Speaker 1: It's totally nobody's ever had such Hares Sean Hannity, such
Speaker 1: horrible due process. There was no due process, and I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's considered a joke all over
Speaker 1: Washington and all over the world. The Republicans are given
Speaker 1: no due process whatsoever. We're not allowed to do anything.
Speaker 1: It's a disgrace what's happening. But you know what, the
Speaker 1: American public understands it. And that's why the poll numbers
Speaker 1: is so good, and that's why other things is so good.
Speaker 1: What they're doing in Washington, we're that hearing. And by
Speaker 1: the way, it's a political process, is not a legal process.
Speaker 1: So if I have somebody saying, I'm allowed to speak up,
Speaker 1: if somebody says about me, we're not allowed to have
Speaker 1: any kind of representation. We're not allowed to have almost anything.
Speaker 1: And nobody's seen anything like it in the history of
Speaker 1: our country. There has never been a disgrace like what's
Speaker 1: going on right now. So, you know what, I have
Speaker 1: the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just
Speaker 1: as other people do. But they've taken away the Republicans rights.
Speaker 1: And I watched today as certain very talented people who
Speaker 1: wanted to ask questions, and they weren't even allowed to
Speaker 1: ask questions Republicans, they weren't allowed to ask questions. It's
Speaker 1: a very sad thing. Go ahead, start with your freedom, time,
Speaker 1: start with your freedom. Were you trying to intimidate Ambassador yourvan?
Speaker 1: I just want to have a total I want freedom
Speaker 1: of speech. That's a political process. The Republicans have been
Speaker 1: treated very badly. And I watched a little bit of
Speaker 1: it today. I wasn't able to yesterday because we had
Speaker 1: the President of Turkey here and I wasn't able to
Speaker 1: watch much. I watched some of it this morning. I
Speaker 1: thought it was a disgrace when we have great Republican representatives,
Speaker 1: people elected by the people, and they're not allowed to
Speaker 1: even ask a question. They're not allowed to make a statement.
Speaker 1: We're not allowed to have witnesses, we're not allowed to
Speaker 1: have legal counsel, White House counsel. It's a disgrace and
Speaker 1: it's an embarrassment to our nation and your work. Yes,
Speaker 1: go ahead, question quiet, quiet, quiet. Believe the work can
Speaker 1: be intimidated? I don't think so at all. Go ahead. Well,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't be. In fact, I thought last night it
Speaker 1: ended because they're talking in the Roosevelt Room. We're gonna
Speaker 1: bring it back to our panel because all right there
Speaker 1: it is. I mean, I'm watching, by the way, glad
Speaker 1: you're with us, Happy Friday eight hundred nine for one
Speaker 1: seawn if you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: Let me deal with this idiocy anyway before we get
Speaker 1: even going here, the president't tweeted. It doesn't like he tweeted.
Speaker 1: He doesn't like it. Uh, okay for all you idiots.
Speaker 1: And I mean there are dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb people
Speaker 1: that that claim to even be legal analysts. They are
Speaker 1: the dumbest of of of them all, it seems sometimes.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, if you're gonna look at the legal definition
Speaker 1: defined by law witness and intimidation. Yet that would be
Speaker 1: if you threatened a witness with physical harm or actually
Speaker 1: harming a witness, oh, bribing a witness, asking or coercing
Speaker 1: a witness into lying. Um, I'm gonna play this cut here,
Speaker 1: and I thought I'll tell you what the great One
Speaker 1: said about this, which I thought was hilarious. But you know,
Speaker 1: I can't talk about the the the well. Just listen
Speaker 1: to cut eleven of this woman Maria Ivanovitch, who's so
Speaker 1: freaking paranoid thinks that I actually gave a fly and
Speaker 1: rip about her. We mentioned her in passing four times.
Speaker 1: It's not my fault that John Solomon interviewed the Prosecutor
Speaker 1: General that said that she was handing him a list
Speaker 1: of names and not the prosecutor. That's not my fault,
Speaker 1: and it was done in passing. O folks news. Oh woo,
Speaker 1: it's the drama. The drama anyway, this is her. I
Speaker 1: can't talk about the Black Ledger, Paul Manafford's resignation from
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, Shoukin's departure. She can't talk about anything well.
Speaker 1: And as Devin Noona said, here, why are you even here?
Speaker 1: You know nothing. Listen. I arrived in Ukraine on August
Speaker 1: twenty second, twenty sixteen, and left Ukraine permanently on May twentieth,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. There are a number of events you are
Speaker 1: investigating to which I cannot bring any firsthand knowledge. The
Speaker 1: events that predated my Ukraine service include the release of
Speaker 1: the so called Black Ledger and mister Manafort's subsequent resignation
Speaker 1: from President Trump's campaign, and the departure from office of
Speaker 1: former Prosecutor General Victor Shohin several other events occurred after
Speaker 1: I returned from Ukraine. These inde President Trump's July twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen call with President's Lenski, the discussions surrounding that
Speaker 1: phone call, and any discussions surrounding the delay of security
Speaker 1: assistance to Ukraine in the summer of twenty nineteen. All Right,
Speaker 1: so I'm watching all of this insanity go on here,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, you gotta be kidding me, right that
Speaker 1: she knows nothing, she can add nothing. Only things she
Speaker 1: can add is hearsay, hearsay, more hearsay. And so the media,
Speaker 1: the mob, and the demo, Well, this is witness intimidation. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: let me just point out that when the president, first
Speaker 1: of all, it's not witness intimidation. The president of the
Speaker 1: United States has a First Amendment right also to free speech,
Speaker 1: and everybody has a right to defend themselves from false
Speaker 1: accusations or they allowed to offer their opinion of a witness.
Speaker 1: And uh yeah, that's called freedom of speech. It's very
Speaker 1: simple if you just read the First Amendment. I love
Speaker 1: the great by the way, the great woman, I thought
Speaker 1: to him earlier today. He's on fire. He's coming on
Speaker 1: with us on TV tonight. I'm glad he's coming, and
Speaker 1: he pointed out, he goes, yeah, Ivanovich and I knew
Speaker 1: so little about this woman until I found out she's
Speaker 1: talking about me as if I ever talked about her
Speaker 1: a lot, which I didn't. It was it was we
Speaker 1: went back and looked. It was like four times. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know who she is. I know nothing
Speaker 1: about I've never talked to anybody in Ukraine. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's how insane. This was the only thing I cared
Speaker 1: about was quid pro quo Joe and zero experienced hunter
Speaker 1: and yeah, that would be your real quid pro quo. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Levin pointed out, he cracks me. He just cracks me up.
Speaker 1: That Ivanovitch wouldn't have even known that the president had
Speaker 1: tweeted during the hearing except for the compromise corrupt, coward,
Speaker 1: congenital liar. Oh, I don't know who the whistle blower is. Okay,
Speaker 1: you are you that messed up in the head that
Speaker 1: you don't remember what you said yesterday and the day
Speaker 1: before that. Anyway, if Shift didn't read this to her,
Speaker 1: Shift created the basis for this ridiculous and erroneous, irrational
Speaker 1: witness intimidation. It has no application none, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's almost humorous except what they're doing to the country.
Speaker 1: As I've been saying, none of this is funny. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, look at the opening statement, another blockbuster by
Speaker 1: Devin Nonas today. You know, as he points out, the
Speaker 1: Democrats have convened once again to advance an operation a
Speaker 1: topple a duly elected president. This is all they've done
Speaker 1: for three long, solid years. This is who they are.
Speaker 1: This defines them. They've done nothing to help peace, prosperity, safety,
Speaker 1: security in this country, job created. Nothing they've done zip
Speaker 1: except hate Trump. This is a this is beyond a
Speaker 1: raging psychosis that has overcome them. Now it's blowing up
Speaker 1: in their face. I'm kind of you know, good, you
Speaker 1: know what you want to be idiots, Go be idiots.
Speaker 1: Let it blow up in your face. That's fine. But
Speaker 1: this is what they've basically have said. We've played the
Speaker 1: montages again and again twenty sixteen, two days after the
Speaker 1: President selected Impeach, all through twenty seventeen, all through twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: all through twenty nineteen, Peach and Peach, and Peach and
Speaker 1: Peach and peaked. You know, they've been vowing to do
Speaker 1: this since the day that Donald Trump was elected because
Speaker 1: they never saw this coming and they can't believe we
Speaker 1: smelly Walmart shoppers guilty as charged. I like Costco and
Speaker 1: Target also we smelly Walmart, Costco, Target shoppers that like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. We irredeemable deplorables that claim to God. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm guilty. I want to I want a better relationship
Speaker 1: with my Creator and our Bibles and our religion. Oh
Speaker 1: that makes us horrible people. We want to be forgiven
Speaker 1: our sins. What's that's Christianity one on one and how horrible?
Speaker 1: But they is a contempt that they can't believe it.
Speaker 1: They they know better, they're smarter, they're super patriots. We're not,
Speaker 1: you know, until they secretly met with the whistleblower. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's where you know that the hiding the whistleblower and
Speaker 1: the sixth Amendment is very clear, which is why I'm
Speaker 1: asking these senators these questions. But you know, if if
Speaker 1: you're on the front the only by the way, the
Speaker 1: only one colluding with the Russian is that idiot chif
Speaker 1: the congenital liar, What is the nature of the compromise. Uh,
Speaker 1: the naked naked pixes, the thrump naked naked naked pixes. Uh.
Speaker 1: Did Vladimir receive them? Yeah? But of cause the compromising
Speaker 1: nut theadeals Vladimir saw. Of course it's in the okay,
Speaker 1: can you get me the compromising? Of course they get
Speaker 1: to the compromising. But do you dumb ask you're being pranked.
Speaker 1: You're being punked man, you know, the only one on
Speaker 1: tape colluding with a Russian anyway, So that now they've
Speaker 1: now that there has been nothing but six weeks of
Speaker 1: secret depositions. They're basically auditioning and cherry picking. And this
Speaker 1: is it. I mean, why was this woman even here?
Speaker 1: This is all hearsay again there is and by on
Speaker 1: top of it, I mean listening to Adam Schiff shutdown
Speaker 1: and we'll play this throughout the program today. You know,
Speaker 1: point of order, point of arder no no, no, not
Speaker 1: recognized point of er. I mean it's like a kindergart
Speaker 1: play some of that. It's like a kindergarten five. I
Speaker 1: do want to comment, and Chairman, I have a point
Speaker 1: of order under ATREZ six sixty the general little state
Speaker 1: or point of order, the point of order is will
Speaker 1: the Chairman continue to prohibit witnesses from answering Republican questions
Speaker 1: as you've done in closed hearings, and as you did
Speaker 1: well suspecsically when you interrupted our question a proper point
Speaker 1: of order General one was we'll suspend Chairman. Yea, Jenna
Speaker 1: was not recognized. A point of Jena is not recognized,
Speaker 1: a point of order though Jennam was not recognized. I
Speaker 1: do want to respond. I allowed the order. Jenna was
Speaker 1: not recognized. I'm out, and there are four gentlemen scripts
Speaker 1: that have and relieve on them is not recognized. Oh,
Speaker 1: rank you member was allowed to exceed the opening statement,
Speaker 1: and I was happy to allow him to do so.
Speaker 1: I do want to respond to the point of all this. Listen,
Speaker 1: you gotta understand their whole um when they when they
Speaker 1: put this phony resolution out there in the inquiry, they said, yeah,
Speaker 1: and the President will have the right to call witnesses
Speaker 1: and they'll have the right to question witnesses of the way,
Speaker 1: except that the discretion of the compromise corrupt coward, congenital liar,
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and then the next pair they'll have the
Speaker 1: right to ask witnesses questions at the discretion of the compromise, corrupt,
Speaker 1: congenital liar. Shift is judge, jury and executioners. There's there's
Speaker 1: nothing here and as you as you as I'm sorting
Speaker 1: through that, I can't even believe that this is this
Speaker 1: is it? This? They want to impeach a president of
Speaker 1: the United States. They don't have a single fact witness.
