Speaker 1: I got to wrap up in a few moments upstairs,
Speaker 1: but I expect that we will be proceeding forward. We
Speaker 1: will not have a government shutdown, and we will meet
Speaker 1: our obligations for our farmers who need aid, for the
Speaker 1: disaster victims all over the country, and for making sure
Speaker 1: that military and essential services and everyone who relies upon
Speaker 1: the federal government for a paycheck is paid over the holidays.
Speaker 1: I'll give you the more details here in just a
Speaker 1: few moments.
Speaker 2: How do you talk?
Speaker 3: This is Peter Schweitzer, that's Eric Eggers, and we were
Speaker 3: just listening to Speaker Johnson, who is saying that there
Speaker 3: is going to be no government shutdown. I guess the
Speaker 3: devil is going to be in the details. And we
Speaker 3: have a great guest to talk to us exactly about
Speaker 3: what's going on in Capitol Hill. Congresswoman Nancy Mace is
Speaker 3: joining us. She's on the House Oversight Committee, the House
Speaker 3: Armed Services Committee, the House Veterans Affairs Committee. She's a
Speaker 3: congresswoman from South Carolina. A Congressman Mace, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3: Are you as optimistic as Speaker Johnson is on the
Speaker 3: fate of this bill.
Speaker 4: Well, he has a better whip count than I do.
Speaker 4: It's hard to say at this point, but I think
Speaker 4: you'll need a number of Democrats to ensure that there
Speaker 4: is no government shutdown based on the way things are
Speaker 4: going this afternoon, we'll see. We don't have a time
Speaker 4: on when we are voting, and haven't seen the final
Speaker 4: language in the legislation.
Speaker 3: So you've been very principled in that that you actually
Speaker 3: voted against a bill that President Trump wanted and voted
Speaker 3: on principle, which I think is great. What is your
Speaker 3: view of the debt ceiling? There has been this kind
Speaker 3: of weird sort of alliance almost between Donald Trump and
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Warren Democrats who say let's get rid of the
Speaker 3: debt ceiling, or at least suspend it. Do you think
Speaker 3: that's going to happen? And what's your view on the
Speaker 3: debt ceiling?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, in terms of the debt seling, what
Speaker 4: that does was the way that they did it the
Speaker 4: other day, is suspending it where there was no limit
Speaker 4: on the debt for two years. I mean, it could
Speaker 4: be an extra one trillion, it could be an extra
Speaker 4: ten trillion dollars because there were no guardrails in place.
Speaker 4: I would only be willing to negotiate some type of
Speaker 4: measure on the debt ceiling if we have actual spending cuts.
Speaker 4: We've been down this path before, we did a debt
Speaker 4: ceiling previously, where we had no limit on the debt,
Speaker 4: and you know this is going to fast track us.
Speaker 4: So over fifty two million dollars of debt, we're going
Speaker 4: to be robbing Social Security and other folks. It's money,
Speaker 4: taxpayers money to pay for the debt that we're incurring
Speaker 4: right now. Because Republicans and Democrats alike can't be trusted
Speaker 4: on spending, which is why if we're going to lift
Speaker 4: the debt ceiling, we have to have real spending cuts,
Speaker 4: not just play money, not fuzzy math, but actual, real
Speaker 4: legitimate spending cuts. And so that's my take. And of course,
Speaker 4: looking at the first two CRS, the first R spending
Speaker 4: was the same level as the second CR spending. It
Speaker 4: was another myth that was sort of out there that
Speaker 4: because it was one hundred and sixteen page bill versus
Speaker 4: sixteen hundred pages, but somehow it's spent less. So it
Speaker 4: wasn't about the pages. It was actually about what's actually
Speaker 4: in the bill on the pages. And I read both those,
Speaker 4: so I'm well versed in and what it actually did
Speaker 4: and did not do. And unfortunately, you know we're in
Speaker 4: this situation. I'm going to forego my pay if the
Speaker 4: government shuts down, I won't be taken a pay check.
Speaker 5: You read both bills that put you in the profound minority,
Speaker 5: I think, unfortunately for members of Congress. And you were
Speaker 5: a leader, and thank you for just kind of being
Speaker 5: open and honest with the American people about going through
Speaker 5: the original bill that was fifteen hundred and forty seven pages,
Speaker 5: and you highlighted so many of the provisions that people
Speaker 5: found objectionable, including the pay raise for members of Congress
Speaker 5: and lots of other items of pork. I guess my
Speaker 5: question to you is this.
Speaker 4: There was so much woke in that. But I don't
Speaker 4: know how that bill passed Republican muster. I mean, they
Speaker 4: literally renamed criminal offenders to justice individual. I'm sorry, but
Speaker 4: if you're a racist and murderer, pedophile, you're not a
Speaker 4: justice individual. You're a criminal and should be in jail.
