December 17, 2024 • 50 mins
Just the News No Noise on Real America's Voice
Segment A: THE SPENDING FIGHT ON CAPITOL HILL CONTINUES
Segment B: DID LIZ CHENEY TAMPER WITH J6 WITNESS?
Segment C: DRONES OVER JEW JERSEY - THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT - ARE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH?
Segment D: HOW CAN THE FBI BE FIXED?
Segment E: WHAT TRUMP SHOULD DO ABOUT A.I.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Good evening, America. Welcome to the Tuesday edition of justin News,
No Noise. I'm your host, John Solomon. Reporting is always
from Washington, DC, our nation's capital, and the Wirefishcoffee dot
Com studios Widerfish Coffee, as you know, the official coffee
of justin News, and right now they got some amazing
guests for the coffee lover, the angler, the fisherman, the
outdoorsman in your life. Go to Wirefishcoffee dot Com and
(00:40):
get a fantastic twenty percent discount by using the promo
code just News or just Hamir camer at that QR code.
You'll be in here and being banded business. All right,
a couple of big stories we broke at justin News
in the last few hours. First, that's starting Congress. Liz
Cheney is facing a new legal threat. What is that?
The chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, Barry Loudlemant,
(01:03):
the man that re reviewed the January sixth investigation, says
in official report that was released today that Liz Cheney
should be referred to the FBI and that the FBI
should criminally investigate her for witness tampering for her conduct
with the star Witness of the Democrats twenty twenty two
Summer Hearings on January sixth, Cassidy Hutchinson. We've told you
about the stories she told that aren't true. We told
(01:26):
you that this Cheney was talking to her around her lawyer,
Barry Loud of Milk and his committee saying today it
looks like witness tampering the new FBI cash betel. They
should start investigating her criminally. In fact, the report says
she Liz Cheney may have violated several federal statutes. We'll
have more than that over at justinnews dot com. Go
check that out. That story's trending number one on the site.
(01:46):
The other story we told you about, we teased it
last night. Yes, Joe Biden used his pse pseudonym email
account to conduct foreign policy. That's right, Anthony Blincoln, now
the Secretary of State. But back in a decade ago,
when Joe Biden was Vice presient and was sending foreign
policy emails to Joe Biden sensitive stuff like oh, North
Korea failed a missile test. We'll get you more on it, sir,
(02:07):
but you should know they failed. It could have stark
consequences That went to a private email account on Gmail insecure.
Kind of sounds like Hillary Clinton all those emails which
we got from a lawsuit published on Just the News.
You can take a look at both of those two
very important stories about accountability in Washington that we broke today.
All right, there's a lot more going on in Washington
(02:27):
and across the world. And announcepringing my amazing coast Amanda
head to get us caught up on all the headlines. Hello, Amanda. Wow,
it's only a few days before Christmas, but things are
rocking around here.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I love it and congratulations. See you on those two
big scoops this morning. And before we start the show
tonight and get into conversations about both of those items
with our guests, I want to get into a few
things that I'm tracking.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Firstly, the drones over New Jersey. Get that tracking.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
The story is just not going away, and we're going
to have more on that later in the show with
a New Jersey assembly Man. But the White House has
finally been speaking out of it, and unfortunately aren't really
saying much. Here is Don Kirby explaining that there's nothing
to worry about with the drones and that everything is
being operated in a lawful and legal way.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Here it is.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
We have taken a serious look at this.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
We have gone through five thousand some odd sightings, we
have added detection capabilities to the region, We've even sent
up visual observers, and everything we're seeing to date, our
assessment tells us that these are commercial drones, hobbyist drones,
or law enforcement drones, all operating legally and lawfully. I
mean when people shoot video of that, Kate, I mean,
(03:36):
you're seeing the lights on these things, the navigation lights.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
That's what's required if.
Speaker 5 (03:40):
You're going to be flying in US airspace at night,
our navigation lights. So clearly they're being operated in a
lawful and legal way, and we've seen nothing from their behavior,
nothing that tells us there's a public safety threat or
a national security threat.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So the message from the White House is that there
is nothing to.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Worry about and there is nothing going on.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I don't know if that's a good enough answer for
the American people, And as I said, we're going to.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Have more on that later in the show.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
And the fallout from President Trump's defamation lawsuit settlement with
George Sephanopolis and ABC News continues. CNN is apparently very
worried about it, especially with President Trump signaling that he
would go after the Ann Salzer Pole, and he did
filing suit against the De Moines Register Monday.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Here is Shake Tapper discussing it.
Speaker 6 (04:24):
One of them is the the people of Iowa at
the Moin Register. That's because there was a poll and
thought that was that was inaccurate. The one on sixty
minutes is because they didn't like the editing that had
been done to the Yeah, I mean, this is this
is wildly ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
I mean, maybe the media shouldn't report things or say
things on air that they know aren't true.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
That's all I'm going to say.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
And finally, Luigi Mangioni was indicted on a.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
First degree murder charge earlier.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Today in the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Mangioni was also charged in New York with two counts
of second degree murder, one which is charged as a
killing in the active terrorism two counts of second degree
criminal possession of a weapon, four counts a third degree
criminal possession of a weapon, one count of fourth degree
criminal possession of a weapon, and one count of second
degree criminal possession of a forged instrument.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
So John I think the eyes of the country are
going to be on what happens in this situation. Let's
hand it off.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, an extraordinary story man who had privilege and a
great opportunity ahead of him and may have thrown his
life away with his crime. We'll to see where they goes. Well.
A lot of tension on Capitol Hill. They're just a
few days away from the deadline for federal spending to
run out, and one of those reconciliation Omnibus bills is
coming your way. Yep, hundreds of billions of more money
(05:42):
going out the door your money. Earlier today we had
a chance to talk to one of the men on
the front lines that he's on the Rules Committee, Mike
Johnson might want to bypass that Rules Committe. That's what
we're hearing Congress from. Ralph Norman had some sharp words
to say about that. Listen to what he told us.
All right, joining us now, a man who has his
finger on the pulse of what's really happening in Congress.
Will we get a budget deal, Will they go on
for Christmas? We don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure
(06:04):
Congress and Ralph Norman for the great state of South
Carolina does, he joins us right now, Congressman, great to
have you on the show.
Speaker 7 (06:10):
Great, great to be with both of y'all.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
All right, I'd like to get a sense of where
the discussions are in the background. Is there a deal
in placement American people get anything out of this budget
reconciliation bill that's being discussed.
Speaker 8 (06:24):
Well, that's the question that you know, we haven't gotten
the text yet. It's a fourteen hundred page text. There's
been talk of voting on a rule. As you know,
I've been very frustrated with the way this is played out.
You don't sign anything, particularly that long, with that much money.
Speaker 7 (06:44):
But that's what we're being forced to do.
Speaker 8 (06:46):
I think if I had to bet, I think that
we'll probably kind of under suspension, which takes a three
forced vote, rather than go through the Rules Committee, which
I'm onned that it should go through. I think that
the disappointment with a lot of us that we expressed
to Mike Johnson was there's no pay for us. The
America people spoke on November fifth, and it was to
(07:07):
get this House I think in financial order, and it's
just not happening.
Speaker 7 (07:12):
So if I had to bet.
Speaker 8 (07:15):
I think if the rule, if it takes it through rules,
there's gonna be some amendments, standalone amendments that will vote
to pay for some of this monstrosity of spending, which
is one hundred million dollars in disaster relief, and it's
got money for farmers, which they're in dire straits. I
get that, but let's just offset it with the gigantic
(07:37):
spending bill that this last administration has sattled us with
and take a vote on it. So we'll see, we'll
see how it works out.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Yeah, important, sir.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
I want to ask you about what this means for
one particular Republican because I'm hearing from some others that
they are quite disappointed in Mike Johnson's ability to get
this handled.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Does this endanger his group on the gavel for the
next term.
Speaker 8 (08:00):
Everything has consequences, and I think the what the frustration
level is we all like him as a person, but
leaders have to take tough decisions, and this is a
tough decision, but it really shouldn't be. You know, we've
got got the galvel, We've got the majority now, granted
is one or two.
Speaker 7 (08:20):
He can't miss. You can't want when.
Speaker 8 (08:24):
The people that Trump took from my office get replaced.
We will have it best three or four seat majority.
That being said, the good news is we've got the majority,
but we've got to I think, get the same thing
Trump is saying, get the water wall built.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
Uh, get you know, all in independence.
Speaker 8 (08:43):
But at the same time, we have to get this
House in order to stop spending more than we make.
This bill does not do that, which is a frustration
level that I and many other members are having.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Now, Sir, there is, as you said, so many places
where there could be offsets of media, all the DEI funding,
all the unclaimed Green New Deal funding. Why is it
that Republicans who don't support any of those policies don't
have the courage to pull some of that money back
to pay for what they're about to approve.
Speaker 8 (09:12):
Because everybody out of all four hundred and thirty five members,
the spending that takes place, they've got an advocacy for it,
and a lot of them just can't say No Republicans
are like, you know, we hope the Dose Commission will
point out these specifics. But unless the Dose Commission results
(09:33):
goes into every voter's household, whether it's.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
Email or text.
Speaker 8 (09:37):
We've got to be able to hold our elected officials
accountable and see what they spending that they support, the
spending that they vote against. But we've got the only
thing this administration has done, John has give us things
to cut the DEI to even the thing that recently
came up, selling the wall portions of the panel which
(10:00):
costs thousands of dollars for five dollars.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
It's lunacy.
Speaker 9 (10:04):
Yeah, it's crazy, Carson.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
I know one place where money can definitely be saved,
and that is with those what fourteen million square feet
of unused office space in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
If this is something that.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
As we have heard, is an early priority of President Trump's,
how much money is that.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Going to free up?
Speaker 8 (10:21):
Well, it's going to free up a lot. It's not
just the brick and mortar. A lot of the bureaucrats, Amanda,
have not gone back to work. I know in my
district you have many that are still working from home.
Speaker 7 (10:34):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 8 (10:35):
COVID is over with and if you're not going to
use office buildings, let's privatize them, sell them and be
done with it. Because the financial path we own is bankruptcy.
We can't do that. But that's a great idea. It
is gathering steam and I heard a lot of people
talk about it and a lot of people that want
(10:55):
to make that happen.
Speaker 7 (10:56):
I would lead to charge on that because it's.
Speaker 8 (10:59):
Smart to do the maintenance alone, would dictate that you
take it out of federal hands and put it in
privatize it.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Yeah, sir, you have been an advocate for fixing the
border for four years and Joe Biden did none of it.
Donald Trump needs to get a running start in January.
I know you're part of a group of lawmakers that
would like to see an early border reconciliation bill that
locks in all the authorities and moneies that Donald Trump
needs to succeed. Do you think that's possible.
Speaker 8 (11:27):
I think it is because I think the American people
are going to demand it, and that's got to be
done early on, and it's going to take It's not
only is a tremendous cost, but looking to damage that's
doing from the crime alone, from the dollars of our
tax dollars that the Biden administration is given illegals.
Speaker 7 (11:45):
Now, it's got to be handled.