Speaker 1: Oh you got is a bunch of if you found
Speaker 1: in your cherry picking auditions, a few Trump haters and
Speaker 1: their interpretation of something that never happened, never happened, They
Speaker 1: never did anything, and they got the money. And you
Speaker 1: got the president of the Ukraine, the farm Minister saying
Speaker 1: over and over again, no, none of this is true. Zero.
Speaker 1: You know, it's an irrefutable fact here the AID only
Speaker 1: existed because of Trump. The president and Zelenski made it
Speaker 1: clear nothing was linked. The Foreign Minister has now said
Speaker 1: it again and again, and they've said it on multiple occasions.
Speaker 1: They didn't feel pressure to do a single thing, you know,
Speaker 1: And I will tell you, And watching Shift today, I
Speaker 1: mean it was like, WHOA what country we all living
Speaker 1: in here? All right? I gotta take a break, first
Speaker 1: break here. We got a lot to get to. We
Speaker 1: got a lot. I mean, I don't know whether to
Speaker 1: laugh or cry. I'm kind of enjoying this blowing up
Speaker 1: in their face. I mean, this is blowing up in
Speaker 1: their face. This is this, This is like we're no
Speaker 1: longer the United States of the America. This is like
Speaker 1: the Banana Republic States of America. This is this is
Speaker 1: former Soviet Union style madness here. Oh yeah, Democrats, maybe
Speaker 1: they don't want to follow this little point of order
Speaker 1: that the one thing Ivanovitch did do today is confirmed that, yeah,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden zero experienced role with Baris Maholdings. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: highly questionable. Yeah, I thought, Oh, I thought nobody. I thought.
Speaker 1: I thought the predict was in that no reasonable person
Speaker 1: sho's or anything wrong with the billion dollars if if
Speaker 1: I are the guy, no billion, if you don't, nobody
Speaker 1: saw anything wrong with that. But we see the president
Speaker 1: is defending himself. This is witness and no, go read
Speaker 1: the statute. Are you people that dumb and that lazy
Speaker 1: that you can't even you know, look up the federal statute.
Speaker 1: It's not that hard. You have to threaten a witness
Speaker 1: with physical harm or harming a witness or bribing a
Speaker 1: witness or coercing a witness in the line. The president
Speaker 1: has a First Amendment right just like the rest of us.
Speaker 1: I know that's very surprising to you liberals, but you
Speaker 1: know he does. And as part of that, he can
Speaker 1: say whatever he wants to say. And by the way,
Speaker 1: she wouldn't have even known about it while she was testifying,
Speaker 1: because oh, the only one that told her was the cowardly, corrupt,
Speaker 1: compromise congenital liar. And that's who, you know, That's who's
Speaker 1: in play here. The most stunning thing in this is
Speaker 1: just like the other two Bozo's you know, Tuesday, when
Speaker 1: was it Wednesday? She has no firsthand knowledge at all
Speaker 1: of anything. She has none. You had no knowledge of
Speaker 1: the pause on aid on Ukraine, no knowledge of the
Speaker 1: phone call till it was made public. She was not
Speaker 1: involved in the meeting in Warsaw and had not spoken
Speaker 1: of the President or mulvaney at all, and she could
Speaker 1: not speak to the president's thought process regarding his decisions. Now,
Speaker 1: she did agree one hundred percent. You know, Ukraine agreed
Speaker 1: with bringing her back. They didn't want her there because
Speaker 1: she actually and you can look at this in John
Speaker 1: Solomon's column, apparently gave a speech and made her opinions known.
Speaker 1: But she's upset that the prosecutor General said something about
Speaker 1: her and not got reported. Wow, oh, the vapors. Oh,
Speaker 1: hang on, I gotta take a break because I'm about
Speaker 1: to pass out. Twenty five now till the top of
Speaker 1: the hour, all right, so let me just read the tweets.
Speaker 1: Oh the vapors. Oh. And by the way, she wouldn't
Speaker 1: have even known that the president tweeted about her, but
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff has to tell her. And this intimidation, no
Speaker 1: one's not. I have said on this program that if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump cured cancer, they would impeach him for curing cancer.
Speaker 1: That's how sick they've gotten. This is how detached from
Speaker 1: truth and reality they are. Now the president did tweet.
Speaker 1: They call it serving at the pleasure of the president.
Speaker 1: The US now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy,
Speaker 1: much different than proceeding administrations. It's called, by the way,
Speaker 1: quite simply America First. With all of that, however, I
Speaker 1: have done far bet more for Ukraine than Obama. Oh,
Speaker 1: good point, and everywhere Maria Ivanovitch when turned bad. By
Speaker 1: the way, the Ukrainians, nobody's saying this by the way,
Speaker 1: they should have. They agreed one hundred percent with recalling
Speaker 1: the ambassador, because the new president said, with regard to
Speaker 1: the ambassador to the United States from Ukraine, as far
Speaker 1: as I recall her name, Ivanovitch was great. That you
Speaker 1: were the first one who told me that she was
Speaker 1: not a great ambassador, because I agree with you one
Speaker 1: hundred percent. Her attitude towards me was far from the best,
Speaker 1: as she admired the previous president and she was on
Speaker 1: his side. She would not accept me as a new president.
Speaker 1: Well enough, Oh so the Ukrainian president agrees. President just says, yeah,
Speaker 1: it didn't work out well. She started off in Somalia.
Speaker 1: Had that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the
Speaker 1: new Ukrainian president spoke unfavorably about her in my second
Speaker 1: phone call with him. It is a president's absolute right
Speaker 1: to appoint ambassadors yet the president's foreign policy. But the
Speaker 1: most stunny thing here, I'm gonna go to Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: here in a second is she has no knowledge of anything.
Speaker 1: It's that the great devinue is, why are you even here?
Speaker 1: What is the point? Confirmed? She wasn't involved in the
Speaker 1: phone call, had no knowledge about the issues of Ukraine
Speaker 1: and the pause on aid. She wasn't involved in the
Speaker 1: meeting in Warsaw, Warsaw, Warsaw had not spoken with President
Speaker 1: Trump or Mulvany at all. And you know, she also
Speaker 1: could not speak to the President's thought process regarding his
Speaker 1: decision related to Ukraine. I know she's so upset that.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the prosecutor general there accused her of giving
Speaker 1: her giving him a list of people, not the prosecute
Speaker 1: that let her take it up with that guy. I
Speaker 1: apparently he stands by it. According to Jim Jordan, others
Speaker 1: have said he's were canted. Everything she had to offer
Speaker 1: today was just more hearsay. She wasn't on the call,
Speaker 1: she didn't know about the call until it was made public.
Speaker 1: She can only provide more hearsay about the discussion of
Speaker 1: aid to Ukraine. I mean, that's it. That's all they
Speaker 1: can do. And by the way, Obama gave plenty of
Speaker 1: ambassadors there goodbye pink slips. Yeah, a lot of times.
Speaker 1: And Ivanovitch even added to it, yea had to serve
Speaker 1: at the pleasure of the president. Ambassadors are personal representatives
Speaker 1: of the president. That's the president's job. He's the one
Speaker 1: the campaign that got elected. And she confirmed that the
Speaker 1: president can recall an ambassador any time for any reason.
Speaker 1: He didn't need any reason or any reason at all.
Speaker 1: And I don't know why that would be even complicated,
Speaker 1: even for the corrupt news media in this country, you know.
Speaker 1: And she even praised the president's strong policies towards Ukraine. Wow, shocky.
Speaker 1: And all of this is based on hearsay, every bit
Speaker 1: of it. Oh, by the way, I love how you
Speaker 1: know the the area of fifty one Roswell Rachel conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory channel. They're actually comparing horror removal is worse than Benghazi. Really,
Speaker 1: what's up? Well, let's go to let's go to Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan's now come out of this hearing which is now over.
Speaker 1: Who has no firsthand knowledge of the subject that is
Speaker 1: supposed to be the focus of this entire inquiry. Third
Speaker 1: witness who never talked to the president. Third witness who
Speaker 1: never spoke with Chief of Staff mulvaney who was not,
Speaker 1: third witness who was not on the call, third witness
Speaker 1: who wasn't even as I said, in Ukraine, when when
Speaker 1: when the relevant during the relevant time frame wasn't even
Speaker 1: there when President's Lensky that left before he was even
Speaker 1: inaugurated as as the new president. So again four facts.
Speaker 1: I say this every time, but it's the truth. Four
Speaker 1: facts have never changed. We'll never change. We got the
Speaker 1: call transcript. There was no conditionality or linkage on the
Speaker 1: call between an investigation security assistance. We have the two
Speaker 1: individuals on the call to both said that there was
Speaker 1: no pressure, no linkage. We know that the Ukrainians didn't
Speaker 1: even know AID was withheld or on hold at the
Speaker 1: time of the call. And most importantly, the Ukrainians, specifically
Speaker 1: President Lensky, never took any official action to get the
Speaker 1: aid release. And so those those facts never change, and
Speaker 1: we'll never change. We'll letting the Stephani say a word
Speaker 1: and then we'll take the question. Sure. So this was
Speaker 1: day two of an abject failure of Adam Schiff and
Speaker 1: his regime of secrecy. As we saw today, he is
Speaker 1: making up the I mean it is Jim Jordan's gonna
Speaker 1: get up here, and I'm sorry, Mark Meadows is gonna
Speaker 1: get up in a minute. When he does, I want
Speaker 1: to go to him. Let me know, Linda when he
Speaker 1: gets up there and we have a queue up and
Speaker 1: only have it chewed up and ready to go. You know,
Speaker 1: I will tell you. You know, we're learning a lot
Speaker 1: of other things here too, Like Ivanovitch's previous testimony was
Speaker 1: a dud. They knew it was a dud. A third
Speaker 1: here say, witness, what is the point it is inadmissible?
Speaker 1: That's why I've been asking any senators, Okay, are we
Speaker 1: going to follow the federal laws that govern the admission
Speaker 1: admissibility of evidence and a trial, which means no hearsay
Speaker 1: with very few exceptions, none that would apply here. And
Speaker 1: that's issue number one, an issue number two. Do we
Speaker 1: have a sixth amendment to our constitution? Do you have
Speaker 1: a right to confront your accusers? There's a great piece
Speaker 1: Washington Post is actually saying the Democrats focus grouped coming
Speaker 1: up with the name of we'll go with the name
Speaker 1: bribery because it's you know, qui pro quol is not
Speaker 1: as good. We'll go to extortion. No, no, no, no, now,
Speaker 1: we'll move it to bribery. I don't know what the
Speaker 1: hell they're doing, you know. And you've got fake news
Speaker 1: ms DNC claiming that the president exercising his undisputed right.
Speaker 1: We're calling ambassadors worse than mcghazi, MAKA Brazynski. I'm like
Speaker 1: and at least Jordan in in exchange today. But all
Speaker 1: of this is backfiring. You know, I can't hear you.
Speaker 1: Gotta say it on the air. What are you saying
Speaker 1: to me? I can't hear you. I can't read your lips.
Speaker 1: For Meadows, when have you ready? Boss? Well, let's called
Speaker 1: to Mark Meadows. He just came out of the hero.
Speaker 1: We do have is we have what President Zelenski. We
Speaker 1: have a new administration in Ukraine that didn't have the
Speaker 1: same confidence in this ambassador, and so in't it appropriate
Speaker 1: with all the foreign service diplomats we have to put
Speaker 1: someone in with a new regime in the Ukraine that
Speaker 1: can actually work on the President's behalf, on behalf of
Speaker 1: the American people. Why is it appropriate for the president
Speaker 1: attap his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani Tamund, which he testified
Speaker 1: to was a smear campaign against her. Why is that okay?