Speaker 5: So the question is, how did that happen? How does
Speaker 5: stuff like that get into a bill that anyone had
Speaker 5: with a Republican Speaker of the House, where there's a
Speaker 5: reasonable expectation that it will pass. And you know, the
Speaker 5: conversation we've had in the first hour was we kind
Speaker 5: of contrasted this very open and honest and transparent debate
Speaker 5: about this spending bill with the Wall Street journals reporting
Speaker 5: over the last three years about the effort to conceal
Speaker 5: Joe Biden and all of his kind of cognitive decline.
Speaker 5: And so, you know, the American people have been lied to.
Speaker 5: Do you think that the elites that are in charge
Speaker 5: think they can just still lie to people? And if so,
Speaker 5: does the fact that we're having this debate now suggest
Speaker 5: that that time is over?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 4: One percent and the lies continue. I sat in meetings
Speaker 4: today with groups of Republicans where the lie was stated
Speaker 4: that if we do single subject bills tonight, do a
Speaker 4: claim CR, do a separate disaster relief fill, and a
Speaker 4: separate farm extension or farm type bill, that the Senate
Speaker 4: could only take up one bill. That is a lie.
Speaker 4: There is nothing limiting the Senate from taking up three bills.
Speaker 4: We also as a House could do three separate single
Speaker 4: subject bills and then do what's called a MERV a
Speaker 4: erv And what the MERV would do is we would
Speaker 4: do this three separate boats and then combine the bills
Speaker 4: together as they were sent over to the Senate, so
Speaker 4: they only have one vote. So like, there are many
Speaker 4: options in vehicles, in ways that we can go about this.
Speaker 4: But again, Republicans were lied to. Because they were lied to,
Speaker 4: they got scared, and so it sounds like we're going
Speaker 4: to do the CR again, the CR that we did
Speaker 4: last night, but no debt ceiling. So it's just the
Speaker 4: same thing a different year. And it's just like my
Speaker 4: frustration is that nothing has changed since November. This is
Speaker 4: the same we did before, and Republicans ran on being
Speaker 4: conservative physically fiscally. Republicans ran on we're going to cut spending,
Speaker 4: and yet we're going to saddle President Trump and the
Speaker 4: new Trump administration with all of Joe Biden's spending agenda
Speaker 4: going into his first year in office. And I think
Speaker 4: that is a mistake on our part and we can
Speaker 4: do better. And if not, the promise we made to
Speaker 4: the American people, we promised them we would cut spending.
Speaker 4: That is not what we're doing today.
Speaker 5: So Peter Schwiz and I do a podcast on kind
Speaker 5: of government corruption, and so I apologize for not being
Speaker 5: an expert on congressional procedures, But why could the Senate
Speaker 5: only take one vote? Are they like stuck in traffic?
Speaker 5: Is like, what's the problem with their schedule that they
Speaker 5: might not be allowed to take more than one vote?
Speaker 4: But that was the lie. That was the lie to
Speaker 4: Republicans that they could only do the Senate can only
Speaker 4: take up one bill. That's not true. That's what I'm
Speaker 4: we were told. I was. I heard the lie in
Speaker 4: two meetings with people today and it scared them. Yeah's makeup.
Speaker 3: Here's my concern, Congresswoman. And maybe I'm being too cynical,
Speaker 3: maybe I'm not optimistic enough. I'm wondering when we have
Speaker 3: the new Congress come in with a Republican majority in
Speaker 3: the House, which is going to be slender, but we
Speaker 3: now have a Republican majority in the Senate, is this
Speaker 3: actually going to be easier or are we going to
Speaker 3: be having the same problems? I mean, is the problem
Speaker 3: not just the Democrats right now, but you have a
Speaker 3: certain group of Republicans who want to do the talk
Speaker 3: and get the political benefit about cutting spending, but who
Speaker 3: actually don't want to do it. So is it going
Speaker 3: to get better in a Trump administration? Or we're going
Speaker 3: to be lagging with the same problem.
Speaker 4: I think that the President will have challenges with certain
Speaker 4: members of our party getting his agenda done, and that
Speaker 4: is in my worry from day one. I've been screaming
Speaker 4: about it for weeks now. I love the idea of Doge.
Speaker 4: I love Elon and the Beck and Trump weighing in
Speaker 4: on how we're going to turn our country around. But
Speaker 4: there are a subset of people within our parties, certainly
Speaker 4: aided by Democrats and people on the left, who will
Speaker 4: do everything in their power to stop the American First agenda.
