
Speaker 1: many points do you get? I have had no idea.
Speaker 1: If you hit a home run? How many points do
Speaker 1: you get in baseball? No idea? What if you hit
Speaker 1: a Grand Slam? What's a grand Slam? No clue? If
Speaker 1: you win the champions I love sports teams. If you
Speaker 1: win the championship in hockey, you're playing for something, the
Speaker 1: Stanley Cup. All right, that's the sport I know. And
Speaker 1: if you score a goal in hockey, how many points
Speaker 1: does it work? It's one? Wow? All right, we'll make
Speaker 1: him progress. That's very I know hockey, I like the cold.
Speaker 1: You know a little bit about hockey. I love lung
Speaker 1: Quist's Yeah, everybody, what is it about everybody? A lung Quist?
Speaker 1: First of all, he's like the nicest person ever. He
Speaker 1: donates the tons of kids charities, he goes. He's been
Speaker 1: with his wife forever and they have beautiful children, and
Speaker 1: he's just a sweetheart. All right, So what's your point
Speaker 1: and then we'll move to calls. So my point is
Speaker 1: I think that we should have a separate club for
Speaker 1: football and baseball and basketball and all these other things,
Speaker 1: and there can be a partnership between the schools and
Speaker 1: the clubs, but that it's not the driver of all things,
Speaker 1: so that we can get back to the business of
Speaker 1: learning in education. Okay, it's every Saturday afternoon, that's when
Speaker 1: the kids. That's a bunch of crap. These kids practice
Speaker 1: every day there in the field, their practice hours a day.
Speaker 1: That's that. Well, that's the But that's my point. They
Speaker 1: were enriching the schools these and they're not enriching their brains. Okay,
Speaker 1: that you're wrong, And this is what I'm telling you.
Speaker 1: That they bring something to the school that benefits every
Speaker 1: kid at that school. That's what benefits them. Let me
Speaker 1: finish school spirit, competition, you know, the hard work that
Speaker 1: goes into being a competitive athlete. The kids, all all
Speaker 1: the kids, they are there for academic reasons. They love it.
Speaker 1: It enriches the whole time. It bonds them to the
Speaker 1: school for the rest of them. To anybody who's been
Speaker 1: to any real school, dude, you and I are the
Speaker 1: only two people that had this ridiculous experience where we
Speaker 1: worked full time, where we went to school and there
Speaker 1: was no time but to go to the better go
Speaker 1: back to work. I'm the better for it. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: I didn't drink, I didn't didn't do any of their
Speaker 1: college experiences, and they just love it. To me, I'm like,
Speaker 1: I wish I had that because every person I know
Speaker 1: that went to ex college, why college, see college? All
Speaker 1: they talk about is their college years and oh, we're
Speaker 1: going back to the football game on you know, November
Speaker 1: twenty second and they're playing. What did they learn? What
Speaker 1: did they learn so well? They learned enough to be
Speaker 1: successful in their lives. It doesn't take away from their studies.
Speaker 1: You're not going to study in school all day on
Speaker 1: Saturday no kid is gonna be dead all day on Saturday.
Speaker 1: I did well. I had to study and I worked
Speaker 1: full time. When I was in school college, I used
Speaker 1: to take my books and sit on the bandstand and
Speaker 1: study on the drum set. Not even kidding you. There
Speaker 1: are so many pictures from people's weddings when I was
Speaker 1: singing at weddings of me on the drum set during
Speaker 1: every break reading a book. Oh my god, you're doing
Speaker 1: my homework. Well, it's the only time you had, that's right.