Speaker 1: President can happen, as I said, the President can have
Speaker 1: whom he desires doing diplomatic work for the country. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's been there's been all this, there's there's been all
Speaker 1: this talk about the irregular channel. I think it's important
Speaker 1: that folks in the quote irregular channel where Senate confirmed
Speaker 1: Ambassador Silence send it confirmed Ambassador Vulker and Senate confirmed
Speaker 1: Secretary Perry. So, y'all want to make a some of
Speaker 1: the windens want to make a big deal about that.
Speaker 1: And you had the president's lawyer also part of that
Speaker 1: that group. I think, I think presidents are allowed to
Speaker 1: have whom they want doing the work of the country.
Speaker 1: It was a spear case. She said it was a
Speaker 1: spear campaign. I don't know. She testified. It was a
Speaker 1: spear campaign of false attacks against her. Do you believe
Speaker 1: her the president is appropriate for the present while I think, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's Excuse me, I don't know
Speaker 1: that it was an attack on the witness it was.
Speaker 1: It was really a characterization of her resume. And when
Speaker 1: when you look at this, when you look at this,
Speaker 1: you guys want him to go in with no attorneys,
Speaker 1: no witnesses, no Twitter or no anything. You know, at
Speaker 1: some point you got to say, when is it going
Speaker 1: to be a fair process? And today was not a
Speaker 1: fair process in there. It's not going to be a
Speaker 1: fair process in the bunker that we're about half to
Speaker 1: go to. And it was not a fair process. When
Speaker 1: they muzzled the general woman from New York over and
Speaker 1: over again, it's not fair. Do you think it's a
Speaker 1: fair presidence. Listen the second sentence of that tweet, for example,
Speaker 1: one example, Adam Shift never brought this up. The second
Speaker 1: sentence of that tweek goes back to the July twenty
Speaker 1: fifth cult transcript, and in that President Zelinski is seeing
Speaker 1: the President Trump that he's concerned the Ambassaory Ivanovitch is
Speaker 1: a quote bad ambassador, and that President Zealinsky believed the
Speaker 1: Ambassadory Ivanovitch had a loyalty to President Poor Shanko. Now
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff, when posing the question of Ambassaory Ivanovitch to
Speaker 1: respond to the tweet, never even mentioned that because this
Speaker 1: is what Adam Shift did. Thus, let me just jump
Speaker 1: in here and say, you know, Jim Jordan sums it
Speaker 1: up and every time he goes to the microphone, there
Speaker 1: was no linkage in the transcript. There was never even
Speaker 1: the mention of the word aid, not one time, not
Speaker 1: one time. The President of Ukraine, Foreign Minister Ukraine. They
Speaker 1: didn't even know that there was a hold, which was
Speaker 1: from a month before. Why because there's so much corruption,
Speaker 1: as we all know goes on. Both sides are saying
Speaker 1: no linkage, no pressure whatsoever, and they got the money
Speaker 1: without doing anything. So why are we here talking to
Speaker 1: a hearsay, no nothing witness again, I mean, I've never
Speaker 1: seen anything like that. I will tell you though, is
Speaker 1: blowing up. We got the latest survey by Rasmussen now out,
Speaker 1: which has been the most accurate polling operation in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election, and it shows that the shift show
Speaker 1: that's going on in DC in the circus is boosting
Speaker 1: the president's approval numbers because their daily Presidential Survey find
Speaker 1: a four point bounce for the president following the first
Speaker 1: day of this Ukrainian impeachment coup attempt, and the president's
Speaker 1: overall approval has been tracking up since Wednesday, the first
Speaker 1: day of this shift show. There's a forty six percent,
Speaker 1: Now it's fifty. Keep it up because that's only going
Speaker 1: to help the president. And by the way, there's another
Speaker 1: they released. The new Trump call transcript has now come
Speaker 1: out as well, and guess what it actually contradicts Ivanovitch's
Speaker 1: previous sworn testimony. And you know, the debunk conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: floated by by some people out there on the left
Speaker 1: that that President Trump was bad mouthing her in the
Speaker 1: first call. Well, that's what the compromise corrupt coward. Congenital
Speaker 1: liar Adam schiff At ask Ivanovitch in the October eleventh EPSI,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't if she knew whether Trump had brought her
Speaker 1: up in previous conversations. She said, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: had assumed it was April twenty first the phone call,
Speaker 1: the first phone call, because that, to my knowledge is
Speaker 1: the only time other time that they talked. And then
Speaker 1: the congenital liar asked if the reason that she didn't
Speaker 1: receive a briefing or read out of the call was
Speaker 1: because Trump may have been bashing her. It's possible, she says,
Speaker 1: great more conjecture. Let's all just guess around this. White
Speaker 1: House released the full transcript of that call today and
Speaker 1: guess what. Ivanovitch's name never came up? Good grief. I
Speaker 1: mean the four minor mentions on my show, Oh smear campaign.
Speaker 1: By the way, we know why is Rudy Giuliani there.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you why. Because the election interference by Ukraine
Speaker 1: and he's the president's lawyer, and that was the whole
Speaker 1: Muller report thing. Remember, either way, there is speculation who
Speaker 1: is the person that said this? Earlier today, O l
Speaker 1: Ford was on Fox News. He says, yeah, this keeps
Speaker 1: going bad. You're gonna have a much better sense of
Speaker 1: what Nancy Pelosi thinks, because I don't think that she
Speaker 1: wanted to do this. If she doesn't feel the Democrats
Speaker 1: are gonna have a sound boat, bypartisan boat, maybe even
Speaker 1: the chance to remove the president, I would not be
Speaker 1: surprised if she didn't pull this in the next few days.
Speaker 1: If she had a brain, she would, But I think
Speaker 1: she's just speaker in name only love how they you know,
Speaker 1: prayerful by the way of apparent. I wonder if that
Speaker 1: was one of the focus group terms they came up with.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is she had nothing to offer today. Nothing,
Speaker 1: She knew nothing. There was no reason for her to
Speaker 1: ever be there no firsthand knowledge of the first phone
Speaker 1: call between Trump and Zelensky, none, no direct knowledge of
Speaker 1: anything about withholding or delaying aid. Nothing that is the
Speaker 1: center of their their ridiculous impeachment coup attempt here. And
Speaker 1: she's just upset that. You know, you can't be upset
Speaker 1: with Julianni or Solomon, her Hannity and Hannity barely. I
Speaker 1: need nothing about her now I do and I know
Speaker 1: a lot about her now, but she's upset. Four mere mentions,
Speaker 1: oh smeared like in passing. What the hell this person
Speaker 1: is talking about? By the way, Ron Johnson, if you
Speaker 1: want a real quid pro quote, we got one. He's
Speaker 1: threatening now to subpoena Hunter Biden. And I will tell
Speaker 1: you this is this is gonna get interesting, all right,
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine for one, Sean, if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, all right, we got
Speaker 1: a lot to get to today. Eight hundred nine four one,
Speaker 1: Sean Tolfrey telephone number. I will tell you that there
Speaker 1: are some rock stars that are emerging here for the Republicans.
Speaker 1: By the way, I mean, can I just say I
Speaker 1: was devastated that the president, you know, didn't like me.
Speaker 1: I was devastated. I'm like, okay, um, I don't understand.
Speaker 1: There's so many people that hate me. I just don't understand.
Speaker 1: Snowflake is them Get over it. Not everybody in life's
Speaker 1: gonna like you too bad. Anyway, We've got Mark, these heroes,
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows have been great. He's going to join us well,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's been amazing, Matt Gates has been amazing. He'll
Speaker 1: join us, Andy Biggs. We've got Greg Jarrett checking in today,
Speaker 1: Senator Rick Scott, and oh Mark Levin on Hannity tonight.
Speaker 1: Don't miss that. I we'll tell you more about that
Speaker 1: straight ahead. Here's Sean Hannity. Such horrible due process. There
Speaker 1: was no due process, and I think it's I think
Speaker 1: it's considered a joke all over Washington and all over
Speaker 1: the world. The Republicans are given no due process whatsoever.
Speaker 1: We're not allowed to do anything. It's a disgrace what's happening.
Speaker 1: But you know what, the American public understands it. And
Speaker 1: that's why the poll numbers is so good, and that's
Speaker 1: why other things is so good. What they're doing in Washington,
Speaker 1: we're that hearing. And by the way, it's a political process,
Speaker 1: is not a legal process. So if I have somebody saying,
Speaker 1: I'm allowed to speak up, if somebody says about me,
Speaker 1: we're not allowed to have any kind of representation. We're
Speaker 1: not allowed to have almost anything. And nobody's seen anything
Speaker 1: like it in the history of our country. There has
Speaker 1: never been a disgrace like what's going on right now?
Speaker 1: So you know what, I have the right to speak.
Speaker 1: I have freedom of speech just as other people do.
Speaker 1: But they've taken away the Republicans' rights. And I watched
Speaker 1: today as certain very talented people who wanted to ask questions,
Speaker 1: and they weren't even allowed to ask questions Republicans. They
Speaker 1: weren't allowed to ask questions. It's a very sad thing.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, start with your freedom, to start with your freedom.
Speaker 1: Were you trying to intimidate a bask your banna. I
Speaker 1: just want to have a total I want freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: That's a political process. The Republicans have been treated very badly.
Speaker 1: And I watched a little bit of it today. I
Speaker 1: wasn't able to yesterday because we had the President of
Speaker 1: Turkey here and I wasn't able to watch much. I
Speaker 1: watched some of it this morning. I thought it was
Speaker 1: a disgrace when we have great Republican representatives, people elected
Speaker 1: by the people, and they're not allowed to even ask
Speaker 1: a question. They're not allowed to make a statement. We're
Speaker 1: not allowed to have witnesses, we're not allowed to have
Speaker 1: legal counsel, White House counsel. It's a disgrace and it's
Speaker 1: an embarrassment to our nation. Do you believe and you work?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, question quiet, quiet, quiet? Do you believe? Tweet
Speaker 1: the work can be intimidating. I don't think so at all.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Well, I shouldn't be. In fact, I thought
Speaker 1: last night it ended because they're talking in the Roosevelt room.
Speaker 1: We're gonna bring it back to our panel because he
Speaker 1: was just making all right, there it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm watching. By the way, glad you're with us, Happy Friday,
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine, pot one, seawn if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program, let me deal with
Speaker 1: this idiocy anyway before we get even going here. The
Speaker 1: presidn't tweeted. It doesn't like he tweeted. He doesn't like it.
Speaker 1: Okay for all you idiots, And I mean, they're are dumb, dumb,
Speaker 1: dumb dumb people that that claim to even be legal analysts.
Speaker 1: They are the dumbest of the of them all. It
Speaker 1: seems sometimes, uh yeah, if you're gonna look at the
Speaker 1: legal definition defined by law witness and intimidation, yet, that
Speaker 1: would be if you threatened a witness with physical harm
Speaker 1: or actually harming a witness, oh, bribing a witness asking
Speaker 1: or coercing a witness into lying, Um, I'm gonna play
Speaker 1: this cut here, And I thought, I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: the great one said about this, which I thought was hilarious.
Speaker 1: But you know, I can't talk about the the the well.
Speaker 1: Just listen to cut eleven of this woman Maria Ivanovitch,
Speaker 1: who's so freaking paranoid, thinks that I actually gave a
Speaker 1: flying rip about her. We mentioned her in passing four times.
Speaker 1: It's not my fault that John Solomon interviewed the prosecutor
Speaker 1: General that said that she was handing him a list
Speaker 1: of names. Are not the prows of ute. That's not
Speaker 1: my fault, and it was done in passing. O folks news,
Speaker 1: Oh whoa, it's the drama, the drama anyway, this is her.