Speaker 4: And part of that agenda is to cut spending. But
Speaker 4: you know, what I've seen today was a time honored
Speaker 4: tradition of disinformation up here on the hill, you know,
Speaker 4: to trick House members into accepting a bad deal, to
Speaker 4: accepting bad terms. And I think there are that powerful
Speaker 4: forces out there that are in the ear of people
Speaker 4: in leadership, and that will be in the administration not
Speaker 4: telling these people the truth, not telling them how it
Speaker 4: works and how we get this done, because this is
Speaker 4: not cutting spending, this is not putting the American people first.
Speaker 4: It's going to saddle us with more debt. And we
Speaker 4: have to take spending and the debt.
Speaker 5: Seriously, we're talking with Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina
Speaker 5: Representative base. You're talking to the country right now, you're
Speaker 5: on national radio. I mean, be as honest as you
Speaker 5: want to be. Who are what are these forces that
Speaker 5: get in people's ears? I mean, how does this stuff happen?
Speaker 5: How is it that you know, lies can be embraced
Speaker 5: and then foisted upon the American people by the people
Speaker 5: those people elect to be in charge.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean we heard. I mean I was in
Speaker 4: a meeting today and I said this is this isn't
Speaker 4: really true with the Senate. Another person came up behind
Speaker 4: me to say, that's correct. They can do more than one.
Speaker 4: I confirmed it with a senator as well. But there
Speaker 4: are people out there that it could be, fellow members
Speaker 4: of Congress within our party. It's also people who are
Speaker 4: on the staff of leadership, the offices of leadership that
Speaker 4: we have here. But this is just what they do.
Speaker 4: You'll get lied to so that you get scared and
Speaker 4: you get forced into a corner. You take a deal
Speaker 4: you should have never negotiated with in the first place.
Speaker 4: And you know, I've seen a lot. I've been around
Speaker 4: a little bit, and I know how to call a
Speaker 4: spade a space, which is why I sometimes get, you know,
Speaker 4: get in trouble. But I also want to tell the
Speaker 4: American people the true It's why I dissected the fifteen
Speaker 4: hundred and forty seven page bill to show people what
Speaker 4: was actually in it and why it was so bad.
Speaker 4: And when I said yesterday that the second CR spent
Speaker 4: the same exact amount of money as the first one,
Speaker 4: no one could believe it. But that's why you had
Speaker 4: to have someone read both bills and be able to
Speaker 4: do the addition, do the map to tell you what
Speaker 4: was actually in there and what was being it was
Speaker 4: being spent on.
Speaker 3: So this new bill that is being offered, are you
Speaker 3: going to be voting for it? Are you going to
Speaker 3: be voting against it? And what do you think Speaker
Speaker 3: Johnson's fate is right now? Given the turmoil and the
Speaker 3: tumult that we're seeing in the House.
Speaker 4: I think I think Johnson's safe as Speaker. I don't
Speaker 4: think that is up for grabs at this juncture. I'm
Speaker 4: still waiting on the final language of the bill. I
Speaker 4: will look through it if we have time. The other
Speaker 4: night we had about an hour and so we were,
Speaker 4: you know, scanning it very quickly. I hope we have
Speaker 4: more time than that. I'm alee know on this thing.
Speaker 4: I have not ever voted for a continuing resolution. I've
Speaker 4: never voted for a CR. I've never voted for an
Speaker 4: omnibus or a minibus. But I have always supported the
Speaker 4: law that says the nineteen seventy four Budget and Control Act,
Speaker 4: which said Congress needs to have a budget and you've
Speaker 4: got to have twelve appropriations bills to fund that budget,
Speaker 4: which is something we have not done in decades, and
Speaker 4: back to last time we did anything like that, Democrats
Speaker 4: were in charge. The last time we balanced the budget
Speaker 4: was a ninety editor Bill Clinton when Newt Gingrich was
Speaker 4: a Speaker. So we've got a lot of work to
Speaker 4: do as a party to tell the American people that
Speaker 4: you have stopped selling them a bed of lies, a
Speaker 4: bill of goods that isn't true. We need to have
Speaker 4: meaningful reform if we're going to do debt feeling, have
Speaker 4: spending cuts, and make sure that we're cutting all of
Speaker 4: the waste. And I hope that dose has a big
Speaker 4: say in what we do in the next six months,
Speaker 4: because it's going to matter. We have very little time
Speaker 4: and we have to get to work as soon as
Speaker 4: Trump is sworn into office. There's no time to waste.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump has not been sworn yet, as you noted,
Speaker 5: but he did seem to endorse the bill last night
Speaker 5: that you voted against. When you vote no on something,
Speaker 5: obviously it's a brand new era, it's an unprecedented time
Speaker 5: this way. Are you hearing from the president. Are you
Speaker 5: hearing from any of his staff when you vote no
Speaker 5: on this? And is that? Are they lobbying you on this?