Speaker 8 (11:47):
And I think the tax cuts that Trump did a
great job on, we take that up in the second reconciliation,
but you'd handled first things first, and that's one of
them that's leading the pack, and it would be I think, well,
I would say easy to pass, but in Congress, I
don't think anything's easy.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
But I was sure supported.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Yeah, something a good idea, Sir.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I want to stay on the topic of the border
for just a moment, because the material is being sold
and auctioned off by the Biden administration of the border.
I think a lot of people see this as just
possibly spite. The American people are the ones who are
going to have to pay for it, and President Trump
has profered the notion that it is possibly illegal.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
What's the future of that situation, Well, if.
Speaker 8 (12:30):
It comes up on a rule that we've talked about today. Now,
the money part of it, I don't know what they're
making on it, but it is a crime what he's doing.
But Amanda, this goes with who he's given pardons to
Chinese who have been convicted of spye that had jail sentences.
Speaker 7 (12:48):
Is not just hunter Biden. He's on track to do.
Speaker 8 (12:51):
From what I'm here hearing over three thousand pardoning criminals,
not people with just drug offenses. As he's saying, charge
a lot of other things, but selling the border wall.
Who would ever think that the leader of the free
world would do that.
Speaker 7 (13:07):
And I've been out there.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
It's stacked up, the panels are stacked up and has
been paid for, So you're going to be paying for
it twice. And you know Trump is going to finish
the wall and finish the thing that he started, which
is the right thing to do.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Yeah, it's so remarkable to see the American people finished
last right to the last day of the Biden administration.
Just remarkable. Earlier today, one of your colleagues, Bury a
lot of Milk, who's done some great work exposing what
really happened on January sixth, issuld to report saying that
liszt Chaney should be referred to the FBI and criminally
investigated for tampering with a witness, Cassidy Hutchesy, maybe suborning perjury.
(13:44):
There's another thing that suggested we're in an era now
where we've seen institutions that used to agree to disagree,
but at least would agree on the facts. But it
seems like the last several years people likely has changing.
The Democrats have injected falsehoods just to achieve a political outcome.
Is there a moment in this next Congress where that
(14:04):
can be not only repudiated, but maybe a penalty created
for it so that it doesn't continue on for the
American people.
Speaker 8 (14:11):
What Liz Cheney did during that mockery of a trial
where Jim Jordan was kicked off and I think Jim
Banks was, Nancy Pelosi wasn't allowed to testify. The whole
thing reeks of corruption. And one thing the American people
I know in my district are telling me they want
consequences for these people. Liz Cheney needs consequences, and the
(14:31):
American people need to know all the facts that she
covered up and willingly participated in. So absolutely, and it's
not just them. I mean, look at what the FBI
and others have done to weaponize and put people like
Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro in jail. Yet Merrick Garlic can
defy a suboena and get by with it.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Man, you have done such a good job chronicling that
dual system of justice. I have a funny feeling in
twenty twenty five we're going to get some course correction
for the first time in a long time. Congressman, It's
always an honor to have you on. You give us
the truth. We appreciate that so much. We don't talk
to you before Christmas. I'm Merry Christmas.
Speaker 7 (15:08):
Well Mary Christmas, y'all, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
God bless you here for all you do. Wow, what
a great interview. Think of what he just said. Republicans
don't even have the courage to claw back the funds
that Joe Biden tried to spend but hasn't spent. They
don't want to even take it back and saved the
American people some money. Pretty remarkable statements from Congress and
Ralph Norman. All right, we're gonna take a quick commercial break.
Let me come back the man who delivered that bombshell
report this morning on January sixth. I'm Liz Cheney, the
(15:32):
Chairman of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, Bary Loudermilk. They'll
be with us right after these messages.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
As John briefed does at the top of the show,
a new report from Chairman of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee,
Barry Loudermilk, and published over on Just the News.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
As reported on it accuses.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Former Congresswoman is Cheney of tampering with a J six witness,
Cassidy Hutchinson.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
We've told you all about.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
That, and he's asking the FBI to investigate any possible
criminality that occurred.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
So with us now to talk more about.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
It is the man himself, the man who methodically and
meticulously has pulled back the curtain on all this, Chairman
that Barry Laudermolk, thank you so much for being here, sir.
Speaker 10 (16:22):
We thank you both for having me and appreciate the
coverage that you have been giving it when others just
chose to ignore it and not give any reporting on
what we've been uncovering that you guys have been great.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Well.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
The reporting kind of reflects what you experienced on Capitol Hill,
because I know there were plenty of people who were
not too interested in getting to the bottom of this,
and frankly, under Chris Ray, I might have been worried
that there would not have been ernest effort directed towards
this investigation. But it's going to be a new day
at the FBI, presumably Director cash Patel. How soon can
this ball get rolling and what do you expect to
(16:57):
come from this. Are you going to have a meeting
with the FBI where you kind of walk them through
some of your findings to kind of launch the whole
thing over there.
Speaker 10 (17:05):
Well, that's what I think should happen, But we do
have a little bit of a time crunch on this end.
Is you know, what's going to happen in the new Congress,
and that's why I've been trying to meet with a
speaker to emphasize to him the importance that we do
need to continue on this investigation, especially now with a
new administration who could get deep into some of the
documents that we haven't been able to obtain. There's documents
(17:28):
at Homeland Security we know exist and we've seen some
of them, but we can't get them. There's other information
that's within the FBI we've requested, but they will not.
Speaker 11 (17:37):
Provide to us.
Speaker 10 (17:39):
So I think it's even more important that we continue
on this investigation, maybe as a select committee, which I
think would be very appropriate for this, that we can
work within the new administration, especially in light of the
revelation that just happened in the last week with the
Department of Justice Inspector General reporting that there were confidential
(17:59):
human resource is with on Capitol grounds and even inside
the Capitol and what I'm most interested in there now,
these are basically their informants that are embedded within.
Speaker 11 (18:11):
The extremist groups.
Speaker 10 (18:12):
As you know, they're they're there to send intelligence to
the FBI about what's going to happen. Is you know
what they're planning, and some of these were supposedly pretty
high level in these extremists organizations. So the question I
have is to the FBI, what did you know intelligence
wise and when did you know it? And what did
(18:32):
you do with that intelligence prior to January sixth? If
they had that many resources there embedded and who were
here on the Capitol grounds, somebody had to know more
details than what we've been told that they knew was
what was going to happen.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Yeah, such an important question, and you told us first.
So you told us a few months ago that there
were there were a large number of informants in Your
rights are really remarkable. I want to turn back to
Liz Cheney because I think most people assume a right
Republicans are Democrats, diseagree in Congress, but they're going to
give us the facts at least, But it looks like
from the evidence you laid out in his report that
Liz Cheney tried to hide the facts, maybe mislead the
(19:07):
American people, hijack a witness, and you laid out evidence
for the FBI to go follow. Tell us why you're
concerned so much about her behavior.
Speaker 10 (19:16):
Well, for one thing is it was clear from early
on in our investigation that there was a predetermined narrative
that this was all Donald Trump's doing. Now, I came
into this from an unbiased perspective, and I even told
Kevin McCarthy, I don't want political influence. I want to
get to the truth, and whatever the truth is, we
will make it known to the American people, whether it
(19:36):
helped Donald Trump or whether the Select Committee was telling
the truth. I just wanted to get it out there.
But the further we got into this, the more we
realized they had already determined what their report was going
to say, they just needed to backfill it with information.
Then we started finding out we didn't have all the information,
and what was missing was the information that didn't corroborate
(19:59):
their story, especially those around their key witness. The concern
I have with Liz Cheney is that she basically became
the de facto chairman of the committee. She was in charge,
she was calling the shots, and she was communicating behind
the scenes with Cassidy Hutchinson during that period of which
she started changing her testimony. You know, John, you have
(20:21):
covered many times that fourteen page rata sheet where she
corrected her first two transcribed interviews. It was that time
period that she started communicating with Liz Cheney, and even
in her books she starts talking about that. So the
question is did Liz Cheney convince her to start changing
(20:42):
her story, because all of a sudden, she in her
third transcribed interview, she starts as she said is Cassidy
had said in her book, she started laying breadcrumbs, which
some believed that was actually a setup for her attorney,
Stefan Pasatino, because they needed a scar ape goat of
why she's changing her testimony, so they accused him of
(21:04):
telling her to lie, which he's been totally exonerated of
by it at this point.
Speaker 7 (21:09):
And so it's just.
Speaker 10 (21:11):
Interesting that that communication started and then she starts changing
her testimony, and then when she comes out with these
elaborate stories, there is no corroboration, there's no attempt to
figure out whether she's said in the truth or not.
They parade her in front of the American people and
she becomes the star witness of the entire committee. It's
just interesting that someone like her all of a sudden
(21:32):
changes her story that significantly, and the only thing that
happened in between was she was communicating unethically with Liz
Cheney without her attorney knowing it. And that's why we
think that the Department of Justice needs to look into
this because that could be witness stampering.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Absolutely, And I will remind our audience that within that
fifteen page Errodi, these were not just little five minute
changes to timestamps. These were specific, substantive changes. Sah, I
want to ask you, hypothetically speaking, this goes over to
the FBI, they investigate, they solidify the fact that there
was some type of witness tampering, possibly subornation of perjury.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Is it then handled the same way?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
What's the difference in handling because.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
This happened within the walls of Congress.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
As opposed to being say, in our federal court system.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Is there any difference in the treatment?
Speaker 10 (22:24):
Well, there could be if the Department of Justice determines
that she was acting with under the Speech and debate
claus But still there are limitations of what you can do.
We cannot violate the law and still have protections of
speech and debate claws. That is the one line of demarcation.
We lose that protection as soon as we violate law.
(22:46):
So if she violated law by doing witness tampering, or
she basically told Cassidy Hutchinson to lie, then she is
She's committed some born in perjury. So there's somewhere somebody lied, right,
is it? Cassidy Hutchinson in her first few interviews, was
at Cassidy Hutchinson in her last several interviews, And why
(23:08):
does she change her story? Is the only thing that
is consistent is that her communication with started off through
Elissa Fara was channeling for her to Liz Cheney, and
then at one point they started communicating directly, and Liz
Cheney even recognized because in the text stream and these
(23:28):
texts came from Cassidy Hutchinson, she provided those as a
result or her attorneys did as a result of letters
of inquiry that we have been sending them.
Speaker 7 (23:37):
And so in that text stream which has been.
Speaker 10 (23:41):
Made public, Liz expresses concern over having the direct communications
with Cassidy because she's represented by counsel, but she continues
to do it. And then, according to Cassidy Hutchinson's book,
Liz Janey convinced her to fire her existing attorney, Stefan Pasentino,
(24:01):
and then Liz found her another attorney pro bono, which, again,
that does not seem like that it is ethical in
the least that your prosecutor, per se is helping find
your defense witness their own attorney. Okay, So I think
that any legal scholar would have significant problems with the
(24:24):
whole way this thing went down.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, the report is so factually rich to a lot
of very specific information that is documented really Well, there's
a point in the report where you say you believe
that Cassie Hutchinson lied about the authorship of a handwritten memo,
and I think expected that maybe she would be brought
before the committee before the end of the year. Did
anyone leadership did Were you prevented from bringing Cassie Uttererson back,
(24:48):
because it seems like that's a very important part of
this investigation.