Speaker 1: I can't talk about the black Ledger, Paul Manafford's resignation
Speaker 1: from the Trump campaign, or Shokun's departure. She can't talk
Speaker 1: about anything well. And as Devin Noonas said, here, why
Speaker 1: are you even here? You know nothing? Listen. I arrived
Speaker 1: in Ukraine on August twenty second, twenty sixteen, and left
Speaker 1: Ukraine permanently on May twentieth, twenty nineteen. There are a
Speaker 1: number of events you are investigating to which I cannot
Speaker 1: bring any firsthand knowledge. The events that predated my Ukraine
Speaker 1: service include the release of the so called Black Ledger
Speaker 1: and mister Manaford's subsequent resignation from President Trump's campaign, and
Speaker 1: the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Victor show Him.
Speaker 1: Several other events occurred after I returned from Ukraine. These
Speaker 1: include President Trump's July twenty five, twenty nineteen, call with
Speaker 1: President's Lensky, the discussions surrounding that phone call, and any
Speaker 1: discussions surrounding the delay of security assistance to Ukraine in
Speaker 1: the summer of twenty nineteen. All Right, so I'm watching
Speaker 1: all of this insanity go on here, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: you gotta be kidding me, right that she knows nothing,
Speaker 1: she can add nothing. Only thing she can add is hearsay,
Speaker 1: hearsay more hearsay. And so the media, the mob, and
Speaker 1: the demo, Well, this is witness intimidation. Okay, Well, let
Speaker 1: me just point out that when the president, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's not witness intimidation. The president of the United States
Speaker 1: has a First Amendment right also to free speech, and
Speaker 1: everybody has a right to defend themselves from false accusation,
Speaker 1: or they allowed to offer their opinion of a witness.
Speaker 1: And uh, yet that's called freedom of speech. It's very
Speaker 1: simple if you just read the first Amendment. I love
Speaker 1: the great by the way, the great woman. I thought
Speaker 1: to him earlier today, he's on fire. He's coming on
Speaker 1: with us on TV tonight. I'm glad he's coming, and
Speaker 1: he pointed out, he USh, yeah, Ivanovitch and I knew
Speaker 1: so little about this woman until I found out she's
Speaker 1: talking about me as if I ever talked about her
Speaker 1: a lot, which I didn't. It was it was we
Speaker 1: went back and looked. It was like four times. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know who she is. I do nothing
Speaker 1: about I've never talked to anybody in Ukraine. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's how insane. This was the only thing I cared
Speaker 1: about was quid pro quo Joe and zero experienced hunter
Speaker 1: and yeah, that would be your real quid pro quo. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Levin pointed out, he cracks, He just cracks me up.
Speaker 1: Uh that Ivanovitch wouldn't have even known that the President
Speaker 1: had tweeted during the hearing except for the compromise. Corrupt
Speaker 1: coward congenital liar. Oh, I don't know who the whistle
Speaker 1: blower is. Okay, are you that messed up in the
Speaker 1: head that you don't remember what you said yesterday and
Speaker 1: the day before that. Anyway, if Shift didn't read this
Speaker 1: to her, Shift created the basis for this ridiculous and erroneous,
Speaker 1: irrational witness intimidation. It has no application none, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's almost humorous except what they're doing to
Speaker 1: the country. As I've been saying, none of this is funny.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, look at the opening statement, another
Speaker 1: blockbuster by Devin Nounas today. You know, as he points out,
Speaker 1: the Democrats have convened once again to advance an operation
Speaker 1: a top la duly elected president. This is all they've
Speaker 1: done for three long, solid years. This is who they are.
Speaker 1: This defines them. They've done nothing to help peace, prosperity, safety,
Speaker 1: security in this country, job created. Nothing they've done zip
Speaker 1: except hate Trump. This is a this is beyond a
Speaker 1: raging psychosis that has overcome them. Now it's blowing up
Speaker 1: in their face. I'm kind of you know, good, you
Speaker 1: know what you want to be idiots, Go be idiots.
Speaker 1: Let them blow up in your face. That's fine, but
Speaker 1: this is what they've basically have said. We've played the
Speaker 1: montages again and again twenty sixteen, two days after the
Speaker 1: President selected Impeach, all through twenty seventeen, all through twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: all through twenty nineteen, Peach and Peach and Peach and
Speaker 1: Peach and peaked. You know, they've been vowing to do
Speaker 1: this since the day that Donald Trump was elected because
Speaker 1: they never saw this coming and they can't believe we
Speaker 1: smelly Walmart shoppers guilty as charged. I like Costco and Target.
Speaker 1: Also we smellie Walmart, Costco, Target shoppers that like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: We irredeemable deplorables that claim to God. All right, I'm guilty.
Speaker 1: I want to I want a better relationship with my
Speaker 1: creator and our Bibles and our religion. Oh that makes
Speaker 1: us horrible people. We want to be forgiven our sins.
Speaker 1: What's that? That's Christianity? One O one? How horrible. But
Speaker 1: there's a contempt that they can't believe it. They did,
Speaker 1: They know better, they're smarter, they're super patriots. We're not,
Speaker 1: you know, until they secretly met with the whistleblower. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's where you know that the hiding the whistleblower, and
Speaker 1: the sixth Amendment is very clear, which is why I'm
Speaker 1: asking these senators these questions. But you know, if if
Speaker 1: you're on then the only by the way, the only
Speaker 1: one colluding with the Russian is that idiot Chiff, the
Speaker 1: congenital liar. What is the nature of the compromise? Uh?
Speaker 1: The naked naked pixes, the thumb naked naked pixes. Uh?
Speaker 1: Did Vladimir see them? Yeah? Yeah, But of course the
Speaker 1: compromising mut THEAREALSU Latims saw. Of course this in the okay,
Speaker 1: can you get me the compromising Matt. Of course I
Speaker 1: get to the compromising But do you, dumbass, you're being pranked.
Speaker 1: You're being punked man, and you know, the only one
Speaker 1: on tape colluding with a Russian anyway, So that now
Speaker 1: they've now that this has been nothing but six weeks
Speaker 1: of secret depositions. They're basically auditioning and cherry picking. And
Speaker 1: this is it you, I mean, why was this woman
Speaker 1: even here? This is all hearsay again there is and
Speaker 1: by on top of it, I mean listening to Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff shutdown and we'll play this throughout the program today.
Speaker 1: You know, point of order point of art. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: not recognized point of er. I mean it's like a
Speaker 1: kindergart play some of that. It's like a kindergarten. Five. Chairman,
Speaker 1: I have a point of order under a TREZ six sixty,
Speaker 1: the general little state point of order. The point of
Speaker 1: order is, will the Chairman continue to prohibit witnesses from
Speaker 1: answering Republican questions as you've done in closed hearings, and
Speaker 1: as you did sasically when you interrupted our question. A
Speaker 1: proper point of order, Generalman, we'll suspend. Jenna was not recognized.
Speaker 1: A point of genera is not recognized, a point of
Speaker 1: order though Jennam was not recognized. I do want to respond.
Speaker 1: I allowed the rank order John was not recognized. This
Speaker 1: is allowed in their four gentlemen, scripts that have not
Speaker 1: been relieved is not recognized. Ranking member was allowed to
Speaker 1: exceed the opening statement, and I was happy to allow
Speaker 1: him to do so. I do want to respond to
Speaker 1: the point of all this. Listen, you gotta understand their
Speaker 1: whole um when they when they put this phony resolution
Speaker 1: out there in the inquiry, they said, yeah, and the
Speaker 1: President will have the right to call witnesses and they'll
Speaker 1: have the right to question. Witnesses have the way, except
Speaker 1: that the discussion of the compromise corrupt Howard congenital liar
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff, and then the next pair. They've the right
Speaker 1: to ask witnesses questions at the discretion of the compromise
Speaker 1: corrupt congenital liar. Shift is judge juryan executioner's there's there's
Speaker 1: nothing here and as you as you as I'm sorting
Speaker 1: through that, I can't even believe that this is this?
Speaker 1: Is it? This? They want to impeach a president of
Speaker 1: the United States. They don't have a single fact, witness.
Speaker 1: All you got is a bunch of if you found
Speaker 1: them in your cherry picking auditions, a few Trumpeters, and
Speaker 1: their interpretation of something that never happened. Never happened, They
Speaker 1: never did anything, and they got the money, and you
Speaker 1: got the president of the Ukraine, the farms. They're saying
Speaker 1: over and over again, no, none of this is true. Zero,
Speaker 1: you know, um, it's an irrefutable fact here. The aid
Speaker 1: only existed because of Trump. The president and Zelenski made
Speaker 1: it clear nothing was linked. The Foreign Minister has now
Speaker 1: said it again and again, and they've said it on
Speaker 1: multiple occasions. They didn't feel pressure to do a single thing,
Speaker 1: you know, and I will tell you. And watching Shift today,
Speaker 1: I mean it was like, whoa what country we all
Speaker 1: living in? Here? All I gotta take a first break here.
Speaker 1: We got a lot to get to. Oh yeah, Democrats,
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't want to follow this little point of
Speaker 1: order that the one thing Ivanovitch did do today is
Speaker 1: confirmed that. Yeah hunter Biden zero experienced role with baris
Speaker 1: my holdings. Yeah, that's highly questionable. Yeah, oh I thought
Speaker 1: nobody I thought. I thought the predict was in that
Speaker 1: no reasonable person shoos or anything wrong with the billion
Speaker 1: dollars if you fire the guy, no billion of you don't.
Speaker 1: Nobody saw anything wrong with that. But we see the
Speaker 1: president is defending himself. This is witness and no, go
Speaker 1: read the statute. Are you people that dumb and that
Speaker 1: lazy that you can't even you know, look up the
Speaker 1: federal statute. It's not that hard. You have to threaten
Speaker 1: a witness with physical harm, or harming a witness, or
Speaker 1: bribing a witness or coercing a witness in the line.
Speaker 1: The president has a First Amendment right just like the
Speaker 1: rest of us. I know that's very surprising to you liberals,
Speaker 1: but you know, he does, and as part of that,
Speaker 1: he can say whatever he wants to say. And by
Speaker 1: the way, she wouldn't have even known about it while
Speaker 1: she was testifying, because oh, the only one that told
Speaker 1: her was the cowardly, corrupt, compromise congenital liar. And that's
Speaker 1: whom you know, That's who's in play here. The most
Speaker 1: stunning thing in this is just like the other two
Speaker 1: Bozo's you know, Tuesday, when was it Wednesday? She has
Speaker 1: no firsthand knowledge at all of anything. She has none.
Speaker 1: He had no knowledge of the pause on aid on Ukraine,
Speaker 1: no knowledge of the phone call till it was made public.
Speaker 1: She was not involved in the meeting in Warsaw and
Speaker 1: had not spoken of the President or Mulveny at all,
Speaker 1: and she could not speak to the President's thought process
Speaker 1: regarding his decisions. Now, she did agree one hundred percent,
Speaker 1: you know, Ukraine agreed with bringing her back. They didn't
Speaker 1: want her there because she actually and you can look
Speaker 1: at this and John Solomon's column apparently gave a speech
Speaker 1: and made her opinions known. But she's upset that the
Speaker 1: prosecutor General said something about her and I got reported. Wow,
Speaker 1: Oh the vapors. Oh hang on. I gotta take a
Speaker 1: break because I'm about to pass out. Twenty five now
Speaker 1: till the top of the hour, all right, so let
Speaker 1: me just read the tweets. Oh, the vapors. Oh and
Speaker 1: by the way, she wouldn't have known that the president
Speaker 1: tweeted about her, but Adam Schiff has to tell her
Speaker 1: and this intimidation, No, it's not. I have said on
Speaker 1: this program that if Donald Trump cured cancer, they would
Speaker 1: impeach him for curing cancer. That's how sick they've gotten.