Speaker 4: No, No, not at all. I haven't heard from from
Speaker 4: anyone in that candid. In fact, our leadership on the hill,
Speaker 4: we're not whipping votes last night for that bill. Last night,
Speaker 4: nobody whipped my Interesting far as I know, no one
Speaker 4: was zipping anyone's votes last night, which I found interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is very interesting. We're talking with Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
Speaker 3: We appreciate the principled stance that you take in Washington,
Speaker 3: d C. We know it's a tumultuous time. We appreciate
Speaker 3: you tracking with us what is going on, and we
Speaker 3: will look forward to the vote that is coming up.
Speaker 3: Thank you a congresswoman for joining us Thank you so much,
Speaker 3: and thank you for listening to the Sean Handerity Show.
Speaker 3: We're going to be back after this break. We've got
Speaker 3: more guests, we've got more comments.
Speaker 5: Well, and we have a guest that is actually a
Speaker 5: current member of the United States Senate. So when she's
Speaker 5: saying what they're hearing about what the Senate can or
Speaker 5: cannot do, we will hear from rand Paul in the
Speaker 5: next hour. We'll ask him directly. So, Hey, you know
Speaker 5: this is what it is, the public form. We're trying
Speaker 5: to figure this out together America. He's Peter Schweizer. I'm
Speaker 5: Eric Egers. This is the Sean Handy Show. We'll be
Speaker 5: right back.
Speaker 3: This is Peter Schweizer. I'm here with Eric Eggers. We're
Speaker 3: filling in on the Sean Hannerty Show. We have asked
Speaker 3: you to come in to the program and talk about
Speaker 3: your theory of drones. And we have a caller from Tallahassee, Florida. John,
Speaker 3: tell us your theory about what's going on with the drones.
Speaker 3: It's Chris. Sorry, Chris, tell me your theory about the drones.
Speaker 2: You got it, it's Chris.
Speaker 6: Well. Listen, I got a friend who lives on a
Speaker 6: little farm in Montana, and she's been documenting UFO sightings
Speaker 6: for the last several weeks. And these are not the
Speaker 6: same as what everybody's talking about in New Jersey. She's
Speaker 6: got him on iPhone, she's got him on go pro,
Speaker 6: and she went out and got a high powered telescope
Speaker 6: and put it on him. And she described I did
Speaker 6: with as looking like the gravitron from the State Fair.
Speaker 6: Now what's really interesting is there, just in that same direction,
Speaker 6: there's an Air Force base. She also called everybody she
Speaker 6: could think of to tell them. Nobody was interested, and
Speaker 6: just a couple of days ago, finally a government agency
Speaker 6: gave her a call. She's pretty smooth, but.
Speaker 3: I know your theory is that this is this is
Speaker 3: not something from an adversarial power, This is not something
Speaker 3: that our government is doing. Your theory is that this
Speaker 3: may be extraterrestrial. Right, That's one of the theories that's
Speaker 3: out there.
Speaker 6: That's what I'm thinking, And I will say this. After
Speaker 6: she got the call. The next night, she saw what
Speaker 6: she described as an Air Force drone probing the area
Speaker 6: where she's been seeing these things for weeks. So I'm
Speaker 6: of the mind that it could be extra trust or
Speaker 6: some crazy technology that we just aren't aware of yet,
Speaker 6: and it seems like maybe even our military not quite
Speaker 6: sure what it is either.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Chris, thank you very much for the phone calls.
Speaker 5: It's one of two things. Obviously, it could be something
Speaker 5: that we don't know what it is, or it could
Speaker 5: be a thing that the military and our government decides
Speaker 5: not to tell us about. If one of the common
Speaker 5: themes of this program is you know, what do we
Speaker 5: know about Nancy Mace, which is very honest with us
Speaker 5: about the negotiations happening in Congress.
Speaker 3: It's transparency, and we also.
Speaker 5: It's being juxtaposed with the fact that Biden administration lied
Speaker 5: to us about how healthy the president is. If my
Speaker 5: wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, they also
Speaker 5: lied to us about these things. So what concerns me
Speaker 5: is there's actually a quote from Nancy Mace on the
Speaker 5: drone topic, and she says, my concern is if it's
Speaker 5: not a craft from outer space, because it has to
Speaker 5: be on the table. Is it technologies at ours? Is
Speaker 5: it brushes at China? But the point is that the
Speaker 5: Department of Defense needs to answer questions from Congress. So
Speaker 5: it sounds like even they don't know, and so I think,
Speaker 5: you know, it's a viable question, right, Hey, what do
Speaker 5: we know about this and what don't we know? I
Speaker 5: think you're the when it told me that the FAA
Speaker 5: just banned drones in New Jersey.