Speaker 10 (24:52):
Well, we were encouraged to be very careful with who
we brought in and we got to a certain point
where I didn't think that we needed to bring her
in directly because they were very cooperative with providing us information.
And so I think it was several internal decisions as
if we can conduct this without bringing her before a
(25:14):
committee for a public hearing, it would be best to
work off that information, and it was around that time
that she provided us with all these text messages. But yeah,
there is more of this investigation that needs to take place,
and there's probably more conversations that need to happen with Cassidy,
(25:34):
especially at this point, to directly ask her, why did
you change your testimony and what was it that you
and lis Cheney were talking about?
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Very important stuff.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Sir Chairman.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I know for you it probably feels like much of
this process has been swimming through peanut butter. But the
fruits of your efforts are starting to come out as
they have been, and we appreciate so much what you
have done for the American people, and we look forward
to more of this in the next year.
Speaker 10 (26:00):
Thank you both, and again thank you for you exposing
the light of transparency on this whole situation.
Speaker 7 (26:06):
Thank you so well.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
We couldn't do it if it weren't for you, So
thank you, sir, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
All right, everybody coming up after the break, more about
those drones.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
We're still talking about the.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Drones over in New Jersey and we still don't have
many answers that we're going to talk about that after
the break.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Hey, America, Donald Trump has done it again, and with
his presidential victory in a red wave sweeping the House
and Senate, Conservatives are back in the driver's seat. But
as the fight to restore America begins, now is not
the time to get in placement. That's a good piece
of advice. You have the chance to be part of
this movement, not just as a voter, but as a
member of a powerful organization that takes its margin orders
(26:45):
directly from you. AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens.
I'm a card carring member. AMAC is the conservatives alternative
to the ARP. We stand for faith, family, and freedom,
and we're fighting for the values that make America great.
Join AMAC today for only one dollar for your first year.
What a great deal. That's right, you heard me, one dollar.
But don't wait, as special offer ends on December thirty first.
(27:06):
Donald Trump is building his team and you can be
part of it. Join AMAC today and help us continue
the fight for a brighter for your future. Visit AMAC
dot us slash just News now to claim your one
dollar membership and make your voice heard. That's AMACAMAC dot
us slash just News. Together we can keep the momentum going.
(27:34):
Welcome back to America. If you felt like you've heard
a lot of different stories and sometimes contradictory stories when
it comes to those drones over New Jersey, you're correct.
There have been all over the map when it comes
to the Biden administration of the United States government. Our
next guest has been trying to pin down the truth.
He is a New Jersey assemblyman former mayor of Chester
Township Michael and Gotamorton. Sarah, good to have you on.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Thank you very much, John, appreciate it all right.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
I know you've worked really hard to try to get
some semblance of truth out of the government. Tell us
where we stand in that search for truth and what
frustrations you might have.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Well, I appreciate it.
Speaker 12 (28:07):
I mean you got to keep in mind we are
in week four and we're basically in week five now
on this situation in northwest New Jersey, which is where
this whole thing originated. We've been looking out our windows,
you know, walking outside, looking up in the air, at
anywhere from one to two up to a dozen drones
circling our homes, our neighborhoods, our communities. I remember getting
the first call from a mayor in the district that
(28:28):
I represent on November eighteenth, and for those first three
or four weeks, it was radio silence, radio silence. In
the past week or so, there's been some at least
communication from the federal government, but as you alluded to
in the opening, it's been total mixed messages. We hear
different things on different days at different hours from the administration.
(28:50):
John Kirby yesterday said, now, these are mostly planes, you know,
don't worry about it. Majorcus has basically said the same thing.
These are primarily planes and hobby drones, and it's not.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
Something we should worry about.
Speaker 12 (29:03):
My question for these guys is what number of unidentifiable
drones above my house is acceptable?
Speaker 4 (29:10):
At what point may I worry?
Speaker 12 (29:12):
Secretary mayorcis I understand there's planes out there, and there
are plenty of drone enthusiasts flying their own drones around.
I understand that. I appreciate that, and it's possible not
every dot in the sky we see is in fact
a drone, But we do have confirmation from military bases
here in New Jersey that there are indeed drones, unidentifiable drones,
(29:32):
zipping around our neighborhoods.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
And my question for the administration is, if.
Speaker 12 (29:36):
We don't know who they are, what they are, where
there came from, and what they're doing here, how many
is acceptable?
Speaker 4 (29:41):
And at what number can I start worrying?
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Yeah, that's a very valid question, Michael. Is there a
chance because I remember the first time that someone pointed
out water towers on the top tops of buildings in
New York City. Once I saw one, I saw them everywhere.
They were on the top every roof, and sometimes multiples.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
Is there a.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Chance that maybe people haven't really been looking up a
lot at night and now because this is a part
of the news cycle, that people are seeing them everywhere.
Is there any chance that these are just hobby drones?
I know that typically they're flying a little lower than
they should be, but is there any chance that there
is this innocent explanation.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Well, it's a fair question, Amanda. I appreciate you asking it.
Speaker 12 (30:23):
Yes, as I said, not every light blinking in the
sky is in fact an unidentified drone. Yes, we know
there are airplanes flying through the sky. Yes we know
many hobbyists have started flying their own drones in an
attempt to get a closer look at the unidentifiable drones.
So again we're being measured and reasonable here. But at
(30:44):
the same time, we do have confirmation. You don't just
have to take my word for it. We have confirmation
from Picatinny Arsenal here in northwest New Jersey that there
are numerous unidentifiable drones flying in our airspace. And you know,
we can quibble about the exact number, but I reiterate
my question, at what point may we start to worry
(31:06):
President Biden, Secretary Mariorchist John Kirby.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
They need to.
Speaker 12 (31:10):
I think one unidentifiable drone flying over a military base
in the United States of America is one too many.
And if they are not in fact in operation of
the US military, as the Pentagon said this morning, and
if we take them at their word, then it is
time to safely and securely take these drones out of
the sky.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
So a lot of people will say, I know, when
you fly a big plane, there's a flight plan, and
you know what the space you're crossing through with drones
this size? Are there any flight plans? Is that part
of the problem that you can't track these because there
are no flight plans for these large flying objects?
Speaker 4 (31:46):
You know, great question for the administration.
Speaker 12 (31:48):
I wish you luck getting an honest answer out of them. Yeah,
good luck, John. So my amateur, I I can't tell
I see them going left, right, up, down.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
And everywhere in between. Occasionally we've actually.
Speaker 12 (32:01):
Seen these drones form a line where six, seven or
eight of them form a line above us. That seems
to be coordinated if you ask me. And it's what
makes us operate under the assumption that these drones are
part of a coordinated effort in some way. So again
we're operating in darkness here. We are not getting any
(32:23):
answers from the administration. They tell us everything that these
drones are not. They have never told us what these
drones are. And if they can answer that question, or
if they're not willing to answer that question what these
drones are, I believe they are overdue to take action,
whether that is the military, the New Jersey Air National Guard,
which of course is part of the military, or maybe
(32:44):
even the New Jersey State Police authorizing them to take
down a few of these drones.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Let's start with that.
Speaker 12 (32:50):
Let's take down a few of these drones in a
safe and secured and controlled way to look at them
up close and see them up close and do our
best to identify.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
The darn thing.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Yeah, it's got a good idea, Michael.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
I know that New Jersey is not the number one
state for gun owners.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
So if there are plenty of.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Gun owners in New Jersey, is there a concern for
you that at some point sometime down the road, probably
soon down the road, that there are going to be
some enterprising New Jerseys who decide that they want to
save New Jersey on their own.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
I've wondered that myself.
Speaker 12 (33:20):
You know, what you say about New Jersey on the whole,
I suppose is true. But the district I represent in
northwest New Jersey absolutely is a two A district.
Speaker 4 (33:29):
And I'm proud to be a legislator.
Speaker 12 (33:31):
Who has been fighting for the Second Amendment and legal
gun owners in New Jersey down in the State House
in Trenton. So I do wonder to myself sometimes why
a resident hasn't tried to take out one of these
drones on their own, and I'm not suggesting that they do,
because at the end of the day, this is the
job of our federal government to handle these unidentified objects
in the sky. That is their job, not residents. I
(33:55):
think part of the reason, though, Amanda, to ask your
answer your question a little more specifically, are pretty high
up in the sky, so I think it might be
difficult for your average gun owning resident, New Jersey resident
to try to take them out on their own. Again,
I'm not suggesting they do, and I wouldn't condone them
if they did. So we really need federal engagement here,
(34:15):
federal leadership and some involvement.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
So we'll stay for the record.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
A few weeks ago, a Southwest plane got hit by
a bullet.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Yeah, that's right, you know.
Speaker 12 (34:26):
Then, not suggesting that that sounds like a dangerous situation,
but this is where we need our federal government to
step in and provide that leadership so real quickly.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
In the last twenty four hours, there's been an addition
to the list of possible explanations. Law enforcement is a
possible secret service. Some of these other federal agencies are
doing some law enforcement work in teching out technology that
seemed to be an addition to the list in the
last twenty four to forty hours.
Speaker 12 (34:52):
I think you're right, John, that has been added to
the list. Again, we don't know. These are theories, these
are assumptions. These are our own, you know, attempts at
speculating at what it is that's going on up there.
And if it is what you described, some type of
operation by the Secret Service, I think if the federal
government and the Secret Service in particular had just come
clean from the start and say we are going to
(35:14):
engage in a military exercise and we are doing so
for this general reason, I think most New Jerseyans would
give the Secret Service a good amount of deference to
execute on that mission. But because they haven't done so,
it's either a really bad attempt at pr where they
truly don't know what's going on. And if it's the latter,
you got to start taking the drones down. It's one
(35:36):
or the other. This is a binary choice, come clean
or take them down.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
That's a great point. One thing. I know, the good
people in New Jersey in your district know you really
have been fighting for the truth. You've just been going
out and I think they're greatly appreciated that you're looking
out for them, and we're going to get you back
on as we get more about this. Good to have
you on a sembleman. Thanks for joining us today.
Speaker 4 (35:55):
We're not stopping it. I appreciate it. Thank you very much,
John and Amanda.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Pretty awesome to have you on. Thank you sir. All Right, folks,
we're going to take quick commercial break. We've got a
big question asking the next segment, how can we fix
the FBI? A lot of big discussions on that. Joining
us former FBI Executive Director Chris piot I hope you
here to join us in just a second.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
Welcome back everybody to justin News and Noise.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
President Trump has been quite explicit about his goals when
he returns to the White House on January twentieth, and
one of them will be reforming a lot of the
current government and that starts primarily with the DOJ and
the FBI.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
But how can they do it? With us to.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Discuss that retired FBI executive director and author of the
book wanted the FBI I once knew Chris.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
I ho to Chris.
Speaker 13 (36:46):
Great to see you again, pleasure man, and thank you
and appreciate some time to share some ideas with you
and your audience.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Exciting, absolutely, and I want to start with some of
your great ideas. You and I have had conversations about
what a new, reformed FBI could look like when it
comes to the pushback against a prospective director like Cash Battel,
who has talked about going in and cleaning up and
basically being a custodian type director who cleans.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
Out all the gunk. What are they so afraid of?