Speaker 1: This is how detached from truth and reality they are.
Speaker 1: Now the president did tweet. They call it serving at
Speaker 1: the pleasure of the president. The US now has a
Speaker 1: very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations.
Speaker 1: It's called, by the way, quite simply, America First. With
Speaker 1: all of that, however, I have done far better more
Speaker 1: for Ukraine than Obama. Oh, good point, and everywhere Maria
Speaker 1: Ivanovitch when turned bad. By the way, the Ukrainians, nobody's
Speaker 1: saying this, by the way, they should have. They agreed
Speaker 1: a hundred percent with recalling the ambassador because the new
Speaker 1: president said, with regard to the ambassador to the United
Speaker 1: States from Ukraine, as far as I recall her name, Ivanovitch.
Speaker 1: Was great that you were the first one who told
Speaker 1: me that she was not a great ambassador, because I
Speaker 1: agree with you one hundred percent. Her attitude towards me
Speaker 1: was far from the best, as she admired the previous
Speaker 1: president and she was on his side. She would not
Speaker 1: accept me as a new president. Well enough, Oh so
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian president agrees. President just says, yeah, it didn't
Speaker 1: work out well. She started off in Somalia, had that go?
Speaker 1: Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian president
Speaker 1: spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him.
Speaker 1: It is a president's absolute right to appoint ambassadors yet
Speaker 1: the president's foreign policy. But the most stunny thing here,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go to Jim Jordan here in a second,
Speaker 1: is she has no knowledge of anything. It's that the
Speaker 1: great devinue is, why are you even here? What is
Speaker 1: the point? Confirmed? She wasn't involved in the phone call,
Speaker 1: had no knowledge about the issues of Ukraine and the
Speaker 1: pause on aid. She wasn't involved in the meeting in Warsaw. Warsaw, Warsaw,
Speaker 1: had not spoken with President Trump or Mulvany at all.
Speaker 1: And you know she also could not speak to the
Speaker 1: president's thought process regarding his decision related to Ukraine. I
Speaker 1: know she's so upset that. Oh yeah, the prosecutor general
Speaker 1: there accused her of giving her giving him a list
Speaker 1: of people. Not the prosecutor. Let her take it up
Speaker 1: with that guy. Apparently he stands by it. According to
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan, others have said he's were canted. Everything she
Speaker 1: had to offer today was just more hearsay. She wasn't
Speaker 1: on the call, she didn't know about the call until
Speaker 1: it was made public. She can only provide more hearsay
Speaker 1: about the discussion of aid to Ukraine. I mean, that's it.
Speaker 1: That's all they can do. And by the way, Obama
Speaker 1: gave plenty of ambassadors there goodbye pink slips. Yeah, a
Speaker 1: lot of times. And Ivanovitch even added to it, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I do serve at the pleasure of the president. Ambassadors
Speaker 1: are personal representatives of the president. That's the president's job.
Speaker 1: He's the one the campaign that got elected. And she
Speaker 1: confirmed that the president can recall an ambassador any time
Speaker 1: for any reason. He didn't need any reason, for any
Speaker 1: reason at all. And I don't know why that would
Speaker 1: be even complicated, even for the corrupt news media in
Speaker 1: this country, you know. And she even praised the president
Speaker 1: strong policies towards Ukraine. Wow, shocky. And all of this
Speaker 1: is based on hearsay, every bit of it. Oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, I love how you know the the area
Speaker 1: of fifty one Roswell Rachel conspiracy theory channel. They're actually
Speaker 1: comparing horror removal is worse than Benghazi. Really, what's up? Well,
Speaker 1: let's go to let's go to Jim Jordan's now come
Speaker 1: out of this hearing which is now over. STO has
Speaker 1: no firsthand knowledge of the subject that is supposed to
Speaker 1: be the focus of this entire inquiry. Third witness who
Speaker 1: never talked to the president. Third witness who never spoke
Speaker 1: with Cheapestaff mulvaney, who was not third witness who was
Speaker 1: not on the call. Third witness who wasn't even as
Speaker 1: I said, in Ukraine, when when the relevant during the
Speaker 1: relevant timeframe wasn't even there, when President's Lensky that left
Speaker 1: before he was even inaugurated as the new president. Um.
Speaker 1: So again, four facts. I say this every time, but
Speaker 1: it's the truth. Four facts have never changed, will never change.
Speaker 1: We got the call transcript, There was no conditionality or
Speaker 1: linkage on the call between an investigation security assistance. We
Speaker 1: have the two individuals on the call who both said
Speaker 1: that there was no pressure, no linkage. We know that
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians didn't even know AID was withheld or on
Speaker 1: hold at the time of the call, and most importantly,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians, specifically President Zelinski, never took any official action
Speaker 1: to get the aid release. And so those those facts
Speaker 1: never change, and we'll never change. We'll let in the
Speaker 1: Stephani say a word, and then we'll take the question. Sure.
Speaker 1: So this was day two of an abject failure of
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and his regime of secrecy. As we saw today,
Speaker 1: he is making up the I mean it is Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan's gonna get up here, and I'm sorry, Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: is going to get up in a minute. When he does,
Speaker 1: I want to go to him. Let me know, Linda,
Speaker 1: when he gets up there and we have a queued up,
Speaker 1: and when we have a queued up and ready to go,
Speaker 1: you know, I will tell you. You know, we're learning
Speaker 1: a lot of other things here too. Like Ivanovitch's previous
Speaker 1: testimony was a dud, they knew it was a dud.
Speaker 1: A third here say, witness, what is the point it
Speaker 1: is inadmissible? That's why I've been asking any senators, Okay,
Speaker 1: are we going to follow the federal laws that govern
Speaker 1: the admission admissibility of evidence and a trial, which means
Speaker 1: no hearsay with very few exceptions, none that would apply here.
Speaker 1: And that's issue number one, an issue number two. Do
Speaker 1: we have a sixth amendment to our constitution? Do you
Speaker 1: have a right to confront your accusers? You know, there's
Speaker 1: a great piece Washington Post is actually saying the Democrats
Speaker 1: focus grouped coming up with the name of We'll go
Speaker 1: with the name bribery because it's you know, qui pro
Speaker 1: quol is not as good. We'll go to extortion. No, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: now we'll move it to bribery. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the hell they're doing, you know, and you got fake
Speaker 1: news MSDNC. I mean that the president exercising is undisputed. Right,
Speaker 1: We're calling ambassadors worse than mcghazi. Mika Brazynski, i'mlike, and
Speaker 1: at least Jordan in in exchange today. But all of
Speaker 1: this is backfiring. You know, I can't you got to
Speaker 1: say it on the air. What are you saying to me?
Speaker 1: I can't hear you. I can't read your lips. I say,
Speaker 1: we're all the meadows. When have you ready? Boss? Well,
Speaker 1: let's call to Mark Meadows. He just came out of
Speaker 1: the hero. We do have is we have what President Zelenski.
Speaker 1: We have a new administration in Ukraine that didn't have
Speaker 1: the same confidence in this ambassador. And so isn't it
Speaker 1: appropriate with all the foreign service diplomats we have to
Speaker 1: put someone in with a new regime in the Ukraine
Speaker 1: that can actually work on the president's behalf or on
Speaker 1: behalf of the American people? Why is it appropriate for
Speaker 1: the president at tap his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani Tamaldlich,
Speaker 1: he testified to was a smear campaign against her. Why
Speaker 1: is that okay? President can have, as I said, the
Speaker 1: president can have whom he desires doing diplomatic work for
Speaker 1: the country. Uh, there's been there's been all this, There's
Speaker 1: there's been all this talk about the irregular channel. I
Speaker 1: think it's important that folks in the quote irregular channel
Speaker 1: where Senate confirmed, Ambassador Silence, send it confirmed, Ambassador Bulker,
Speaker 1: and send it confirmed Secretary Perry. So y'all want to
Speaker 1: make a some of the womens want to make a
Speaker 1: big deal about that. And you had the president's lawyer
Speaker 1: also part of that that group. I think, I think
Speaker 1: presidents are allowed to have whom they want doing the
Speaker 1: work of the country. You didn't it was a spear case.
Speaker 1: She said, it was a spear campaign under oad. She
Speaker 1: testified there was a spear campaign of false attacks against
Speaker 1: or do you believe him the president? Is it appropriate
Speaker 1: for the president? While I think, well, I don't know
Speaker 1: that it's Excuse me, I don't know that it was
Speaker 1: an attack on the witness. It was. It was really
Speaker 1: a characterization of of her resume. And when when you
Speaker 1: look at this, when you look at this, you guys
Speaker 1: want him to go in with no attorneytion, no witnesses. No,
Speaker 1: we don't know anything. You know, at some point you
Speaker 1: gotta say when is it going to be a fair process?
Speaker 1: And today was not a fair process. In there, it's
Speaker 1: not going to be a fair process. And the bunker
Speaker 1: that we're about half to go to and it was
Speaker 1: not a fair process. When they muzzled the general woman
Speaker 1: from New York over and over again, it's not fair.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's a fair prosden listen to the
Speaker 1: second sentence of that tweet. For example, one example, Adam
Speaker 1: Shift never brought this up. The second sentence of that
Speaker 1: tweek goes back to the July twenty fifth cult transcript
Speaker 1: and in that President Zelinski is seeing the President Trump
Speaker 1: that he's concerned the Ambassaory Ivanovitch is a quote bad ambassador,
Speaker 1: and that President Zelinsky believed the abassaor Ivanovitch had a
Speaker 1: loyalty to President Poor Shanko. Now Adam Schiff, when posing
Speaker 1: the question of Ambassadory Ivanovitch to respond to the tweet,
Speaker 1: never even mentioned that because this is what Adam Shift did. Thus,
Speaker 1: when he had asked me, let me just jump in
Speaker 1: here and say, you know, Jim Jordan sums it up,
Speaker 1: and every time he goes to the microphone, there was
Speaker 1: no linkage in the transcript. There was never even the
Speaker 1: mention of the word aid, not one time, not one
Speaker 1: time that the President of Ukraine Foreign minister, they didn't
Speaker 1: even know that there was a hold, which was from
Speaker 1: a month before. Why because there's so much corruption, as
Speaker 1: we all know, goes on both sides are saying no linkage,
Speaker 1: no pressure whatsoever, and they got the money without doing anything.
Speaker 1: So why are we here talking to a hearsay? No,
Speaker 1: nothing witness again, I mean, I've never seen anything like that.
Speaker 1: I will tell you though, is blowing up. We got
Speaker 1: the latest survey by rasmussin now out, which has been
Speaker 1: the most accurate polling operation in the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: and it shows that the shift show that's going on
Speaker 1: in DC in the circus is boosting the president's approval
Speaker 1: numbers because their daily Presidential Survey find a four point
Speaker 1: bounce for the president following the first day of this
Speaker 1: Ukrainian impeachment coup attempt, and the president's overall approval has
Speaker 1: been tracking up since Wednesday, the first day of this
Speaker 1: shift show. There's a forty six percent. Now it's fifty.
Speaker 1: Keep it up because that's only going to help the president.
Speaker 1: And by the way, there's another they released. The new
Speaker 1: Trump call transcript has now come out as well, and
Speaker 1: guess what it actually contradicts Ivanovitch's previous sworn testimony. And
Speaker 1: you know the debunk conspiracy theory floated by by some
Speaker 1: people out there on the left that that President Trump
Speaker 1: was bad mouthing her in the first call. Well, that's
Speaker 1: what the compromise corrupt coward. Congenital liar Adam Schiff had
Speaker 1: asked Ivanovitch in the October eleventh position if she knew
Speaker 1: whether Trump had brought her up in previous conversations. She said,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I had assumed it was April twenty
Speaker 1: first the phone call, the first phone call, because that,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge is the only time other time that
Speaker 1: they talked. And then the congenital liar asked if the
Speaker 1: reason that she didn't receive a briefing or read out
Speaker 1: of the call was because Trump may have been bashing her.