Speaker 1: It taught me to work hard. And the problem is
Speaker 1: I was tending bars. There was a place in Long
Speaker 1: Islandland called Salisbury on the Green it since changed names
Speaker 1: at Eisenhower Park, and it was a wedding factory. I
Speaker 1: do a wedding Friday night, two on Saturday and two
Speaker 1: on Sunday. And I did this and then I'd have
Speaker 1: to be to school on Monday, and it's Sean. The
Speaker 1: whole point of what I'm trying to say here is
Speaker 1: that you know when this this is fraud, you know
Speaker 1: there's a widespread fraud. So you have the fraud of
Speaker 1: pretending like a kid did something that they didn't. Then
Speaker 1: you have the fraud of people buy in buildings, and
Speaker 1: you have the fraud of people lying on their financial
Speaker 1: the fraud of what let's say. Let's say let's say
Speaker 1: you buy a building, okay, and you're you're you loved
Speaker 1: your school so much, your school experience so much, or
Speaker 1: your your kids schools so much that you go out
Speaker 1: and buy a belt. So what all you're doing is
Speaker 1: you are now making that school better all of your kids,
Speaker 1: for every single other kid that follows, you are enriching
Speaker 1: their experience. Or if you build new dorms, or if
Speaker 1: you build new athletic facilities, or if you've building new X,
Speaker 1: Y and z, if you want to generously, if you
Speaker 1: think that those college years are so formative and so
Speaker 1: defining in your life or it will be in your
Speaker 1: kid's life, and you make it better, You're doing it
Speaker 1: for future generations. You're not doing it just for that moment.
Speaker 1: You can't build a building that fast. I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: end with this and I'll let you talk to your cholus.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody should get into school based on their
Speaker 1: grades and their merit and how hard they work, and
Speaker 1: that's awesome, and nobody should be getting Nobody should go
Speaker 1: to football games on Sundays. They should go to football
Speaker 1: games if they get their homework one. Why do you
Speaker 1: assume that she's just flatly against all sports because she
Speaker 1: listen to her Oh good, only good too. If you
Speaker 1: didn't get your homework done by game time on Saturday,
Speaker 1: you can't go. Here's breaking news. Not everybody who goes
Speaker 1: to the colleges of universities are into sports. Some just
Speaker 1: I am. They're telling yours that listen, and then they're
Speaker 1: going to be in the theater, you know, practicing for
Speaker 1: their next play that they'll put together. But the bottom
Speaker 1: line is the overwhelming majority of pride in schools today
Speaker 1: is linked to their athletic program. And that's why it
Speaker 1: usually takes people six years to get a four year degree,
Speaker 1: because they're wasting time on this other stuff that doesn't devo.
Speaker 1: What do you mean wasting time? What wasting time? I
Speaker 1: have an idea getting in shape. Let's talk to better
Speaker 1: and better and better. Um, let's talk to him again.
Speaker 1: Football player. Hey, Curtis is on our is on our line.
Speaker 1: He's from Tampa. It's a former Alabama football player. What
Speaker 1: do you think, Curtis? How are you? What's going on?
Speaker 1: Roll Tide? I'm good. I'm good, absolutely roll tied, I'm good. Uh.
Speaker 1: I just I've been listening. I'm a long time listener anyway, Yeah, Sean,
Speaker 1: I was listening with interest of this latest through uh
Speaker 1: with people getting paid to uh coach players to get
Speaker 1: scholarships and get scholarships for people where they get money
Speaker 1: back for it. And that's just utterly ridiculous. Uh. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's uh, maybe it's there that I played in when
Speaker 1: I played for coach Bryant. You were you were there
Speaker 1: if you played for coach there fair Brian, Huh Right,
Speaker 1: you were there for for basically three reasons. You were
Speaker 1: there because first off, like he said, your your parents
Speaker 1: raised you properly, you wouldn't be he to have been
Speaker 1: interested in having you as a player anyway. But secondly,
Speaker 1: you're there to get an education. And third you're there
Speaker 1: to be a part of a winning team, and that
Speaker 1: means putting forth all the effort and not because somebody
Speaker 1: paid money for you to get that opportunity. And so
Speaker 1: it was to listen. Coaches pick players for a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons. They pick leaders. Sometimes they picked coaches. They
Speaker 1: want to get the best players they want to they
Speaker 1: pick they pick kids, certain kids because of chemistry that's
Speaker 1: going to exist in the locker room. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you don't, if you have tension in the locker room,
Speaker 1: you're not going to have any good team. There's going
Speaker 1: to be no cohesive team. Absolutely, And I just I've
Speaker 1: always felt fortunate in my life. And I came from
Speaker 1: small town Alabama and was the first player from my
Speaker 1: school to get a scholarship certainly to a place like Alabama,
Speaker 1: and what the foundation that I got there has led
Speaker 1: me to where I am in life today. I've been
Speaker 1: in business for over forty years and have created many
Speaker 1: many jobs in my business so over the years, and
Speaker 1: they've done a lot of things. I'm in the shopping
Speaker 1: center development business and have had a lot of opportunities.