Speaker 2 (37:14):
What's the worst that could happen if you go and
try to reform and clean it out.
Speaker 9 (37:19):
I think you have a The FBI is.
Speaker 13 (37:22):
A very monolithic organization, and what I think you're going
to have is a.
Speaker 9 (37:26):
Lot of fear and uncertainty.
Speaker 13 (37:28):
It happened after nine to eleven, and they're looking at
another season of change so to speak now with the
new administration coming in a lot of unknowns.
Speaker 9 (37:37):
And I hate to say it, but I think.
Speaker 13 (37:39):
There's a certain level of organizational ego and hubris that
will provide that inertia. It'll provide that opposing force for
someone to come in and look at some foundational changes
for the organization.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
Yeah, so you wrote a very important book, one of
my favorite books, The last couple of years wanted the
FBI I once knew, and I think this title summarizes
with so many fields and light. Agents tell me every
time I meet them in the field, they want to
get back to the FBI that SolV crimes, had good ethics,
didn't do politics, just did crime. How wide does that
(38:15):
sentiment right now and how helpful could that be for
the rank and file to rally behind a guy like
Caspartel to get the bureau back to that mission.
Speaker 13 (38:23):
What we're looking at is people want to go back
to the Bureau of old when it comes to the values,
the beliefs, the culture, the leadership environment, the operational practices
that made the bureau legendary, and we've drifted away from
those over the years. And the Bureau after nine to
eleven was ill use the term corporate tize.
Speaker 9 (38:44):
We had some consultants come.
Speaker 13 (38:47):
In after nine to eleven at the direction of the
national leadership, and the FBI started trying to run itself
as if it was a Silicon Valley software company or
a bank, And at its soul, the FBI is neither
of those types of organizations. It is a mission organization,
is a protective function, and it is a national security
(39:12):
function that keeps us safe and it also combats crime problems.
So the FBI is a complex operating environment. People want
to get back to. Let's get some cases in, Let's
get some work done. Let's protect the American people and
not be so interested in some of the social distractions
and some of the other political matters that have kind
(39:33):
of taken route.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Chris.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
Last night on our show, we had former FBI agent
now whistleblower garretto Boyle, and he talked about how many
of the former agents who he has spoken to are
actually excited about having some new leaderships and fresh blood
on the seventh floor of the FBI building. Your thoughts
on what type of reform, what is the percentage of
change that can happen at that organization?
Speaker 3 (39:58):
Just by doing a tetris wiping out of the.
Speaker 13 (40:00):
Seventh floor, you're looking at probably at least a sixty
to seventy percent solution. I mean, the leadership that has
taken hold over the past several years has allowed the
FBI to drift off course and it gives us the
unfavorable FBI conditions that we have right now. I've seen
(40:21):
mister O'Boyle speak and talk about his situation and what
they did to him according to his reporting up on
the Hill, and what I saw there was that is
an organizational culture that is toxic and petty and arrogant,
and that's not how you treat your own people. And
if I think, if we treat our own people like
(40:42):
they treated mister Boyle, then how do we expect the
American public to ask us to come to help them.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
That's a great point where Lee Well said in the book,
and I think in what you just said, they're one
of the when the corporatization of the FBI current under
Bob Miller, one of the other things that seems to
happen is that the seventh floor, or headquarters, started to
pull a lot of the cases out of the field.
They're metal in the cases, and when the FBI's best,
they leave the cases in the field and the agents
who are closest to the crime do the best work.
(41:11):
Why was that that temptation to meddle so often in
cases from headquarters when it didn't happen for much of
the FBI's history.
Speaker 13 (41:19):
Well after the spectacular event on nine to eleven, we
were seeing as having failed, and headquarters sought to maintain
centralized control over the counter terrorism programs and the counter
intelligence programs and all the national security work. That was
a post nine to eleven consequence, and it also showed
(41:39):
that there was a lowered sense of confidence in the
FBI leadership out in the field to protect the American people. Now,
I understand that in that crisis mode we went to
a more centralized management structure, but they really never released
it back out to the field for the national security work.
(42:00):
And I think it's time for us to take a
look at that. And if we don't have the right
people in the field to run those programs, then we
have to get the right people to run those programs.
We can't just manage the amount of headquarters because you'll
see the I guess you can say the extreme consequence
of doing that is the crossfire hurricane investigation.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
Chris, Before we let you go, there's kind of a
solution baked into the suggestion that you move agencies outside
of Washington.
Speaker 3 (42:30):
Does the director have to be in Washington?
Speaker 2 (42:32):
I mean, is there a scenario where the director is
someone who rotates to field offices across the country and
is not necessarily centralized in spending most of his time
in the swamp.
Speaker 13 (42:44):
The director is at the I hate to say beck
and call of the Chief Executive. He has to be
available for briefings, and he has to be available for
consultation not only with the White House, but with the
Attorney General. So there's a lot of collapse that happens
between the FBI director, other members of the Department of Justice,
as well as the intelligence community.
Speaker 9 (43:06):
If he is not located in the DC.
Speaker 13 (43:08):
Proper area, it'll create delays and latency in him being
able to plan and execute certain objectives with his partners.
And also, I think that moving the FBI out of
DC could have its own challenges. If you have a
defective culture at the FBI now and you move them
(43:31):
to Oklahoma, now you're taking a defective culture in an organization,
and you're taking them away from the potential oversight from
the Hill and Department of Justice and other people who
would be able to look at the FBI and put
those parameters and guidelines in for them. And I don't
think moving a defective culture out of DC is a solution.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Good point, and considering the reputation of the agency right now,
I'm not sure Oplham would take him. I feel like
this is a hot potato and nobody really, nobody really
wants it. So I guess DC it is Chris i Hoed,
a retired FBI executive director and author of the great.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
Book Everybody go check it out. It's called Wanted the FBI.
I once new Chris.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
Thanks so much for joining us tonight and coming up, everybody,
what should President Trump's policies be with respect to AI.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
We're going to talk about that after this break.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
Welcome back everybody to just the news, no noise. It's
our final block, so let's get added. One thing that
the Trump administration is sure to focus on is artificial intelligence.
So what kind of policy should President Trump be focused
on and ultimately implement.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Joining us now to talk about that.
Speaker 2 (44:47):
AI expert and business founder and CEO Paul Powers.
Speaker 3 (44:50):
Paul, thanks so much for being here.
Speaker 11 (44:52):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (44:54):
You know, twenty twenty four, I think that that was
the first time that AI was a mainstream converse within
the context of an elect In twenty twenty I think
some people on the fringes of tech society knew about it,
but for lay people like me, I don't even know
technically what it meant. When it came to computing for
this administration, what guardrails do you think need to be
in place.
Speaker 14 (45:16):
I think that we need to not put up too
many guardrails. The biggest concern that I have with when
it comes to AI is an AI itself, is our
adversaries beating us in the race. We're really in the
equivalent of a nuclear arms race right now.
Speaker 11 (45:30):
But unlike the nuclear arms race.
Speaker 14 (45:31):
Where you have a certain level of technology you can
reach and then it kind of plateaus, AI doesn't plateau.
AI continues to grow at an exponential rate. So it's
not a race that you can afford to lose or
fall behind in any way if it works in factors
of exponentials, right, So being behind six months or a year,
you might.
Speaker 11 (45:51):
As well be in a different decade.
Speaker 14 (45:53):
And that's why it's critical for America to lead continue
to lead the AI race, and the only way to
do that is by not putting into many guardrails. I
the most important thing is to invest into the into AI.
And I was really excited to see the announcement with
SoftBank that President Electnald Trump announced along the SAFT bit
(46:14):
at Banks leadership earlier this week, because it means that
we're doing exactly what we should be doing, and that's
investing in AI to make sure that we continue.
Speaker 7 (46:21):
To lead that race.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
Yeah, big moment. And also Japan and the Pacific RIM
siding with the United States over China, which is the
main competitor for the AI race, really significant. There is
another part of investment that is going to need to occur.
The AI machinery uses so much electricity and power, and
our grid is not very reliable right now, and all
(46:42):
of the investments in intermittent energy have left us falling behind.
How important is it to get our energy system, the
grid in more power load in place quickly.
Speaker 11 (46:53):
It's very important.
Speaker 14 (46:54):
AI requires a lot of GPUs. Well, that means is
basically just think electric city hungry computing. And that's why
you're starting to see a lot of companies, especially larger
tech companies, actually investing pretty heavily in nuclear energy. And
they're doing that not in the form of traditional nuclear
energy where it's part of a really large grid, but
(47:14):
actually small modular systems. And I think that that's going
to play an increasingly large role in the near future
as well.
Speaker 11 (47:21):
So you'll start to see lots.
Speaker 14 (47:22):
Of smaller nuclear power plants, and they'll be instead of
maybe you're running power for entire city, they might just
be running power for a factory or even a building. Right,
you can imagine a future world where was its modular
enough and safe enough, potentially even runs I don't want
to say vehicles just yet, but much smaller bits of infrastructure, right,
(47:44):
like individual buildings. Perhaps, I think that's really the current
trend when it comes to energy prey on pretty exciting, paul.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
AI is kind of in the Model T phase of development.
It is still so early, even though it is technologically
so unbelievably advanced to many of us. I'll be honest,
it scares me a whole lot because I see down
the road what it can do. But what are some
of the exciting things that it can do that we
should all actually.
Speaker 3 (48:11):
Look forward to.
Speaker 14 (48:13):
Well, let me speak to the concern first, right, So
a lot of people say, hey, AI scares me, and yeah,
change is scary. AI is changing the world much faster
than anything we've ever seen in our lifetimes. I mean
when the Internet boom happened, right, I mean, I'm old
enough to remember when we got internet for the first time,
and I remember thinking like, wow, this is going to
change everything. But I had years to process that and
get used to it, whereas with AI, I mean, if
(48:35):
you don't know what chat GPT is, you're already behind,
and you're going to be really far behind in a
few months, let alone a few years. So it's moving
much faster than anything we've seen in our lifetimes. But
the way that you combat that isn't by saying, well,
let's just pause AI or let's slow down AI, because
no one's going to slow down except for maybe a
local government or maybe a national government.
Speaker 11 (48:56):
AI is going to continue to work really quickly.
Speaker 14 (48:57):
And much rather that the US is leading that charge
than China and you know, or other authoritarian governments or
adversaries at the US. So I wouldn't worry about AI
so much as I would look at it as actually
a very very powerful tool that enhances what you do.
A lot of people worry that it's going to take
their jobs. But they said the same thing about the Internet.
(49:19):
They said the same thing actually about if you look
back really far in history, the printing press books, He's
going to be written out by hand, right, I mean,
so it doesn't replace jobs, it changes the nature of jobs,
and what it does is it removes the mundane, repetitive
things that people have to do.
Speaker 11 (49:35):
Yeah, and it also.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
When you look at the course of history, people said
devastating things about a mirror and romance novels. They thought
that was going to be the end of society. Paul,
thank you so much for being here. We're going to
have to have you back on again very soon to
talk about this because I still I'm very scared about it.