Speaker 1: It's possible, she says, great more conjecture. Let's all just
Speaker 1: guess around this. White House released the full transcript of
Speaker 1: that call today and guess what. Ivanovitch's name never came up?
Speaker 1: Good grief. I mean the four minor mentions on my show,
Speaker 1: Oh smear campaign. By the way, we know why is
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani there? I'll tell you why. Because the election
Speaker 1: interference by Ukraine and he's the president's lawyer, and that
Speaker 1: was the whole Muller report thing. Remember, either way, there
Speaker 1: is speculation who is the person that said this? Earlier? Today? Oh?
Speaker 1: Was Harold Ford was on Fox News. She says, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this keeps going bad, You're gonna have a much better
Speaker 1: sense of what Nancy Pelosi thinks, because I don't think
Speaker 1: that she wanted to do this. If she doesn't feel
Speaker 1: the Democrats are gonna have a sound boat, bypartisan boat,
Speaker 1: maybe even the chance to remove the president. I would
Speaker 1: not be surprised if she didn't pull this in the
Speaker 1: next few days. If she had a brain, she would.
Speaker 1: But I think she's just speaker in name only love
Speaker 1: how they you know, prayerful by the way of apparent.
Speaker 1: I wonder if that was one of the focus group
Speaker 1: terms they came up with. The bottom line is she
Speaker 1: had nothing to offer today, nothing, She knew nothing. There
Speaker 1: was no reason for her to ever be there no
Speaker 1: firsthand knowledge of the first phone call between Trump and Zelensky, none,
Speaker 1: no direct knowledge of anything about withholding or delaying aid.
Speaker 1: Nothing that is the center of their their ridiculous impeachment
Speaker 1: coup attempt here. And she's just upset that, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't be upset with Julianni or solom On her
Speaker 1: Hannity and Hannity barely. I need nothing about her now,
Speaker 1: I do it. I know a lot about her now,
Speaker 1: but she's upset. It wore mere mentions. Oh smeared like
Speaker 1: in passing, what the hell this person is talking about?
Speaker 1: By the way, Ron Johnson, if you want a real
Speaker 1: quid pro quo, we got one. He's threatening now to
Speaker 1: subpoena Hunter Biden, and I will tell you this is
Speaker 1: this is gonna get interesting. I will tell you that
Speaker 1: there are some rock stars that are emerging here for
Speaker 1: the Republicans. By the way, I mean, can I just
Speaker 1: say I was devastated that the president you know, didn't
Speaker 1: like me. I was devastated. I'm like, okay, um, I
Speaker 1: don't understand. There's so many people that hate me. I
Speaker 1: just don't understand. Snowflake is m get over it. Not
Speaker 1: everybody in life's gonna like you too bad. Anyway, We've
Speaker 1: got mark these heroes. Mark Meadows has been great, He's
Speaker 1: going to join us. Uh well, Jim Jordan's been amazing.
Speaker 1: Matt Gates has been amazing, He'll join us, Andy Biggs.
Speaker 1: We got Greg Jarrett checking in today, Senator Rick Scott,
Speaker 1: and oh Mark Levin on Hannity tonight. Don't miss that.
Speaker 1: I We'll tell you more about that straight ahead. Going
Speaker 1: up next, our final news round, up and information overload hour.
Speaker 1: I do want to comment, and Chairman, I have a
Speaker 1: point of order. Under Atres. Six sixty, the general will
Speaker 1: state or point of order. The point of order is,
Speaker 1: will the Chairman continue to prohibit witnesses from answering republican
Speaker 1: questions as you've done in closed hearings, and as you
Speaker 1: did well suspectsically when you interrupted our question A proper
Speaker 1: point of order, General one, we'll suspend. I do Chairman,
Speaker 1: have it YEA. Jenna was not recognized. CHAM have a
Speaker 1: point of Jennam is not recognized a point of order.
Speaker 1: Though Jennam was not recognized. I do want to respond
Speaker 1: allowed the Ranky Mohls order. Jenna was not recognized. This
Speaker 1: is allowed in their four gentlemen scripts that have not
Speaker 1: been relieve on him is not recognized. Oh rank Member
Speaker 1: was allowed to exceed the opening statement, and I was
Speaker 1: happy to allow him to do so. I do want
Speaker 1: to respond to the call record. First of all, I'm
Speaker 1: grateful that the President has released the call record. I
Speaker 1: would now ask the President to release the thousands of
Speaker 1: other records that he has instructed the State Department not
Speaker 1: to release. Mister Chairman, I have a point of order,
Speaker 1: mister chairman, I have a point of order, I mean
Speaker 1: not recognized, so we know clearly you don't interrupt us
Speaker 1: throughout this Here a woman is not recognized. Let's shareman,
Speaker 1: have today asker sent request today unanimous, chadamist, I requit
Speaker 1: not recognized. I mean I never see I've never heard
Speaker 1: any madness like this point of order. Yeah, you usually
Speaker 1: show some respect for your colleagues, ranking members. But again,
Speaker 1: the compromise, corrupt, coward, congenital liar is the judge, jury,
Speaker 1: and executioner. So they come up with this impeachment inquiry
Speaker 1: and they say everything, We're going to be fair, fair fear,
Speaker 1: but at the discretion of Adam Ship. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: so fair. At the discretion of Adam Ship. You can
Speaker 1: call witnesses at the discretion of Adam Schiff. You can
Speaker 1: the president's attorneys at the discretion of Adam Schiff. I
Speaker 1: mean the congenital liars in charge of the show. I've
Speaker 1: never seen you talk about a shift show. This is
Speaker 1: a shift show, and it is embarrassing. It's embarrassing. Not
Speaker 1: if you are a Democrat. You ought to be humiliated today.
Speaker 1: You ought to be embarrassed. Another person so called witness
Speaker 1: with zero firsthand knowledge about the president's call nothing was
Speaker 1: it on the call, learned about it when it was
Speaker 1: released publicly. So what do we have? The same shift
Speaker 1: show that we saw yesterday, which is or two days ago,
Speaker 1: which is more hearsay tounsi, hearsay so and so said
Speaker 1: to so and so, who said to so and so,
Speaker 1: so and so so and so, so and so. You know,
Speaker 1: it just goes on and on and it never ends.
Speaker 1: And anyway testified in a prior hearing that she was
Speaker 1: unaware about it any of this and at the beginning
Speaker 1: devid why is she even here? Why was she even call?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously this is an emotional experience for this
Speaker 1: poor woman, you know, but she did acknowledge that a
Speaker 1: president does have the right to recall ambassadors for any
Speaker 1: or no reason. That would be the president. That's when
Speaker 1: that's the guy that's elected. Unbelievable. Anyway, Joining us now
Speaker 1: with the very latest on all of this, we have
Speaker 1: Greg Jared's back with us Fox News Legal analysts, author
Speaker 1: of the best selling book witch Hunt, The Greatest mass
Speaker 1: Delusion in American Political History. I look, I've I've been
Speaker 1: doing this great thirty one years. I have never seen
Speaker 1: anything like this. But on the other hand, I want
Speaker 1: the shift show to continue because it shows how corrupt
Speaker 1: these people are. This is all they have done for
Speaker 1: three years. This is who they are. This defines them.
Speaker 1: This is a madness, a rage, a psychosis, you know,
Speaker 1: a bifurcation of the brain, a compartment realization of your brain. Well,
Speaker 1: you're living where he shut down any intelligent thought, honesty, reason,
Speaker 1: or common sense. What do you think? You're absolutely right
Speaker 1: and yeah, you know. Devin Nunis put it best when
Speaker 1: he asked rhetorically of Ivanovitch, I'm trying to figure out
Speaker 1: why or even here while he's right. She was fired
Speaker 1: months before. The Trump Zelenski telephone call was never privy
Speaker 1: to the conversation. That didn't stop the legal counsel for
Speaker 1: Democrats from putting up of the big screen in the
Speaker 1: hearing room the transcript of the call and asking Ivanovitch
Speaker 1: to offer her interpretation or opinion of its contents and
Speaker 1: what the president intended. That's just conjecture, it's speculation. This
Speaker 1: is another opinion witness whose testimony is irrelevant. It's immaterial
Speaker 1: and would be inadmissible under any rules of evidence. In
Speaker 1: any courtroom in America. Her opinion, Slow down, hang on,
Speaker 1: we learned something. You may be wrong, Greg Jared for
Speaker 1: the first time that I can think of all the
Speaker 1: times we've had you on this show and on TV,
Speaker 1: because I learned yesterday for the first time that hearsay evidence, yeah,
Speaker 1: can often be better than direct evidence. Now I never
Speaker 1: knew that is that, you know, um and pigs fly
Speaker 1: and Pixie's cast spells. It's ludicrous, you know. Hearsay, single
Speaker 1: hearsay can be admissible if it falls under an exception.
Speaker 1: No exception applies to any of these witnesses so far.
Speaker 1: And double hearsay is a joke. Triple hearsay, you know,
Speaker 1: is a farce. But we're getting into territory of quadruple hearsay.
Speaker 1: George Kent was the best example. He believed there was
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo because he heard it from Bill Taylor,
Speaker 1: who heard it from Tim Morrison, who heard it from
Speaker 1: Gordon Sonlin, who presumed a quid pro quel. This is
Speaker 1: a coffee clatch at Starbucks. This is the chattering class
Speaker 1: of diplomats, self important people who traffic in rumor and innuendo.
Speaker 1: And this witness today Ivanovitch confirmed she has no evidence
Speaker 1: of a quid pro quel demanded by Trump. She has
Speaker 1: no direct knowledge of anything. She is a superfluous witness.
Speaker 1: I've never seen such a colossal waste of time. I've
Speaker 1: never seen or witnessed such a one sided, abusively corrupt,
Speaker 1: and biased process, especially when something is as serious as
Speaker 1: what we're talking about, impeaching a president and what I
Speaker 1: have been now doing. Look, I'm just going to assume
Speaker 1: that I guess the thirty one Democrats e linked that
Speaker 1: in Trump districts are probably just going to jump off
Speaker 1: the cliff because they're gonna be told to jump, and
Speaker 1: they're gonna be stupid enough and they're gonna up. And
Speaker 1: that's why I'm asking senators, Okay, I want some answers
Speaker 1: to some fundamental questions, because you know, federal law prohibits,
Speaker 1: correct me if I'm wrong, the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
Speaker 1: And I'm asking us senators if they're going to allow
Speaker 1: if this goes into the Senate, would they support using
Speaker 1: hearsay as evidence in any trial? Now, I know that
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice ultimately rules on all of this, and
Speaker 1: I wonder if they believe in the sixth Amendment with
Speaker 1: the right of individuals to face their accusers. I think
Speaker 1: the sixth Amendment to the Constitution is pretty clear, but
Speaker 1: maybe I'm wrong on that too. I guess well. As
Speaker 1: I say, there are exceptions to the single hearsay rule,
Speaker 1: rarely double hearsay, but none of this triple and quadruple hearsay.
Speaker 1: So if the rules federal rules of evidence are invoked
Speaker 1: by Mitch McConnell at a potential Senate trial, I mean,
Speaker 1: these witnesses can't even be called to testify, especially when
Speaker 1: there is direct evidence, and the best direct evidence is
Speaker 1: a transcript of the telephone conversation itself, where there is
Speaker 1: no evidence of pressure or demand to throw out a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo, corroborated by the statements of President Zolenski,
Speaker 1: who said, this is a normal conversation. I was happy
Speaker 1: with the conversation. There was no blackmail or pressure. You know,
Speaker 1: it's impossible to have a quid pro quo if the
Speaker 1: recipient of the quid is oblivious to the quo, and
Speaker 1: that's what Zolenski in the Ukrainian government said. We didn't
Speaker 1: even know that military aid had temporarily been frozen, and
Speaker 1: in the end, it was released, he received the money.