Speaker 1: I've built projects from New York to Texas to Georgia
Speaker 1: to Alabama, Florida. I live in Florida today and have
Speaker 1: for about forty years. But any rate, it's it's just
Speaker 1: saddening to me that to see these things get blown
Speaker 1: out of proportion the way they are and people putting
Speaker 1: putting forth, just they're thinking that money controls everything and
Speaker 1: it doesn't. Well, Kars, can I ask you a question actually,
Speaker 1: if you don't want me jumping in, I think it's amazing,
Speaker 1: you know, I personally, you know, despite the rumor mill
Speaker 1: being started by Sean, I personally really like sports. I've
Speaker 1: just never taken the time to understand all of the
Speaker 1: intricacies and this point and that point, and this is
Speaker 1: I just I don't It's not my thing. But I'll
Speaker 1: go to the game just for the camaraderie of it.
Speaker 1: I like the sportsmanship, I like the team mentality. My
Speaker 1: problem is that there's a lot of emphasis put on
Speaker 1: these extra things and not enough put onto the educational
Speaker 1: aspect of what school is supposed to be, which is
Speaker 1: for your education. So you can get the ancillary benefits
Speaker 1: of being in these other things, and that's wonderful, but
Speaker 1: what about the focus back on education. And so the
Speaker 1: whole point comes back to me is that the bigger
Speaker 1: problem we're having with this fraud, whether it be that
Speaker 1: you're buying your way in for your kids, or you're
Speaker 1: buying buildings and naming them after people, or you're creating
Speaker 1: false identities for your children, is that now we have
Speaker 1: a school filled with people who actually don't have a
Speaker 1: clue as to what's going on. They didn't have to
Speaker 1: work hard to get in there, they didn't have to
Speaker 1: do anything to be there. The focus is all wrong.
Speaker 1: So we have a bunch of kids who didn't earn
Speaker 1: the right to be there, and then we have a
Speaker 1: bunch of other kids who are there because they might
Speaker 1: be athletically talented, and the mix of it all is
Speaker 1: nobody's learning. That's what I'm afraid of. Well, there are
Speaker 1: ways to deal with that, and pretty simply. When I
Speaker 1: was in school, I mean, we had an academic counselor
Speaker 1: that he checked on who went to class and who
Speaker 1: didn't go to class, And Coach Bryan has a pretty
Speaker 1: rigid rule. You don't play on Saturday. If you don't
Speaker 1: go to class on Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Tuesday, Ursay,
Speaker 1: whatever the case may be, you don't go to your classes,
Speaker 1: you don't get to play. And it's that simple. So
Speaker 1: nobody wanted to be deprived of the right to play,
Speaker 1: so they went to class and we had people who
Speaker 1: checked regularly on that aspect of it. So what is
Speaker 1: that happening now? I don't know that. We started an
Speaker 1: organization in nineteen seventy eight at Alabama, three teammates of
Speaker 1: mine and I called the First and Tent Club. And
Speaker 1: a guy who's a plastic surgeon now in Gulf Shores,
Speaker 1: Alabama and was a member of the team when I
Speaker 1: was there, I got him, get him, but he gave
Speaker 1: it the name the First and ten Club. It's it's
Speaker 1: now when you get out of college, it's first down
Speaker 1: and ten to go in lights, and you got to
Speaker 1: put forth your best effort in life to do something
Speaker 1: and make something out of what you've achieved here, to
Speaker 1: get about how much football savvy or or success you
Speaker 1: may have had. It's a whole new thing. And we
Speaker 1: started to think all the First and ten Club in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy eight. So far, I think we've sponsored like