But I'm going to have to find some twenty year
old to help me downloadchat GPT so I can finally
get up with it and figure it out.
Speaker 3 (49:54):
All right, everybody, that's all we have. Grit Centerville is
at next We'll see tomorrow.
Good evening, America. Welcome to the Tuesday edition of justin News,
No Noise. I'm your host, John Solomon. Reporting is always
from Washington, DC, our nation's capital, and the Wirefishcoffee dot
Com studios Widerfish Coffee, as you know, the official coffee
of justin News, and right now they got some amazing
guests for the coffee lover, the angler, the fisherman, the
outdoorsman in your life. Go to Wirefishcoffee dot Com and
(00:40):
get a fantastic twenty percent discount by using the promo
code just News or just Hamir camer at that QR code.
You'll be in here and being banded business. All right,
a couple of big stories we broke at justin News
in the last few hours. First, that's starting Congress. Liz
Cheney is facing a new legal threat. What is that?
The chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, Barry Loudlemant,
(01:03):
the man that re reviewed the January sixth investigation, says
in official report that was released today that Liz Cheney
should be referred to the FBI and that the FBI
should criminally investigate her for witness tampering for her conduct
with the star Witness of the Democrats twenty twenty two
Summer Hearings on January sixth, Cassidy Hutchinson. We've told you
about the stories she told that aren't true. We told
(01:26):
you that this Cheney was talking to her around her lawyer,
Barry Loud of Milk and his committee saying today it
looks like witness tampering the new FBI cash betel. They
should start investigating her criminally. In fact, the report says
she Liz Cheney may have violated several federal statutes. We'll
have more than that over at justinnews dot com. Go
check that out. That story's trending number one on the site.
(01:46):
The other story we told you about, we teased it
last night. Yes, Joe Biden used his pse pseudonym email
account to conduct foreign policy. That's right, Anthony Blincoln, now
the Secretary of State. But back in a decade ago,
when Joe Biden was Vice presient and was sending foreign
policy emails to Joe Biden sensitive stuff like oh, North
Korea failed a missile test. We'll get you more on it, sir,
(02:07):
but you should know they failed. It could have stark
consequences That went to a private email account on Gmail insecure.
Kind of sounds like Hillary Clinton all those emails which
we got from a lawsuit published on Just the News.
You can take a look at both of those two
very important stories about accountability in Washington that we broke today.
All right, there's a lot more going on in Washington
(02:27):
and across the world. And announcepringing my amazing coast Amanda
head to get us caught up on all the headlines. Hello, Amanda. Wow,
it's only a few days before Christmas, but things are
rocking around here.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I love it and congratulations. See you on those two
big scoops this morning. And before we start the show
tonight and get into conversations about both of those items
with our guests, I want to get into a few
things that I'm tracking.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
Firstly, the drones over New Jersey. Get that tracking.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
The story is just not going away, and we're going
to have more on that later in the show with
a New Jersey assembly Man. But the White House has
finally been speaking out of it, and unfortunately aren't really
saying much. Here is Don Kirby explaining that there's nothing
to worry about with the drones and that everything is
being operated in a lawful and legal way.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Here it is.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
We have taken a serious look at this.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
We have gone through five thousand some odd sightings, we
have added detection capabilities to the region, We've even sent
up visual observers, and everything we're seeing to date, our
assessment tells us that these are commercial drones, hobbyist drones,
or law enforcement drones, all operating legally and lawfully. I
mean when people shoot video of that, Kate, I mean,
(03:36):
you're seeing the lights on these things, the navigation lights.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
That's what's required if.
Speaker 5 (03:40):
You're going to be flying in US airspace at night,
our navigation lights. So clearly they're being operated in a
lawful and legal way, and we've seen nothing from their behavior,
nothing that tells us there's a public safety threat or
a national security threat.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So the message from the White House is that there
is nothing to.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Worry about and there is nothing going on.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I don't know if that's a good enough answer for
the American people, And as I said, we're going to.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Have more on that later in the show.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
And the fallout from President Trump's defamation lawsuit settlement with
George Sephanopolis and ABC News continues. CNN is apparently very
worried about it, especially with President Trump signaling that he
would go after the Ann Salzer Pole, and he did
filing suit against the De Moines Register Monday.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Here is Shake Tapper discussing it.
Speaker 6 (04:24):
One of them is the the people of Iowa at
the Moin Register. That's because there was a poll and
thought that was that was inaccurate. The one on sixty
minutes is because they didn't like the editing that had
been done to the Yeah, I mean, this is this
is wildly ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
I mean, maybe the media shouldn't report things or say
things on air that they know aren't true.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
That's all I'm going to say.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
And finally, Luigi Mangioni was indicted on a.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
First degree murder charge earlier.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Today in the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Mangioni was also charged in New York with two counts
of second degree murder, one which is charged as a
killing in the active terrorism two counts of second degree
criminal possession of a weapon, four counts a third degree
criminal possession of a weapon, one count of fourth degree
criminal possession of a weapon, and one count of second
degree criminal possession of a forged instrument.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
So John I think the eyes of the country are
going to be on what happens in this situation. Let's
hand it off.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, an extraordinary story man who had privilege and a
great opportunity ahead of him and may have thrown his
life away with his crime. We'll to see where they goes. Well.
A lot of tension on Capitol Hill. They're just a
few days away from the deadline for federal spending to
run out, and one of those reconciliation Omnibus bills is
coming your way. Yep, hundreds of billions of more money
(05:42):
going out the door your money. Earlier today we had
a chance to talk to one of the men on
the front lines that he's on the Rules Committee, Mike
Johnson might want to bypass that Rules Committe. That's what
we're hearing Congress from. Ralph Norman had some sharp words
to say about that. Listen to what he told us.
All right, joining us now, a man who has his
finger on the pulse of what's really happening in Congress.
Will we get a budget deal, Will they go on
for Christmas? We don't know yet, but I'm pretty sure
(06:04):
Congress and Ralph Norman for the great state of South
Carolina does, he joins us right now, Congressman, great to
have you on the show.
Speaker 7 (06:10):
Great, great to be with both of y'all.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
All right, I'd like to get a sense of where
the discussions are in the background. Is there a deal
in placement American people get anything out of this budget
reconciliation bill that's being discussed.
Speaker 8 (06:24):
Well, that's the question that you know, we haven't gotten
the text yet. It's a fourteen hundred page text. There's
been talk of voting on a rule. As you know,
I've been very frustrated with the way this is played out.
You don't sign anything, particularly that long, with that much money.
Speaker 7 (06:44):
But that's what we're being forced to do.
Speaker 8 (06:46):
I think if I had to bet, I think that
we'll probably kind of under suspension, which takes a three
forced vote, rather than go through the Rules Committee, which
I'm onned that it should go through. I think that
the disappointment with a lot of us that we expressed
to Mike Johnson was there's no pay for us. The
America people spoke on November fifth, and it was to
(07:07):
get this House I think in financial order, and it's
just not happening.
Speaker 7 (07:12):
So if I had to bet.
Speaker 8 (07:15):
I think if the rule, if it takes it through rules,
there's gonna be some amendments, standalone amendments that will vote
to pay for some of this monstrosity of spending, which
is one hundred million dollars in disaster relief, and it's
got money for farmers, which they're in dire straits. I
get that, but let's just offset it with the gigantic
(07:37):
spending bill that this last administration has sattled us with
and take a vote on it. So we'll see, we'll
see how it works out.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
Yeah, important, sir.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
I want to ask you about what this means for
one particular Republican because I'm hearing from some others that
they are quite disappointed in Mike Johnson's ability to get
this handled.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Does this endanger his group on the gavel for the
next term.
Speaker 8 (08:00):
Everything has consequences, and I think the what the frustration
level is we all like him as a person, but
leaders have to take tough decisions, and this is a
tough decision, but it really shouldn't be. You know, we've
got got the galvel, We've got the majority now, granted
is one or two.
Speaker 7 (08:20):
He can't miss. You can't want when.
Speaker 8 (08:24):
The people that Trump took from my office get replaced.
We will have it best three or four seat majority.
That being said, the good news is we've got the majority,
but we've got to I think, get the same thing
Trump is saying, get the water wall built.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
Uh, get you know, all in independence.
Speaker 8 (08:43):
But at the same time, we have to get this
House in order to stop spending more than we make.
This bill does not do that, which is a frustration
level that I and many other members are having.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Now, Sir, there is, as you said, so many places
where there could be offsets of media, all the DEI funding,
all the unclaimed Green New Deal funding. Why is it
that Republicans who don't support any of those policies don't
have the courage to pull some of that money back
to pay for what they're about to approve.
Speaker 8 (09:12):
Because everybody out of all four hundred and thirty five members,
the spending that takes place, they've got an advocacy for it,
and a lot of them just can't say No Republicans
are like, you know, we hope the Dose Commission will
point out these specifics. But unless the Dose Commission results
(09:33):
goes into every voter's household, whether it's.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
Email or text.
Speaker 8 (09:37):
We've got to be able to hold our elected officials
accountable and see what they spending that they support, the
spending that they vote against. But we've got the only
thing this administration has done, John has give us things
to cut the DEI to even the thing that recently
came up, selling the wall portions of the panel which
(10:00):
costs thousands of dollars for five dollars.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
It's lunacy.
Speaker 9 (10:04):
Yeah, it's crazy, Carson.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
I know one place where money can definitely be saved,
and that is with those what fourteen million square feet
of unused office space in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
If this is something that.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
As we have heard, is an early priority of President Trump's,
how much money is that.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Going to free up?
Speaker 8 (10:21):
Well, it's going to free up a lot. It's not
just the brick and mortar. A lot of the bureaucrats, Amanda,
have not gone back to work. I know in my
district you have many that are still working from home.
Speaker 7 (10:34):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 8 (10:35):
COVID is over with and if you're not going to
use office buildings, let's privatize them, sell them and be
done with it. Because the financial path we own is bankruptcy.
We can't do that. But that's a great idea. It
is gathering steam and I heard a lot of people
talk about it and a lot of people that want
(10:55):
to make that happen.
Speaker 7 (10:56):
I would lead to charge on that because it's.
Speaker 8 (10:59):
Smart to do the maintenance alone, would dictate that you
take it out of federal hands and put it in
privatize it.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Yeah, sir, you have been an advocate for fixing the
border for four years and Joe Biden did none of it.
Donald Trump needs to get a running start in January.
I know you're part of a group of lawmakers that
would like to see an early border reconciliation bill that
locks in all the authorities and moneies that Donald Trump
needs to succeed. Do you think that's possible.
Speaker 8 (11:27):
I think it is because I think the American people
are going to demand it, and that's got to be
done early on, and it's going to take It's not
only is a tremendous cost, but looking to damage that's
doing from the crime alone, from the dollars of our
tax dollars that the Biden administration is given illegals.
Speaker 7 (11:45):
Now, it's got to be handled.
Speaker 8 (11:47):
And I think the tax cuts that Trump did a
great job on, we take that up in the second reconciliation,
but you'd handled first things first, and that's one of
them that's leading the pack, and it would be I think, well,
I would say easy to pass, but in Congress, I
don't think anything's easy.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
But I was sure supported.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Yeah, something a good idea, Sir.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I want to stay on the topic of the border
for just a moment, because the material is being sold
and auctioned off by the Biden administration of the border.