Speaker 1: There was no concombatant investigation of Joe Biden, and so
Speaker 1: there is no such thing as a quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is now seamlessly shifted to all bribery. She
Speaker 1: said it a dozen times yesterday in her news conference.
Speaker 1: She's not a lawyer. She clearly doesn't realize that bribery
Speaker 1: is a quid pro quol, and so without a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo, there's no bribery. Well, I actually may have
Speaker 1: found their quid pro quo. I think we got it.
Speaker 1: And I got a guy that used to be the
Speaker 1: vice president that was in charge of Ukraine policy, basically
Speaker 1: quid pro quoing. When he says, you're not getting the billion,
Speaker 1: you fire the prosecutor. I'll give you the billion. You
Speaker 1: don't fire the prosecutor. You're not getting the billion, and
Speaker 1: you've got six hours to decide. And now we know
Speaker 1: that he knew the prosecutor who's leveraging our money. Quid
Speaker 1: pro quo Joe to fire the prosecutor investigating his zero
Speaker 1: not a little bit, zero experience son who is being
Speaker 1: paid millions and millions of dollars. So is that a
Speaker 1: quid pro quo is that bribery, so it is it
Speaker 1: is a quid pro qoon could be a library into
Speaker 1: the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act if his motive in withholding
Speaker 1: the billion dollars and then conveying it is to protect
Speaker 1: his son. And there is some evidence the Barisma officials
Speaker 1: were throwing around the name an influence of Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: in order to get the investigation of Barisma shut down.
Speaker 1: So there needs to be a Department of Justice investigation.
Speaker 1: I guarantee you that Lindsay Graham in the Senate will
Speaker 1: undertake an investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden. There is
Speaker 1: more than sufficient evidence to support it. Well, I think
Speaker 1: that definitely has to happen. And you know, just like
Speaker 1: they only cared about Trump Russia collusion, we found out
Speaker 1: there was none, but we did have a dirty Russian dacier.
Speaker 1: They ignored that fact. We did have real obstruction with
Speaker 1: Hillary subpoena emails. We also had election ofference interference with
Speaker 1: Ukraine because a DNC operative met with the Ukrainians at
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. And I know this is
Speaker 1: true because the Ukrainian court tells us so number one
Speaker 1: and I also know because political wrote about it and
Speaker 1: said they were successful in their efforts Ukraine to undermine
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, dig up dirt on him and associates at
Speaker 1: to help Hillary Clinton's campaign. Now, where are all those
Speaker 1: people that used to care about foreign election interference. Well,
Speaker 1: they're blinded by their bias. And in fact, we also
Speaker 1: have Alexandra Chialupa, the Ukrainian DNC subcontractor. We have her
Speaker 1: emails bragging about how she is solicited a dirt on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign in order to influence the election and
Speaker 1: help Hillary Clinton. And yet, you know, Ivanovitch today was
Speaker 1: unknowing of any of this, and frankly probably didn't even care.
Speaker 1: You know, she is a disgruntled fired employee, the typical
Speaker 1: self important diplomat that inhabit foreign service. At one point,
Speaker 1: she testified today and this is a quote, the US
Speaker 1: relationship with Ukraine is the single most important relationship the
Speaker 1: United States has. Seriously, with all due respect, No it's not. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, these diplomats think their jobs are the most
Speaker 1: important in the world. The universe revolves around them. They've
Speaker 1: diluted themselves into believing that they are the ones who
Speaker 1: dictate foreign policy, not the president. And if President Trump
Speaker 1: dared to do something they don't like, they seek to
Speaker 1: undermine him. This is the malignant force I write about
Speaker 1: in my book. They abuse their positions of power and
Speaker 1: government to subvert the Constitution. Greg Jared is with us.
Speaker 1: Will continue more on the other side. Eight hundred ninety
Speaker 1: four one. Shaun is on number. You want to be
Speaker 1: a part of the program. And then we got our
Speaker 1: audio of the week. Your calls coming up in the
Speaker 1: next half hour, So right as we continue, Greg Jarrett
Speaker 1: is with us. So I'm sitting here watching this Shift
Speaker 1: Show unfold and it's not going good for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And now, if you look at real clear politics, some
Speaker 1: Democrats are now suggesting that if Adam Shift isn't able
Speaker 1: to rescue you know, this Shift Show in the next
Speaker 1: couple of days, that in fact Pelosi may be forced
Speaker 1: to pull the plug on this. Harold Ford said, I
Speaker 1: think by Wednesday evening or perhaps Friday afternoon, after the
Speaker 1: ambassador comes forward, we're gonna have a much better sense
Speaker 1: of what Nancy Pelosi thinks, because I don't think that
Speaker 1: she really wants to do this, but if she does not,
Speaker 1: feel the Democrats can have a sound vote a bipartisan vote,
Speaker 1: maybe even a chance to remove a president. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be surprised if she didn't pull this in the next
Speaker 1: several days. Any chance of that in your view, Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: probably a slim chance. I mean, she should if she
Speaker 1: were doing the right thing. But you know, since windows
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi do the right saying, you know what, the
Speaker 1: greatest embarrassment today was when Adam Schiff read the Trump
Speaker 1: tweet and then led the witness into saying, O G,
Speaker 1: I feel intimidated. Aha, witness intimidation. It's an article of
Speaker 1: impeachment claim Shift. No witness intimidation defined by laws threatening
Speaker 1: a witness with physical harm, bribing a witness, or coercing
Speaker 1: a witness into line. It is not witness intimidation for
Speaker 1: a president to exercise his First Amendment right of speech
Speaker 1: free speech, to defend himself from false accusation, or to
Speaker 1: offer an opinion of a witness. You know, and as
Speaker 1: your friend and my friend Mark Levin pointed out, Ivanovitch
Speaker 1: wouldn't have even known of the President's tweet during the
Speaker 1: hearing butt for Shift reading it aloud to her. So
Speaker 1: this was all just a cleverly created I might be
Speaker 1: mistaken again, but I thought we have freedom of speech
Speaker 1: and especially a right to defend yourself if you think
Speaker 1: somebody's lying about you. Of course you do. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what the president was doing. He'll never get a
Speaker 1: fair shake from the liberal mainstream media, so he goes
Speaker 1: over their heads, which infuriates them to the American people,
Speaker 1: and he makes his case that is not witness intimidation.
Speaker 1: That's ludicrous. All right, Greg, Jared, He'll join us tonight
Speaker 1: on Hannity along with a great one, Mark Levin, who
Speaker 1: we just mentioned. We got a great show. This has
Speaker 1: been another disaster, an utter and complete disastrous day for
Speaker 1: these corrupt Democrats. This has been three years of this
Speaker 1: and to watch it blow up in their face, frankly,
Speaker 1: as a thing of political beauty. This is the boomerang
Speaker 1: of all boomerangs. All right, quick break, our audio of
Speaker 1: the week. Your calls eight hundred and ninety four one,
Speaker 1: Sean Tolfrey telephone number, Hannity nineties to tonight. Oh, we'll
Speaker 1: have the latest on the Shift show straight ahead twenty
Speaker 1: five now till the top of the hour, eight hundred
Speaker 1: nine one Sean, And we want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program. All right, before we get to our
Speaker 1: phones on this Friday. There's so much great work audio
Speaker 1: that goes into this program that we don't get at
Speaker 1: all in the air. It's a lot of this is
Speaker 1: going to be very self explanatory, but it kind of
Speaker 1: sums up to madness, the insanity of these weeks we
Speaker 1: are now living through. You know, I just I did.
Speaker 1: One thing I'm taking the most hearted is that in
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty four days, that all of this
Speaker 1: goes to you, the American people's all gets put in
Speaker 1: your hands, and you will ultimately make that decision. They
Speaker 1: never thought it could happen in twenty sixteen. It did.
Speaker 1: They've never recovered since, and it's been three long, torturous
Speaker 1: years of never ending lies, hoax after hoax, conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: after conspiracy theory, just to take down a duly elected president.
Speaker 1: Imagine on in three hundred and fifty four days, they
Speaker 1: have to say these words, so and So News can
Speaker 1: now project that Donald J. Trump has been reelected the
Speaker 1: forty fifth president of the United States of America. That's
Speaker 1: what matters now. This show, the circus, the the total
Speaker 1: everything that they're doing that's hurt of the country. We get,
Speaker 1: we get to have the final say so. Anyway, here's
Speaker 1: some of the highlights from this week in our audio
Speaker 1: roundup on a Friday. Your calls are coming up right
Speaker 1: out of those and you testified in your prior testimony
Speaker 1: that you have not had any contact with the President
Speaker 1: United States. That correct, That's correct, sir, Miss Taylor, Mister Kent,
Speaker 1: have you had any contact with Presidented States? I have not. So,
Speaker 1: not only no conversations with the Presidentite States about Ukraine,
Speaker 1: you've not had any contact with the President United States. Correct,
Speaker 1: that's correct. Okay, So you both know that this impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry is about the Presidentite States, don't you. I mean,
Speaker 1: the man that neither one of you have had any
Speaker 1: contact with. You're the first up witnesses. I just find
Speaker 1: that a little amazing that that the first up would
Speaker 1: be two people who who have never had any contact
Speaker 1: with the President himself. Now, Kurt Volker did have contact
Speaker 1: with the President and contact with the President on Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Mister Ambassador Taylor, you said that he's a man of
Speaker 1: highest integrity. Well, I know Kurt Walker, and I know
Speaker 1: you know. He served as the NATO ambassador. He serves
Speaker 1: as the director of the McCain Institute. He's the highest
Speaker 1: professional ethics, one of the most knowledgeable people about Europe.
Speaker 1: He's absolutely a truthful man. Mister Kent, would you agree
Speaker 1: with Ambassador Taylor that he's of the highest integrity. I
Speaker 1: believe Kurt Volker has served the US as a public
Speaker 1: servant very well. Do either of you have any evidence
Speaker 1: that mister Volker committed perjury or lied to this committee
Speaker 1: in his testament? In his testimony with this committee, do
Speaker 1: either of you have any evidence that Kurt Bolker perjured
Speaker 1: himself or lied to this committee in his testimony? Ambassador
Speaker 1: Taylor any evidence, mister, I have new evidence, Skent. I
Speaker 1: believe Ambassador Walker's deposition was over four hundred pages, and
Speaker 1: I don't have it in front of me, so I
Speaker 1: can't make it. But you have no evidence that he
Speaker 1: lied or perjudged. I have no spaces to make that judgment. Answer, well,
Speaker 1: we're not in a court, gentleman, and if we were,
Speaker 1: the sixth Amendment would apply, and so would rules on
Speaker 1: hearsay an opinion, and most of your two testimonies would
Speaker 1: not be admissible whatsoever. But I understand in your profession
Speaker 1: you deal in words of understanding words of beliefs and feelings,
Speaker 1: because in your profession that's what you work with to
Speaker 1: try to pull together policy and to go in and
Speaker 1: out of meetings to try to formulate opinions that affect
Speaker 1: other people's decision making. Ambassador Taylor, have you ever prepared
Speaker 1: for a meeting with the president or a prime minister
Speaker 1: of a country? Where were you told one thing before
Speaker 1: you went into the meeting as to what it was
Speaker 1: to be about, and the meeting be about another thing.