Speaker 3: That's right, the fa band after saying that this was nothing,
Speaker 3: nothing to see, now they've banned it. And look, this
Speaker 3: is the problem. When you don't actually give honest answers
Speaker 3: to people, all kinds of theories can develop. That's the
Speaker 3: nature of it. So truth abhorrors a vacuum. You've got
Speaker 3: to let people know what's going on. I can't think
Speaker 3: of any reason why they can't tell us what's going on.
Speaker 3: So we're gonna have to see how this all plays out.
Speaker 3: But I think people are gonna get more suspicious, and
Speaker 3: this is why they're distrustive of their government.
Speaker 5: Well, who's not distrustive is Peter Schweitzer's happy because he
Speaker 5: finally got to take a call on drones and the
Speaker 5: trying to do it for an hour and a half.
Speaker 5: When we come back, we're going to talk about a
Speaker 5: different conspiracy. They're gonna talk to Gerald Posner about what
Speaker 5: we know and don't know about the person that took
Speaker 5: a shot at Donald Trump this summer. Some interesting questions remain.
Speaker 5: We'll be right back after this on the Sean Handy
Speaker 5: radio shows.
Speaker 3: Peter Schweizer, Eric Eggers. We're filling in for Sean hannerity.
Speaker 3: We do the Drill Down podcast. You can subscribe to
Speaker 3: it on any podcast platform that's out there, and we
Speaker 3: are going to be talking next. I think about a
Speaker 3: topic that's been ignored frankly quite a bit. I mean,
Speaker 3: remember I remember where I was when the Donald Trump
Speaker 3: assassination attempt took place, the first one, the one where
Speaker 3: he was wounded in the ear, and it was huge,
Speaker 3: massive news in July, and it seems to have kind
Speaker 3: of disappeared from the national conscience. But also we don't
Speaker 3: seem to be getting a lot of updates of what
Speaker 3: actually happened.
Speaker 5: No, it's a great point. And at the time I
Speaker 5: thought that the coverage of the Trump assassination attempt, because
Speaker 5: like you, I also remember where I was. It was
Speaker 5: massive news. But there was a lot happening because then
Speaker 5: you know, Joe Biden was still in the race, and
Speaker 5: then he got out of the race, and that seemed
Speaker 5: to shift it and it felt like covering the Trump assassination,
Speaker 5: which was a largely positive story for Donald Trump, seemed
Speaker 5: like the media helping the Trump campaign. It was a
Speaker 5: positive story, so almost like that you can't cover real
Speaker 5: news because it's good for Donald Trump, and we know
Speaker 5: firsthand how much the meat is not into doing that,
Speaker 5: and so that I thought that was one reason that
Speaker 5: went away. But then when the United Healthcare shooting happened
Speaker 5: and we instantly within forty eight hours, knew everything about
Speaker 5: the dude that did that, and we still know so
Speaker 5: little about the person that took a shot at the
Speaker 5: next president of the United States. I think it puts it,
Speaker 5: to quote Kamala Harris, into a different context.
Speaker 3: Exactly exactly. Well, we have a great guest now to
Speaker 3: talk about this. He's literally one of my favorite writers,
Speaker 3: Gerald Posner. He's an investigative journalist. He's written sort of
Speaker 3: the definitive books, I would argue on a series of
Speaker 3: high profile assassinations. He's the author of Case Closed, Lee
Speaker 3: Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, which came out
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety three, and also Killing the Dream, James
Speaker 3: Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King Junior.