Speaker 1: one hundred and something scholarships for deserving players to go
Speaker 1: on and get master's degrees in things who are going
Speaker 1: to be pro players. And I think it's really a
Speaker 1: fact where the whole community has to come together and
Speaker 1: the players first and foremoth foremoths have to put the
Speaker 1: effort forth. And if they don't, and they are going
Speaker 1: to be around there and they're not going to end
Speaker 1: up being a success. And I think to me, one
Speaker 1: of the largest or biggest reasons that Alabama's had the
Speaker 1: success that it has is because of commitment not just
Speaker 1: to football, but commitment to other things that are important
Speaker 1: in winning. And it's not just about the game on
Speaker 1: Saturday that constitutes a win. It's your graduation rate of
Speaker 1: the players who come in that go on and finish
Speaker 1: their schooling. And not only that, but then they come
Speaker 1: back and give back to the program of helping the
Speaker 1: young players and people are there and I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about economically. I'm talking about from a standpoint of information,
Speaker 1: and just like we that first and ten club that
Speaker 1: we started in nineteen seventy eight still exists today when
Speaker 1: we have a career day every spring to have a
Speaker 1: keynote speaker come in and speak to them. The first
Speaker 1: speaker we had the first year was in nineteen seventy eight,
Speaker 1: was a gentleman by the name of Colin Powell, the
Speaker 1: general who his wife happens to be from Alabama, and
Speaker 1: he volunteered when when one of our people reached out
Speaker 1: to him to come in and speak to those young guys.
Speaker 1: The second year, we had Roger Staubach, who was the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl winning quarterbacks to the Dallas Cowboys. Somehow I
Speaker 1: got drafted to be to be the speaker of the
Speaker 1: third year. But each year we've had people come in
Speaker 1: that these people, these young guys can look go through
Speaker 1: that tell them, look, you're not all going to be
Speaker 1: pro players. In fact, very few of you are. So
Speaker 1: while you're here, you need to get an education and
Speaker 1: you need to decide what you're going to do with
Speaker 1: your future and what you're going to do with your life. Curtis,
Speaker 1: I can't thank you enough. You know, I love everything
Speaker 1: you just said, and I think that half the battle
Speaker 1: is getting the focus on the right stuff. And I
Speaker 1: think that the bigger focus here with this whole issue
Speaker 1: is we need to get our eye on the ball
Speaker 1: and understand that this, what we're talking about right now
Speaker 1: is just one element of a larger problem that we
Speaker 1: have with our next level of education in this collegiate universe.
Speaker 1: So thanks so much, man. We appreciate the call, Curtis.
Speaker 1: Great talking to you, A great call today, and all
Speaker 1: the best to you. We really appreciate you checking in
Speaker 1: with us. All right, that's gonna wrap things up at today.
Speaker 1: Blockbuster new damning evidence improof of innocence exculpatory proof the
Speaker 1: FBI withheld in the Russia probe, We'll break it wide open,
Speaker 1: and the release of the testimony of Peter Struck. Following
Speaker 1: Lisa Page yesterday, we have Jim Jordan, John Solomon, Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: Ari Fleischer, Dan Bongino, Mike Huckabee, Haraldo and Rachel compos
Speaker 1: Duffy and much more. To night Hannity nine Eastern AD Blockbuster.
Speaker 1: I told you It's happening on the Fox News Channel.