I think a lot of people see this as just
possibly spite. The American people are the ones who are
going to have to pay for it, and President Trump
has profered the notion that it is possibly illegal.
Speaker 3 (12:26):
What's the future of that situation, Well, if.
Speaker 8 (12:30):
It comes up on a rule that we've talked about today. Now,
the money part of it, I don't know what they're
making on it, but it is a crime what he's doing.
But Amanda, this goes with who he's given pardons to
Chinese who have been convicted of spye that had jail sentences.
Speaker 7 (12:48):
Is not just hunter Biden. He's on track to do.
Speaker 8 (12:51):
From what I'm here hearing over three thousand pardoning criminals,
not people with just drug offenses. As he's saying, charge
a lot of other things, but selling the border wall.
Who would ever think that the leader of the free
world would do that.
Speaker 7 (13:07):
And I've been out there.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
It's stacked up, the panels are stacked up and has
been paid for, So you're going to be paying for
it twice. And you know Trump is going to finish
the wall and finish the thing that he started, which
is the right thing to do.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Yeah, it's so remarkable to see the American people finished
last right to the last day of the Biden administration.
Just remarkable. Earlier today, one of your colleagues, Bury a
lot of Milk, who's done some great work exposing what
really happened on January sixth, issuld to report saying that
liszt Chaney should be referred to the FBI and criminally
investigated for tampering with a witness, Cassidy Hutchesy, maybe suborning perjury.
(13:44):
There's another thing that suggested we're in an era now
where we've seen institutions that used to agree to disagree,
but at least would agree on the facts. But it
seems like the last several years people likely has changing.
The Democrats have injected falsehoods just to achieve a political outcome.
Is there a moment in this next Congress where that
(14:04):
can be not only repudiated, but maybe a penalty created
for it so that it doesn't continue on for the
American people.
Speaker 8 (14:11):
What Liz Cheney did during that mockery of a trial
where Jim Jordan was kicked off and I think Jim
Banks was, Nancy Pelosi wasn't allowed to testify. The whole
thing reeks of corruption. And one thing the American people
I know in my district are telling me they want
consequences for these people. Liz Cheney needs consequences, and the
(14:31):
American people need to know all the facts that she
covered up and willingly participated in. So absolutely, and it's
not just them. I mean, look at what the FBI
and others have done to weaponize and put people like
Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro in jail. Yet Merrick Garlic can
defy a suboena and get by with it.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Man, you have done such a good job chronicling that
dual system of justice. I have a funny feeling in
twenty twenty five we're going to get some course correction
for the first time in a long time. Congressman, It's
always an honor to have you on. You give us
the truth. We appreciate that so much. We don't talk
to you before Christmas. I'm Merry Christmas.
Speaker 7 (15:08):
Well Mary Christmas, y'all, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
God bless you here for all you do. Wow, what
a great interview. Think of what he just said. Republicans
don't even have the courage to claw back the funds
that Joe Biden tried to spend but hasn't spent. They
don't want to even take it back and saved the
American people some money. Pretty remarkable statements from Congress and
Ralph Norman. All right, we're gonna take a quick commercial break.
Let me come back the man who delivered that bombshell
report this morning on January sixth. I'm Liz Cheney, the
(15:32):
Chairman of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee, Bary Loudermilk. They'll
be with us right after these messages.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
As John briefed does at the top of the show,
a new report from Chairman of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee,
Barry Loudermilk, and published over on Just the News.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
As reported on it accuses.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Former Congresswoman is Cheney of tampering with a J six witness,
Cassidy Hutchinson.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
We've told you all about.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
That, and he's asking the FBI to investigate any possible
criminality that occurred.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
So with us now to talk more about.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
It is the man himself, the man who methodically and
meticulously has pulled back the curtain on all this, Chairman
that Barry Laudermolk, thank you so much for being here, sir.
Speaker 10 (16:22):
We thank you both for having me and appreciate the
coverage that you have been giving it when others just
chose to ignore it and not give any reporting on
what we've been uncovering that you guys have been great.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Well.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
The reporting kind of reflects what you experienced on Capitol Hill,
because I know there were plenty of people who were
not too interested in getting to the bottom of this,
and frankly, under Chris Ray, I might have been worried
that there would not have been ernest effort directed towards
this investigation. But it's going to be a new day
at the FBI, presumably Director cash Patel. How soon can
this ball get rolling and what do you expect to
(16:57):
come from this. Are you going to have a meeting
with the FBI where you kind of walk them through
some of your findings to kind of launch the whole
thing over there.
Speaker 10 (17:05):
Well, that's what I think should happen, But we do
have a little bit of a time crunch on this end.
Is you know, what's going to happen in the new Congress,
and that's why I've been trying to meet with a
speaker to emphasize to him the importance that we do
need to continue on this investigation, especially now with a
new administration who could get deep into some of the
documents that we haven't been able to obtain. There's documents
(17:28):
at Homeland Security we know exist and we've seen some
of them, but we can't get them. There's other information
that's within the FBI we've requested, but they will not.
Speaker 11 (17:37):
Provide to us.
Speaker 10 (17:39):
So I think it's even more important that we continue
on this investigation, maybe as a select committee, which I
think would be very appropriate for this, that we can
work within the new administration, especially in light of the
revelation that just happened in the last week with the
Department of Justice Inspector General reporting that there were confidential
(17:59):
human resource is with on Capitol grounds and even inside
the Capitol and what I'm most interested in there now,
these are basically their informants that are embedded within.
Speaker 11 (18:11):
The extremist groups.
Speaker 10 (18:12):
As you know, they're they're there to send intelligence to
the FBI about what's going to happen. Is you know
what they're planning, and some of these were supposedly pretty
high level in these extremists organizations. So the question I
have is to the FBI, what did you know intelligence
wise and when did you know it? And what did
(18:32):
you do with that intelligence prior to January sixth? If
they had that many resources there embedded and who were
here on the Capitol grounds, somebody had to know more
details than what we've been told that they knew was
what was going to happen.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Yeah, such an important question, and you told us first.
So you told us a few months ago that there
were there were a large number of informants in Your
rights are really remarkable. I want to turn back to
Liz Cheney because I think most people assume a right
Republicans are Democrats, diseagree in Congress, but they're going to
give us the facts at least, But it looks like
from the evidence you laid out in his report that
Liz Cheney tried to hide the facts, maybe mislead the
(19:07):
American people, hijack a witness, and you laid out evidence
for the FBI to go follow. Tell us why you're
concerned so much about her behavior.
Speaker 10 (19:16):
Well, for one thing is it was clear from early
on in our investigation that there was a predetermined narrative
that this was all Donald Trump's doing. Now, I came
into this from an unbiased perspective, and I even told
Kevin McCarthy, I don't want political influence. I want to
get to the truth, and whatever the truth is, we
will make it known to the American people, whether it
(19:36):
helped Donald Trump or whether the Select Committee was telling
the truth. I just wanted to get it out there.
But the further we got into this, the more we
realized they had already determined what their report was going
to say, they just needed to backfill it with information.
Then we started finding out we didn't have all the information,
and what was missing was the information that didn't corroborate
(19:59):
their story, especially those around their key witness. The concern
I have with Liz Cheney is that she basically became
the de facto chairman of the committee. She was in charge,
she was calling the shots, and she was communicating behind
the scenes with Cassidy Hutchinson during that period of which
she started changing her testimony. You know, John, you have
(20:21):
covered many times that fourteen page rata sheet where she
corrected her first two transcribed interviews. It was that time
period that she started communicating with Liz Cheney, and even
in her books she starts talking about that. So the
question is did Liz Cheney convince her to start changing
(20:42):
her story, because all of a sudden, she in her
third transcribed interview, she starts as she said is Cassidy
had said in her book, she started laying breadcrumbs, which
some believed that was actually a setup for her attorney,
Stefan Pasatino, because they needed a scar ape goat of
why she's changing her testimony, so they accused him of
(21:04):
telling her to lie, which he's been totally exonerated of
by it at this point.
Speaker 7 (21:09):
And so it's just.
Speaker 10 (21:11):
Interesting that that communication started and then she starts changing
her testimony, and then when she comes out with these
elaborate stories, there is no corroboration, there's no attempt to
figure out whether she's said in the truth or not.
They parade her in front of the American people and
she becomes the star witness of the entire committee. It's
just interesting that someone like her all of a sudden
(21:32):
changes her story that significantly, and the only thing that
happened in between was she was communicating unethically with Liz
Cheney without her attorney knowing it. And that's why we
think that the Department of Justice needs to look into
this because that could be witness stampering.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Absolutely, And I will remind our audience that within that
fifteen page Errodi, these were not just little five minute
changes to timestamps. These were specific, substantive changes. Sah, I
want to ask you, hypothetically speaking, this goes over to
the FBI, they investigate, they solidify the fact that there
was some type of witness tampering, possibly subornation of perjury.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
Is it then handled the same way?
Speaker 2 (22:14):
What's the difference in handling because.
Speaker 3 (22:16):
This happened within the walls of Congress.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
As opposed to being say, in our federal court system.
Speaker 3 (22:22):
Is there any difference in the treatment?
Speaker 10 (22:24):
Well, there could be if the Department of Justice determines
that she was acting with under the Speech and debate
claus But still there are limitations of what you can do.
We cannot violate the law and still have protections of
speech and debate claws. That is the one line of demarcation.
We lose that protection as soon as we violate law.
(22:46):
So if she violated law by doing witness tampering, or
she basically told Cassidy Hutchinson to lie, then she is
She's committed some born in perjury. So there's somewhere somebody lied, right,
is it? Cassidy Hutchinson in her first few interviews, was
at Cassidy Hutchinson in her last several interviews, And why
(23:08):
does she change her story? Is the only thing that
is consistent is that her communication with started off through
Elissa Fara was channeling for her to Liz Cheney, and
then at one point they started communicating directly, and Liz
Cheney even recognized because in the text stream and these
(23:28):
texts came from Cassidy Hutchinson, she provided those as a
result or her attorneys did as a result of letters
of inquiry that we have been sending them.
Speaker 7 (23:37):
And so in that text stream which has been.
Speaker 10 (23:41):
Made public, Liz expresses concern over having the direct communications
with Cassidy because she's represented by counsel, but she continues
to do it. And then, according to Cassidy Hutchinson's book,
Liz Janey convinced her to fire her existing attorney, Stefan Pasentino,
(24:01):
and then Liz found her another attorney pro bono, which, again,
that does not seem like that it is ethical in
the least that your prosecutor, per se is helping find
your defense witness their own attorney. Okay, So I think
that any legal scholar would have significant problems with the
(24:24):
whole way this thing went down.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, the report is so factually rich to a lot
of very specific information that is documented really Well, there's
a point in the report where you say you believe
that Cassie Hutchinson lied about the authorship of a handwritten memo,
and I think expected that maybe she would be brought
before the committee before the end of the year. Did
anyone leadership did Were you prevented from bringing Cassie Uttererson back,
(24:48):
because it seems like that's a very important part of
this investigation.