Speaker 3: And what's interesting about Gerald is we had him on
Speaker 3: our podcast after the Trump assassination attempt, and Gerald, who's
Speaker 3: very level headed, very detailed and focused on facts, who's
Speaker 3: not a conspiracy theorist. He was kind of surprised at
Speaker 3: the ineptness in which the Secret Service and the federal
Speaker 3: authorities we're investigating the Trump assassination. So we want to
Speaker 3: have Gerald back again to get an update. Where are
Speaker 3: we what do we know, what don't we know? How
Speaker 3: things might be going awry? Gerald? Are you there? Thanks
Speaker 3: for joining us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I am Peter, Eric. Thanks so much for talking
Speaker 2: about this, because you're right, it's sort of like it
Speaker 2: fell off the shelf in terms of focus from the media,
Speaker 2: and there are so many other subjects that jumped ahead
Speaker 2: of it, and that of course, you know, it's the
Speaker 2: greatest dereliction of duty I've ever seen from the Secret Service,
Speaker 2: and is that first assassination attempt, especially so when it
Speaker 2: came so close to Trump actually being hit by the
Speaker 2: assassin a bullet just a fraction of an inch away
Speaker 2: from his head. And afterwards, who loves the fact that
Speaker 2: it's fallen off the radar more than the Secret Service
Speaker 2: and the federal agencies, no one, because they'd rather be
Speaker 2: talking about just about anything. But and one of the
Speaker 2: things I hope the new administration does is in terms
Speaker 2: of oversight, is demanding the full follow up that the
Speaker 2: American public deserves to know, not just about the things
Speaker 2: we already have out there and the mistakes that were made,
Speaker 2: but the much deeper concerns about how security was held
Speaker 2: back at times from the Trump rallies, what the politics
Speaker 2: were behind that, and the aptitude that's not just on
Speaker 2: the local police but on the FEDS in particular.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it seems to me Gerald that they're going
Speaker 3: to have to go in there. It's probably going to
Speaker 3: be kind of like trench warfare.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: It's not like the Secret Service or any government agency
Speaker 3: for that matter, likes being embarrassed, likes to have their
Speaker 3: dirty laundry air, but it needs to be aired. So
Speaker 3: my first question to do to you would be how
Speaker 3: do you actually go about doing that? The second question though, is,
Speaker 3: and again I try to follow these things, but it
Speaker 3: seems to me there's kind of an information black hole
Speaker 3: about the you know, would be assassin himself. We don't
Speaker 3: really know that much more about his motive is that
Speaker 3: because he's a mystery man, or do you think that's
Speaker 3: because it's maybe being held back or or you know,
Speaker 3: might be embarrassing, or might you know, be construed as
Speaker 3: serving some kind of political agenda.
Speaker 2: So so exactly that question we can't answer because the
Speaker 2: information is not being put out there. What we need
Speaker 2: is we need the full information about him. So right now,
Speaker 2: the attempted you know, assassin is like a rorshock test.
Speaker 2: You can put into them whatever you want. You want
Speaker 2: to think that he was just a loan nutter who
Speaker 2: was out there to shoot Trump. You want to think
Speaker 2: that he was part of the you know, a secret
Speaker 2: agency that sent him out there to try to shoot Trump.
Speaker 2: There's all types of things you can fit in. Because
Speaker 2: the government's its own worth enemy in not providing us
Speaker 2: to full information about what they know about him, the
Speaker 2: social apps that he used, the information that he had,
Speaker 2: the private security material around him. We need to see
Speaker 2: it so that we can independently draw conclusions about what
Speaker 2: motivated them. We don't always get a final nane. Not
Speaker 2: everybody needs a manifesto. Not everybody is like the unibomber,
Speaker 2: you know, and giving your forty thousand words about why
Speaker 2: they did it. So I get it that, you know,
Speaker 2: people like to have it wrapped up in a neat
Speaker 2: little bow and to know exactly why somebody ended up
Speaker 2: on a roof twenty three years of bay shooting at
Speaker 2: the former president the next president of the United States.
Speaker 2: And we may not get it as neatly wrapped up,
Speaker 2: but we certainly need to see the information in the
Speaker 2: public domain and have a transparent and that we're not
Speaker 2: getting at all.
Speaker 5: So speaking of transparency, Gerald, and that's a word we've
Speaker 5: used a decent amount today because you know, that's kind
Speaker 5: of a common theme between all the different stories that
Speaker 5: we're covering. This debate in the House and in Congress
Speaker 5: over how to fund the government. It's now actually happening
Speaker 5: in a transparent way, mostly because it's happening through social
Speaker 5: media and we can see the stuff that they put
Speaker 5: in the first bill, the pay raises and like all
Speaker 5: the other the DEI zoo and all these crazy things
Speaker 5: that can be rightly rejected because we know that they exist.