Speaker 1: Or you get in there and the beliefs or opinions
Speaker 1: of the president of the prime minister were other than
Speaker 1: you believed. Misterner. You're asking if I ever learned something
Speaker 1: new in a you lugged in with a belief that
Speaker 1: you thought about the country that you were serving in
Speaker 1: and find out that they were wrong. I learned something
Speaker 1: in every meeting, mister Turner. But I you know, ambassad Taylor,
Speaker 1: the reason why the sixth Amendment doesn't allow hearsay is
Speaker 1: because it's unreliable. It's unreliable because frequently it's untruthful. It
Speaker 1: is not factual. It might be beliefs or understandings. Ambassador,
Speaker 1: you testified about a number of things that you heard.
Speaker 1: Isn't it true possible that the things that you heard
Speaker 1: were not true, that some of the beliefs and understandings
Speaker 1: that you had are not accurate, that in fact, you're
Speaker 1: mistaken about some of the things that you testified today
Speaker 1: in a factual basis versus a professional assessment. Miss Turner,
Speaker 1: I am here to tell you what I know. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to tell you anything I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: going to tell you everything that I do know. But
Speaker 1: since you've learned that from others, exactly, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: You got wrong why I'm here, But since you learned
Speaker 1: it from others, you could be wrong. Correct. I am
Speaker 1: telling you what I heard them tell me, and they
Speaker 1: could be wrong, or they could be mistaken, or they
Speaker 1: could have heard it incorrectly, right, Ambassador Taylor. People make mistakes, right,
Speaker 1: so you could be wrong. Inassador, congratulate you. You've been
Speaker 1: down in the secret deposition meeting rooms. You've graduated for
Speaker 1: your performance today. Later this afternoon, I should note that
Speaker 1: for the public that we will be backed down in
Speaker 1: the basement of the Capitol doing more of these secret depositions.
Speaker 1: Bessad I just I don't really have very many questions
Speaker 1: for you, Which is you admitted in your opening statement
Speaker 1: that is you don't have any firsthand knowledge of the
Speaker 1: issues that we're looking into. But I do want to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about Senator Grassley very briefly. I
Speaker 1: assume that you know who Senator grass Lee is. Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: I do. Do you believe that Senator grass Lee is
Speaker 1: a serious and credible elected official? I have no reason
Speaker 1: to think otherwise. Were you involved in the July twenty
Speaker 1: fifth Trump Zelenski phone call or preparations for the call? No?
Speaker 1: I was not. Were you involved in the deliberations about
Speaker 1: the pause and military sales to Ukraine as the Trump
Speaker 1: administration reviewed newly elected President Zelenski's commitment to corruption reforms
Speaker 1: for the delay in the pause the pause? No I
Speaker 1: was not. Were you involved in the proposed Trump Zelensky
Speaker 1: later pint Zelenski meetings in Warsaw, Poland on September first,
Speaker 1: No I was not. Did you ever talk to President
Speaker 1: Trump in twenty nineteen, No I have not. Mc mulvaney.
Speaker 1: No I have not, Thank you, ambassador. Not exactly sure
Speaker 1: what the ambassadors doing here today. This is the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee that's now turned into the House Impeachment Committee.
Speaker 1: This seems more appropriate for the Subcommittee on Human Resources
Speaker 1: at the Foreign Affairs Committee. If there's issues with employment
Speaker 1: disagreements with the administration, it would seem like this be
Speaker 1: a more appropriate setting instead of an impeachment hearing where
Speaker 1: the ambassador is not a material fact witness to anything
Speaker 1: any of the accusations that are being hurled at the president.
Speaker 1: All right, So that's like our week summary of the madness,
Speaker 1: the insanity that is the swamp. It is a swamp,
Speaker 1: it is a sewer. You know why the country elected
Speaker 1: the disruptor Donald Trump, because they're that nuts and they're
Speaker 1: willing to hurt the country in the process. They haven't
Speaker 1: done a thing for we the people. All Right, on
Speaker 1: this Friday, let's go to our phones. Atlanta News Talk WSB.
Speaker 1: Alan is standing by Alan High. How are you glad
Speaker 1: you called? Sir? Hey, you're a great American Sean. Appreciate
Speaker 1: you taking my call. Well, thank you, sir, glad for
Speaker 1: all you do. I want to let you know that
Speaker 1: I am very impressed with the Democrats. As a father
Speaker 1: of six kids, I can tell you at a three
Speaker 1: year temper tantrum that's got to be a record. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's impressive no matter who you are. You know, that's
Speaker 1: actually a pretty good point to be very blunt with you,
Speaker 1: you know, keeping up a three year crying, whining, complaining,
Speaker 1: temper tantrum because you lost an election. Yeah that that that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess we could tip the hat to them for
Speaker 1: being the biggest cry babies in the history of the country. Sure,
Speaker 1: but they're hurting the country. Now, all right, let's send
Speaker 1: that message. Yeah, three hundred and fifty four days hanging there, Alan,
Speaker 1: Thank you North Carolina, Terry, Happy Friday, Terry. How are you?
Speaker 1: I'm good? How are you? I'm good? Bye? Friend? What's
Speaker 1: going on? Um? Listen to all these uh, all the
Speaker 1: hearings and all the wonderful witnesses. They have reminded me
Speaker 1: of a song that are you Speedway saying hurt you
Speaker 1: from a friend who heard it from another friend. Okay,
Speaker 1: we haven't uh yeah, a friend from a friend from
Speaker 1: a friend who's brother whose father's grandfather's nephews missed opportunity
Speaker 1: for you. You could have been singing right there? Were
Speaker 1: you sleeping on the job? Yeah? Okay, all right, you're
Speaker 1: being an old wise ass, But you know, what that's
Speaker 1: your song anyway, thank you for the recommendation. We take
Speaker 1: requests here on Friday's Let's say hi to Tim In California,
Speaker 1: thirteen and a half percent state income tax, more poverty,
Speaker 1: more homeless, there's more misery than any other state in
Speaker 1: the country. What's going on, sir mister Hannity. I'm very excited,
Speaker 1: a big, big fan of yours man. Thanks for taking
Speaker 1: my call. Thank you, my friend, God bless You're glad
Speaker 1: you called. You give me this microphone every day, and
Speaker 1: I'm very very humbled and grateful. Awesome, So I would hope.
Speaker 1: I was hoping for a little enlightenment. Why can't our
Speaker 1: sent in the house? Why can't they just be like,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't want to listen to any
Speaker 1: of this. Let's take a vote now. Why can't they
Speaker 1: just do that? Is there a loss they have to
Speaker 1: a bide by because we know that there's no you know,
Speaker 1: Republicans they're going to vote to imbat our guy. Why
Speaker 1: can't they just do that? Is there a lot do
Speaker 1: they have to listen to this garbage life? The answer
Speaker 1: to your question is they don't have the power in
Speaker 1: the house. This is all controlled. This This is why
Speaker 1: it's a shift show. I mean, it's a total shift show.
Speaker 1: And if you don't know what I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: shift show because it is, and because they've they've designed
Speaker 1: it this way. Every single bit of due process that
Speaker 1: was afforded Bill Clinton and the Democrats in nineteen ninety eight. Nothing.
Speaker 1: This is judge, jury and executioner, the compromised material witness,
Speaker 1: the corrupt, coward, congenital liar, Adam shift. He has the
Speaker 1: final word on everything in this whole ridiculous process. Now
Speaker 1: the Senate, you know, look, I guess people can disagree
Speaker 1: with this idea that maybe it's in the president's best
Speaker 1: interest if they do send over articles of impeachment, not
Speaker 1: to just dismiss it, because if you just dismiss it,
Speaker 1: people are gonna say, cover up, cover up, But it's
Speaker 1: they're never gonna convict him. But if you start with
Speaker 1: the rules of evidence, the federal rules of evidence, like
Speaker 1: we have been asking every senator now to respond to us,
Speaker 1: and we've got a number of them we've been reporting
Speaker 1: on if if we now guarantee hearsay is it admissible,
Speaker 1: then that let me tell you something, it's over. They
Speaker 1: have nothing to present at that point, the only evidence
Speaker 1: they have to present is the transcript, which exonerates the president.
Speaker 1: And that's you know, that's why you know, I'm watching
Speaker 1: this woman today and I'm like, Okay, she wasn't on
Speaker 1: the call. She never learned about the specifics of the call.
Speaker 1: She wasn't even the ambassador at that particular point. You know,
Speaker 1: she has she confirms she has no firsthand knowledge whatsoever,
Speaker 1: didn't learn about the contents of the call until it
Speaker 1: was made public. She knows nothing. Like Devin Noon has said,
Speaker 1: why is she even there? There was no reason for
Speaker 1: this woman to be there today. Oh but the president
Speaker 1: tweeted it out. Okay, well how did how did she
Speaker 1: know that? Because Adam Schiff told her? And you know,
Speaker 1: we do have something called the First Amendment here, and
Speaker 1: the First Amendment does allow you to say, yeah, this
Speaker 1: is total bs. Anyway, glad you called. Thank you, Scott, Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: What's up, Scott, How are you hello, Scott, Happy Friday,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show. Thank you, Sean, Thank you, Sean.
Speaker 1: My question is this, and it may be kind of vague,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but since we're seeing so much corruption
Speaker 1: in our system, I mean how much long? I mean
Speaker 1: we're using words like civil war, you know, economy, breakdown
Speaker 1: and all this jazz before we get to that. You know,
Speaker 1: have we exhausted all of our options? I mean, how
Speaker 1: much longer do we pay into this system that is
Speaker 1: obviously failing because people are corrupt? And how do we
Speaker 1: go about making an overhaul like that? Look, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you something. Everything needs to change. One thing that
Speaker 1: has frustrated me over the years is the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Republican Party has become just a swampy, just this sewer
Speaker 1: oriented many of them as Democrats. You know, when they
Speaker 1: when they had sixty five show votes were appeal and
Speaker 1: replace Obamacare, they would have really mattered. They didn't even
Speaker 1: have a plan, a consensus plan that they had built,
Speaker 1: and then when it mattered, maybe we don't really mean it.
Speaker 1: Or the seven senators Republican senators that in twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: they vote for a straight repeal of Obamacare, the same
Speaker 1: exact bill comes up when it means something and we
Speaker 1: didn't really mean that vote. I mean, they just they
Speaker 1: just suck, you know. I don't know what happens to
Speaker 1: these people. Some go there sound great and they just
Speaker 1: turn into swamp creatures and they get addicted to being
Speaker 1: called senator and congressmen, and they think, you know, they
Speaker 1: got their head up there, you know what, and their
Speaker 1: knows in the air. Um. The best thing we can
Speaker 1: do is keep electing disruptors that will fight and are
Speaker 1: willing to fight, fight, fight, fight, fight for promises that
Speaker 1: they're making for the people that they're supposed to serve. Remember, Scott,
Speaker 1: they're supposed to serve us. They are to be our
Speaker 1: public servants. I don't see a lot of serving going
Speaker 1: on here except their own political ambition. Last word, sir,
Speaker 1: I totally agree with you, Sean, Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, my friend, God bless you. I hope you
Speaker 1: have a great weekend. Eight hundred and nine four one, Sean,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the program,
Speaker 1: all right, that's gonna wrap things up for today, all right,
Speaker 1: Hannity Tonight Bull coverage. Another disastrous day for the corrupt, compromised,
Speaker 1: congenital liar and the Democrats. Adam Shipping Company, the great one,
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, he is worked up. I talked to him earlier.
Speaker 1: He's going to join us tonight. Also, Jason Chapitz has
Speaker 1: been amazing. Steve Scalise, John Solomon, Greg Jarrett Tonight, Stephanie Grisham,
Speaker 1: White House Press Secretary, Ken Star, Charlie Hurt. I'm missing somebody,
Speaker 1: nine Eastern. We'll see it tonight on Fox. We'll be
Speaker 1: back here on Monday. This is getting interesting. Have a
Speaker 1: great weekend. We'll see you Monday. See you at night
Speaker 1: at nine, and then Monday