Speaker 10 (24:52):
Well, we were encouraged to be very careful with who
we brought in and we got to a certain point
where I didn't think that we needed to bring her
in directly because they were very cooperative with providing us information.
And so I think it was several internal decisions as
if we can conduct this without bringing her before a
(25:14):
committee for a public hearing, it would be best to
work off that information, and it was around that time
that she provided us with all these text messages. But yeah,
there is more of this investigation that needs to take place,
and there's probably more conversations that need to happen with Cassidy,
(25:34):
especially at this point, to directly ask her, why did
you change your testimony and what was it that you
and lis Cheney were talking about?
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Very important stuff.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
Sir Chairman.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
I know for you it probably feels like much of
this process has been swimming through peanut butter. But the
fruits of your efforts are starting to come out as
they have been, and we appreciate so much what you
have done for the American people, and we look forward
to more of this in the next year.
Speaker 10 (26:00):
Thank you both, and again thank you for you exposing
the light of transparency on this whole situation.
Speaker 7 (26:06):
Thank you so well.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
We couldn't do it if it weren't for you, So
thank you, sir, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
All right, everybody coming up after the break, more about
those drones.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
We're still talking about the.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
Drones over in New Jersey and we still don't have
many answers that we're going to talk about that after
the break.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Hey, America, Donald Trump has done it again, and with
his presidential victory in a red wave sweeping the House
and Senate, Conservatives are back in the driver's seat. But
as the fight to restore America begins, now is not
the time to get in placement. That's a good piece
of advice. You have the chance to be part of
this movement, not just as a voter, but as a
member of a powerful organization that takes its margin orders
(26:45):
directly from you. AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens.
I'm a card carring member. AMAC is the conservatives alternative
to the ARP. We stand for faith, family, and freedom,
and we're fighting for the values that make America great.
Join AMAC today for only one dollar for your first year.
What a great deal. That's right, you heard me, one dollar.
But don't wait, as special offer ends on December thirty first.
(27:06):
Donald Trump is building his team and you can be
part of it. Join AMAC today and help us continue
the fight for a brighter for your future. Visit AMAC
dot us slash just News now to claim your one
dollar membership and make your voice heard. That's AMACAMAC dot
us slash just News. Together we can keep the momentum going.
(27:34):
Welcome back to America. If you felt like you've heard
a lot of different stories and sometimes contradictory stories when
it comes to those drones over New Jersey, you're correct.
There have been all over the map when it comes
to the Biden administration of the United States government. Our
next guest has been trying to pin down the truth.
He is a New Jersey assemblyman former mayor of Chester
Township Michael and Gotamorton. Sarah, good to have you on.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Thank you very much, John, appreciate it all right.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
I know you've worked really hard to try to get
some semblance of truth out of the government. Tell us
where we stand in that search for truth and what
frustrations you might have.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Well, I appreciate it.
Speaker 12 (28:07):
I mean you got to keep in mind we are
in week four and we're basically in week five now
on this situation in northwest New Jersey, which is where
this whole thing originated. We've been looking out our windows,
you know, walking outside, looking up in the air, at
anywhere from one to two up to a dozen drones
circling our homes, our neighborhoods, our communities. I remember getting
the first call from a mayor in the district that
(28:28):
I represent on November eighteenth, and for those first three
or four weeks, it was radio silence, radio silence. In
the past week or so, there's been some at least
communication from the federal government, but as you alluded to
in the opening, it's been total mixed messages. We hear
different things on different days at different hours from the administration.
(28:50):
John Kirby yesterday said, now, these are mostly planes, you know,
don't worry about it. Majorcus has basically said the same thing.
These are primarily planes and hobby drones, and it's not.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
Something we should worry about.
Speaker 12 (29:03):
My question for these guys is what number of unidentifiable
drones above my house is acceptable?
Speaker 4 (29:10):
At what point may I worry?
Speaker 12 (29:12):
Secretary mayorcis I understand there's planes out there, and there
are plenty of drone enthusiasts flying their own drones around.
I understand that. I appreciate that, and it's possible not
every dot in the sky we see is in fact
a drone, But we do have confirmation from military bases
here in New Jersey that there are indeed drones, unidentifiable drones,
(29:32):
zipping around our neighborhoods.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
And my question for the administration is, if.
Speaker 12 (29:36):
We don't know who they are, what they are, where
there came from, and what they're doing here, how many
is acceptable?
Speaker 4 (29:41):
And at what number can I start worrying?
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Yeah, that's a very valid question, Michael. Is there a
chance because I remember the first time that someone pointed
out water towers on the top tops of buildings in
New York City. Once I saw one, I saw them everywhere.
They were on the top every roof, and sometimes multiples.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
Is there a.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Chance that maybe people haven't really been looking up a
lot at night and now because this is a part
of the news cycle, that people are seeing them everywhere.
Is there any chance that these are just hobby drones?
I know that typically they're flying a little lower than
they should be, but is there any chance that there
is this innocent explanation.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Well, it's a fair question, Amanda. I appreciate you asking it.
Speaker 12 (30:23):
Yes, as I said, not every light blinking in the
sky is in fact an unidentified drone. Yes, we know
there are airplanes flying through the sky. Yes we know
many hobbyists have started flying their own drones in an
attempt to get a closer look at the unidentifiable drones.
So again we're being measured and reasonable here. But at
(30:44):
the same time, we do have confirmation. You don't just
have to take my word for it. We have confirmation
from Picatinny Arsenal here in northwest New Jersey that there
are numerous unidentifiable drones flying in our airspace. And you know,
we can quibble about the exact number, but I reiterate
my question, at what point may we start to worry
(31:06):
President Biden, Secretary Mariorchist John Kirby.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
They need to.
Speaker 12 (31:10):
I think one unidentifiable drone flying over a military base
in the United States of America is one too many.
And if they are not in fact in operation of
the US military, as the Pentagon said this morning, and
if we take them at their word, then it is
time to safely and securely take these drones out of
the sky.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
So a lot of people will say, I know, when
you fly a big plane, there's a flight plan, and
you know what the space you're crossing through with drones
this size? Are there any flight plans? Is that part
of the problem that you can't track these because there
are no flight plans for these large flying objects?
Speaker 4 (31:46):
You know, great question for the administration.
Speaker 12 (31:48):
I wish you luck getting an honest answer out of them. Yeah,
good luck, John. So my amateur, I I can't tell
I see them going left, right, up, down.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
And everywhere in between. Occasionally we've actually.
Speaker 12 (32:01):
Seen these drones form a line where six, seven or
eight of them form a line above us. That seems
to be coordinated if you ask me. And it's what
makes us operate under the assumption that these drones are
part of a coordinated effort in some way. So again
we're operating in darkness here. We are not getting any
(32:23):
answers from the administration. They tell us everything that these
drones are not. They have never told us what these
drones are. And if they can answer that question, or
if they're not willing to answer that question what these
drones are, I believe they are overdue to take action,
whether that is the military, the New Jersey Air National Guard,
which of course is part of the military, or maybe
(32:44):
even the New Jersey State Police authorizing them to take
down a few of these drones.
Speaker 4 (32:49):
Let's start with that.
Speaker 12 (32:50):
Let's take down a few of these drones in a
safe and secured and controlled way to look at them
up close and see them up close and do our
best to identify.
Speaker 4 (32:59):
The darn thing.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Yeah, it's got a good idea, Michael.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
I know that New Jersey is not the number one
state for gun owners.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
So if there are plenty of.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Gun owners in New Jersey, is there a concern for
you that at some point sometime down the road, probably
soon down the road, that there are going to be
some enterprising New Jerseys who decide that they want to
save New Jersey on their own.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
I've wondered that myself.
Speaker 12 (33:20):
You know, what you say about New Jersey on the whole,
I suppose is true. But the district I represent in
northwest New Jersey absolutely is a two A district.
Speaker 4 (33:29):
And I'm proud to be a legislator.
Speaker 12 (33:31):
Who has been fighting for the Second Amendment and legal
gun owners in New Jersey down in the State House
in Trenton. So I do wonder to myself sometimes why
a resident hasn't tried to take out one of these
drones on their own, and I'm not suggesting that they do,
because at the end of the day, this is the
job of our federal government to handle these unidentified objects
in the sky. That is their job, not residents. I
(33:55):
think part of the reason, though, Amanda, to ask your
answer your question a little more specifically, are pretty high
up in the sky, so I think it might be
difficult for your average gun owning resident, New Jersey resident
to try to take them out on their own. Again,
I'm not suggesting they do, and I wouldn't condone them
if they did. So we really need federal engagement here,
(34:15):
federal leadership and some involvement.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
So we'll stay for the record.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
A few weeks ago, a Southwest plane got hit by
a bullet.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Yeah, that's right, you know.
Speaker 12 (34:26):
Then, not suggesting that that sounds like a dangerous situation,
but this is where we need our federal government to
step in and provide that leadership so real quickly.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
In the last twenty four hours, there's been an addition
to the list of possible explanations. Law enforcement is a
possible secret service. Some of these other federal agencies are
doing some law enforcement work in teching out technology that
seemed to be an addition to the list in the
last twenty four to forty hours.
Speaker 12 (34:52):
I think you're right, John, that has been added to
the list. Again, we don't know. These are theories, these
are assumptions. These are our own, you know, attempts at
speculating at what it is that's going on up there.
And if it is what you described, some type of
operation by the Secret Service, I think if the federal
government and the Secret Service in particular had just come
clean from the start and say we are going to
(35:14):
engage in a military exercise and we are doing so
for this general reason, I think most New Jerseyans would
give the Secret Service a good amount of deference to
execute on that mission. But because they haven't done so,
it's either a really bad attempt at pr where they
truly don't know what's going on. And if it's the latter,
you got to start taking the drones down. It's one
(35:36):
or the other. This is a binary choice, come clean
or take them down.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
That's a great point. One thing. I know, the good
people in New Jersey in your district know you really
have been fighting for the truth. You've just been going
out and I think they're greatly appreciated that you're looking
out for them, and we're going to get you back
on as we get more about this. Good to have
you on a sembleman. Thanks for joining us today.
Speaker 4 (35:55):
We're not stopping it. I appreciate it. Thank you very much,
John and Amanda.
Speaker 1 (35:58):
Pretty awesome to have you on. Thank you sir. All Right, folks,
we're going to take quick commercial break. We've got a
big question asking the next segment, how can we fix
the FBI? A lot of big discussions on that. Joining
us former FBI Executive Director Chris piot I hope you
here to join us in just a second.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
Welcome back everybody to justin News and Noise.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
President Trump has been quite explicit about his goals when
he returns to the White House on January twentieth, and
one of them will be reforming a lot of the
current government and that starts primarily with the DOJ and
the FBI.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
But how can they do it? With us to.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Discuss that retired FBI executive director and author of the
book wanted the FBI I once knew Chris.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
I ho to Chris.
Speaker 13 (36:46):
Great to see you again, pleasure man, and thank you
and appreciate some time to share some ideas with you
and your audience.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Exciting, absolutely, and I want to start with some of
your great ideas. You and I have had conversations about
what a new, reformed FBI could look like when it
comes to the pushback against a prospective director like Cash Battel,
who has talked about going in and cleaning up and
basically being a custodian type director who cleans.