Speaker 5: We talked about the coverage about Joe Biden, and the
Speaker 5: more we learned about the steps that his staff and
Speaker 5: the people that we pay with tax dollars took to
Speaker 5: hide what should have been another massive story in the country,
Speaker 5: which is the fact that the president of the United
Speaker 5: States is having to be told by AIDS when and
Speaker 5: where to exit stages that, to quote the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 5: would have been obvious to an average person. I mean,
Speaker 5: that's who was in charge of the country. And the
Speaker 5: point is this is that have the elites and the
Speaker 5: government gotten so used to just being in their minds
Speaker 5: allowed to lie to the American people that this is
Speaker 5: another thing that they just don't feel like we deserve
Speaker 5: to know. And is that unusual? I mean, you have
Speaker 5: looked into the jfk assassination, You've studied American history. Where
Speaker 5: would you put what the government feels like we should
Speaker 5: and deserve to know in a historical context? Because it
Speaker 5: seems like it might be at an all time low.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it might be an all time low, Eric,
Speaker 2: But I think that the government has always had this
Speaker 2: elite view, which is we're going to give the people
Speaker 2: as little as possible. We're going to give them just
Speaker 2: what we need to give them to get to do
Speaker 2: what we want to do. It's just that it's more
Speaker 2: visible now because, like you said, we can go on X,
Speaker 2: and we can see called out almost in real time
Speaker 2: the list of items in the fifteen hundred pages of
Speaker 2: the original bill. That's just pure pork. In the old days,
Speaker 2: you would have had to wait a few days for
Speaker 2: a newspaper article, you know, thirty years ago, to do
Speaker 2: a story about Wasport. They would have picked up one
Speaker 2: tenth of it after the bill was already passed. So
Speaker 2: I think the elite got used to figuring out they
Speaker 2: didn't have to say much. And the story, by the
Speaker 2: way in the Wall Street Journal about how Biden's aids
Speaker 2: and the officials in government had to work isolate him,
Speaker 2: cut out negative news, sort of handle him in a
Speaker 2: way to hide his you know, the cognitive decline that
Speaker 2: he had from really almost right in office. That story
Speaker 2: is pretty infuriating on its own, but what really makes
Speaker 2: seem kind of out of my head is the idea
Speaker 2: that they were not just trying to wrap up a
Speaker 2: four year presidency and say hey, we got away with it.
Speaker 2: They were trying to get another four years out of it.
Speaker 2: They tended to run the government themselves. They just needed
Speaker 2: the figurehead Biden to be able to do well enough
Speaker 2: in the election to be Trump and then of course
Speaker 2: it all fell apart in that first debate, but if
Speaker 2: it had not. When I was reading that article in
Speaker 2: the Journal, I kept thinking to myself, they weren't just
Speaker 2: lying to us and holding back the facts and saying,
Speaker 2: let's run out the clock. It's over in November. They
Speaker 2: were saying, let's get another four out of it. And
Speaker 2: that to me. You talk about threat to democracy, the
Speaker 2: thing that was used all the time by the left.
Speaker 2: You know, Trump's going to be a threat to democracy.
Speaker 2: Forget about that. You lost your democracy under the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: would have lost it for another four because a secret
Speaker 2: cabal of aids and officials that held different degrees of power,
Speaker 2: who were never elected to any office at all, were
Speaker 2: running the presidency with a figurehead up there.
Speaker 5: And by the way, that's not conspiracy. That's like a
Speaker 5: real thing. We all sort of just now like know
Speaker 5: that's what happened.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah exactly. We're talking with Jerald Posner,
Speaker 3: who is really a premier investigative journalist, really one of
Speaker 3: my favorite writers. He has written a number of books
Speaker 3: that you want to look into, and we're talking to
Speaker 3: them about the Trump assassination and about government sort of
Speaker 3: hiding information in secrets. I have two questions for you, Jerald.
Speaker 3: The first one on the Trump assassination, that the sort
Speaker 3: of black hole of information, and this may be a
Speaker 3: speculative question, I understand that, but do you believe that
Speaker 3: the withholding of information is incompetence or is it actually
Speaker 3: by design? And my second question is on a totally
Speaker 3: different subject, but it's related. I want you to comment.
Speaker 3: I want to get your thoughts on the drones, because
Speaker 3: it seems to me the same thing is going on
Speaker 3: with the drones, where there's this lack of information. They
Speaker 3: seem to lie to us to say, oh, there's nothing
Speaker 3: to see here. People don't believe it, so it leads
Speaker 3: to all kinds of speculative attitudes. Could you comment also
Speaker 3: on the drones, but first give us your thoughts on
Speaker 3: the assassination attempt, the lack of information and what you
Speaker 3: think the motivation is or what's going on there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I think that they tie in in an
Speaker 2: odd way. I mean that may seem strange when at
Speaker 2: first say that the lack of information on the assassination
Speaker 2: and the drones sigh in, but meaning the way the
Speaker 2: government responds they pass off. It's intentional. Almost all the time,
Speaker 2: when they're withholding information, it is with malice of forethought.
Speaker 2: Is that we used to say as a lawyer, I'm
Speaker 2: not a practicing lawyer any longer. I don't practice, But
Speaker 2: that's what we used to call it, when you had intent.
Speaker 2: They have intent to withhold it. They know exactly what
Speaker 2: they're doing, but they want to cover it under the
Speaker 2: umbrella of incompetence so that people think, oh, yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe the drones really belong to them. Maybe they just
Speaker 2: you know, didn't have somebody looking at the roof, at
Speaker 2: the at the site. They were spread too thin and
Speaker 2: they just haven't gotten around to it. The right part
Speaker 2: of the bureaucracy hasn't yet released the information, and so
Speaker 2: therefore you think that's government bundling and inefficient, which it
Speaker 2: often is. But the inefficient part of it gets to
Speaker 2: cover the more nefarious parts of withholding information and keeping
Speaker 2: people from giving you to the truth.
Speaker 5: No, it's a great point. We're talking with Gerald Posner,
Speaker 5: and I guess final question for me, Jerald, talking about transparency,
Speaker 5: it does seem to be a sea change, and one
Speaker 5: reason why, clearly is because of the role that social
Speaker 5: media and I think Twitter or x specifically seems to
Speaker 5: be playing in it. You seemed to You commented on
Speaker 5: Twitter recently that Rand Paul gets the award for the
Speaker 5: most out of the box suggestion. When I think he
Speaker 5: suggested that the Speaker of the House could be Elon Musk?
Speaker 5: Is is that something not that Elon Musk would be
Speaker 5: Speaker of the House. But it's an interesting time if
Speaker 5: you've studied previously a lack of information, the way the
Speaker 5: government controls information. It's kind of amazing in the area
Speaker 5: that we live in now where you can actually see
Speaker 5: through this lens the mechanisms of government at work in
Speaker 5: real time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's absolutely it has. It's a sea
Speaker 2: change for those of us who have been investigati journalists
Speaker 2: and covered the government in years past. Now you have
Speaker 2: the major puplic square social media platform in terms of
Speaker 2: Twitter for news. You know, every organization is on there,
Speaker 2: heads of State, all the political groups, every police organization
Speaker 2: that and now you have the person who owns Twitter
Speaker 2: essentially as a confidant and close to and having played
Speaker 2: a key role in the re election of President Trump,
Speaker 2: having a voice in this administration running doge and having
Speaker 2: a say and so you see he pushes a lever
Speaker 2: and people respond, and there are a lot of people
Speaker 2: doing it on there. The rampaulse suggestion was I thought,
Speaker 2: you know when I saw it, and I know there'd
Speaker 2: been talk a year or two ago about Trump posted
Speaker 2: me being the Speaker of the House right if he
Speaker 2: took a seat in Florida. But the idea of you know,
Speaker 2: somebody coming in as Speaker of the House who wasn't
Speaker 2: a member of the House is pretty extraordinary. We all
Speaker 2: forget that that's possible. The idea that could be must
Speaker 2: have set people's hair on fire on MSNBC and other
Speaker 2: platforms just at the very one in ten thousand possibility.
Speaker 2: So I do love to see those things play out.
Speaker 2: But there's real news there. You see developments take place,
Speaker 2: and it's much harder. I love this or politicians and
Speaker 2: public officials to hide the truth for a very long
Speaker 2: time because they keep getting hammered in the public square
Speaker 2: and eventually they have to either go silent, you know,
Speaker 2: and cancel their account, or they have to come up
Speaker 2: with the goods.
Speaker 3: We've been talking to Gerald Posner, who's one of my
Speaker 3: favorite investigator journalists. He's the author of Case closed. He's
Speaker 3: the author of Dream, which is about the assassination Martin
Speaker 3: Luther King Junior also has a newer book out called
Speaker 3: Pharma About Pharma, I would encourage anybody that's looking for
Speaker 3: a great read as a Christmas gift pick up a
Speaker 3: book by Gerald Posler. Gerald, thanks for joining us. And
Speaker 3: we hope that the transparency revolution is going to continue
Speaker 3: because this it seems to be a good time for transparency.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's overdue. We're not going to get
Speaker 2: everything we want. We're not going to learn all the
Speaker 2: secrets at once, I guarantee you that, but we're certainly
Speaker 2: going to push in a disruptive way, and disruptive being
Speaker 2: good in this sense because the old way of doing it,
Speaker 2: which is just to sort of eat the public at
Speaker 2: a distance and tell them only what they need to know,
Speaker 2: they need to know actually everything the government is doing.
Speaker 2: It's because the only way that people can eventually determine
Speaker 2: who they want to put into political office, the people
Speaker 2: who are really serving public good and those who are
Speaker 2: just serving their own good.
Speaker 5: Well, the jail poser. We're going to do our best
Speaker 5: to continue to try to tell you the American people
Speaker 5: as much as we know about what your government's doing,
Speaker 5: will continue doing that. Right after this, he's Peter Schweizer.
Speaker 5: I'm Eric Eggers. This is the Sean Handy Radio show.