Speaker 3 (37:12):
Out all the gunk. What are they so afraid of?
Speaker 2 (37:14):
What's the worst that could happen if you go and
try to reform and clean it out.
Speaker 9 (37:19):
I think you have a The FBI is.
Speaker 13 (37:22):
A very monolithic organization, and what I think you're going
to have is a.
Speaker 9 (37:26):
Lot of fear and uncertainty.
Speaker 13 (37:28):
It happened after nine to eleven, and they're looking at
another season of change so to speak now with the
new administration coming in a lot of unknowns.
Speaker 9 (37:37):
And I hate to say it, but I think.
Speaker 13 (37:39):
There's a certain level of organizational ego and hubris that
will provide that inertia. It'll provide that opposing force for
someone to come in and look at some foundational changes
for the organization.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
Yeah, so you wrote a very important book, one of
my favorite books, The last couple of years wanted the
FBI I once knew, and I think this title summarizes
with so many fields and light. Agents tell me every
time I meet them in the field, they want to
get back to the FBI that SolV crimes, had good ethics,
didn't do politics, just did crime. How wide does that
(38:15):
sentiment right now and how helpful could that be for
the rank and file to rally behind a guy like
Caspartel to get the bureau back to that mission.
Speaker 13 (38:23):
What we're looking at is people want to go back
to the Bureau of old when it comes to the values,
the beliefs, the culture, the leadership environment, the operational practices
that made the bureau legendary, and we've drifted away from
those over the years. And the Bureau after nine to
eleven was ill use the term corporate tize.
Speaker 9 (38:44):
We had some consultants come.
Speaker 13 (38:47):
In after nine to eleven at the direction of the
national leadership, and the FBI started trying to run itself
as if it was a Silicon Valley software company or
a bank, And at its soul, the FBI is neither
of those types of organizations. It is a mission organization,
is a protective function, and it is a national security
(39:12):
function that keeps us safe and it also combats crime problems.
So the FBI is a complex operating environment. People want
to get back to. Let's get some cases in, Let's
get some work done. Let's protect the American people and
not be so interested in some of the social distractions
and some of the other political matters that have kind
(39:33):
of taken route.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Chris.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
Last night on our show, we had former FBI agent
now whistleblower garretto Boyle, and he talked about how many
of the former agents who he has spoken to are
actually excited about having some new leaderships and fresh blood
on the seventh floor of the FBI building. Your thoughts
on what type of reform, what is the percentage of
change that can happen at that organization?
Speaker 3 (39:58):
Just by doing a tetris wiping out of the.
Speaker 13 (40:00):
Seventh floor, you're looking at probably at least a sixty
to seventy percent solution. I mean, the leadership that has
taken hold over the past several years has allowed the
FBI to drift off course and it gives us the
unfavorable FBI conditions that we have right now. I've seen
(40:21):
mister O'Boyle speak and talk about his situation and what
they did to him according to his reporting up on
the Hill, and what I saw there was that is
an organizational culture that is toxic and petty and arrogant,
and that's not how you treat your own people. And
if I think, if we treat our own people like
(40:42):
they treated mister Boyle, then how do we expect the
American public to ask us to come to help them.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
That's a great point where Lee Well said in the book,
and I think in what you just said, they're one
of the when the corporatization of the FBI current under
Bob Miller, one of the other things that seems to
happen is that the seventh floor, or headquarters, started to
pull a lot of the cases out of the field.
They're metal in the cases, and when the FBI's best,
they leave the cases in the field and the agents
who are closest to the crime do the best work.
(41:11):
Why was that that temptation to meddle so often in
cases from headquarters when it didn't happen for much of
the FBI's history.
Speaker 13 (41:19):
Well after the spectacular event on nine to eleven, we
were seeing as having failed, and headquarters sought to maintain
centralized control over the counter terrorism programs and the counter
intelligence programs and all the national security work. That was
a post nine to eleven consequence, and it also showed
(41:39):
that there was a lowered sense of confidence in the
FBI leadership out in the field to protect the American people. Now,
I understand that in that crisis mode we went to
a more centralized management structure, but they really never released
it back out to the field for the national security work.
(42:00):
And I think it's time for us to take a
look at that. And if we don't have the right
people in the field to run those programs, then we
have to get the right people to run those programs.
We can't just manage the amount of headquarters because you'll
see the I guess you can say the extreme consequence
of doing that is the crossfire hurricane investigation.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
Chris, Before we let you go, there's kind of a
solution baked into the suggestion that you move agencies outside
of Washington.
Speaker 3 (42:30):
Does the director have to be in Washington?
Speaker 2 (42:32):
I mean, is there a scenario where the director is
someone who rotates to field offices across the country and
is not necessarily centralized in spending most of his time
in the swamp.
Speaker 13 (42:44):
The director is at the I hate to say beck
and call of the Chief Executive. He has to be
available for briefings, and he has to be available for
consultation not only with the White House, but with the
Attorney General. So there's a lot of collapse that happens
between the FBI director, other members of the Department of Justice,
as well as the intelligence community.
Speaker 9 (43:06):
If he is not located in the DC.
Speaker 13 (43:08):
Proper area, it'll create delays and latency in him being
able to plan and execute certain objectives with his partners.
And also, I think that moving the FBI out of
DC could have its own challenges. If you have a
defective culture at the FBI now and you move them
(43:31):
to Oklahoma, now you're taking a defective culture in an organization,
and you're taking them away from the potential oversight from
the Hill and Department of Justice and other people who
would be able to look at the FBI and put
those parameters and guidelines in for them. And I don't
think moving a defective culture out of DC is a solution.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Good point, and considering the reputation of the agency right now,
I'm not sure Oplham would take him. I feel like
this is a hot potato and nobody really, nobody really
wants it. So I guess DC it is Chris i Hoed,
a retired FBI executive director and author of the great.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
Book Everybody go check it out. It's called Wanted the FBI.
I once new Chris.
Speaker 2 (44:12):
Thanks so much for joining us tonight and coming up, everybody,
what should President Trump's policies be with respect to AI.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
We're going to talk about that after this break.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
Welcome back everybody to just the news, no noise. It's
our final block, so let's get added. One thing that
the Trump administration is sure to focus on is artificial intelligence.
So what kind of policy should President Trump be focused
on and ultimately implement.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Joining us now to talk about that.
Speaker 2 (44:47):
AI expert and business founder and CEO Paul Powers.
Speaker 3 (44:50):
Paul, thanks so much for being here.
Speaker 11 (44:52):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (44:54):
You know, twenty twenty four, I think that that was
the first time that AI was a mainstream converse within
the context of an elect In twenty twenty I think
some people on the fringes of tech society knew about it,
but for lay people like me, I don't even know
technically what it meant. When it came to computing for
this administration, what guardrails do you think need to be
in place.
Speaker 14 (45:16):
I think that we need to not put up too
many guardrails. The biggest concern that I have with when
it comes to AI is an AI itself, is our
adversaries beating us in the race. We're really in the
equivalent of a nuclear arms race right now.
Speaker 11 (45:30):
But unlike the nuclear arms race.
Speaker 14 (45:31):
Where you have a certain level of technology you can
reach and then it kind of plateaus, AI doesn't plateau.
AI continues to grow at an exponential rate. So it's
not a race that you can afford to lose or
fall behind in any way if it works in factors
of exponentials, right, So being behind six months or a year,
you might.
Speaker 11 (45:51):
As well be in a different decade.
Speaker 14 (45:53):
And that's why it's critical for America to lead continue
to lead the AI race, and the only way to
do that is by not putting into many guardrails. I
the most important thing is to invest into the into AI.
And I was really excited to see the announcement with
SoftBank that President Electnald Trump announced along the SAFT bit
(46:14):
at Banks leadership earlier this week, because it means that
we're doing exactly what we should be doing, and that's
investing in AI to make sure that we continue.
Speaker 7 (46:21):
To lead that race.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
Yeah, big moment. And also Japan and the Pacific RIM
siding with the United States over China, which is the
main competitor for the AI race, really significant. There is
another part of investment that is going to need to occur.
The AI machinery uses so much electricity and power, and
our grid is not very reliable right now, and all
(46:42):
of the investments in intermittent energy have left us falling behind.
How important is it to get our energy system, the
grid in more power load in place quickly.
Speaker 11 (46:53):
It's very important.
Speaker 14 (46:54):
AI requires a lot of GPUs. Well, that means is
basically just think electric city hungry computing. And that's why
you're starting to see a lot of companies, especially larger
tech companies, actually investing pretty heavily in nuclear energy. And
they're doing that not in the form of traditional nuclear
energy where it's part of a really large grid, but
(47:14):
actually small modular systems. And I think that that's going
to play an increasingly large role in the near future
as well.
Speaker 11 (47:21):
So you'll start to see lots.
Speaker 14 (47:22):
Of smaller nuclear power plants, and they'll be instead of
maybe you're running power for entire city, they might just
be running power for a factory or even a building. Right,
you can imagine a future world where was its modular
enough and safe enough, potentially even runs I don't want
to say vehicles just yet, but much smaller bits of infrastructure, right,
(47:44):
like individual buildings. Perhaps, I think that's really the current
trend when it comes to energy prey on pretty exciting, paul.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
AI is kind of in the Model T phase of development.
It is still so early, even though it is technologically
so unbelievably advanced to many of us. I'll be honest,
it scares me a whole lot because I see down
the road what it can do. But what are some
of the exciting things that it can do that we
should all actually.
Speaker 3 (48:11):
Look forward to.
Speaker 14 (48:13):
Well, let me speak to the concern first, right, So
a lot of people say, hey, AI scares me, and yeah,
change is scary. AI is changing the world much faster
than anything we've ever seen in our lifetimes. I mean
when the Internet boom happened, right, I mean, I'm old
enough to remember when we got internet for the first time,
and I remember thinking like, wow, this is going to
change everything. But I had years to process that and
get used to it, whereas with AI, I mean, if
(48:35):
you don't know what chat GPT is, you're already behind,
and you're going to be really far behind in a
few months, let alone a few years. So it's moving
much faster than anything we've seen in our lifetimes. But
the way that you combat that isn't by saying, well,
let's just pause AI or let's slow down AI, because
no one's going to slow down except for maybe a
local government or maybe a national government.
Speaker 11 (48:56):
AI is going to continue to work really quickly.
Speaker 14 (48:57):
And much rather that the US is leading that charge
than China and you know, or other authoritarian governments or
adversaries at the US. So I wouldn't worry about AI
so much as I would look at it as actually
a very very powerful tool that enhances what you do.
A lot of people worry that it's going to take
their jobs. But they said the same thing about the Internet.
(49:19):
They said the same thing actually about if you look
back really far in history, the printing press books, He's
going to be written out by hand, right, I mean,
so it doesn't replace jobs, it changes the nature of jobs,
and what it does is it removes the mundane, repetitive
things that people have to do.
Speaker 11 (49:35):
Yeah, and it also.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
When you look at the course of history, people said
devastating things about a mirror and romance novels. They thought
that was going to be the end of society. Paul,
thank you so much for being here. We're going to
have to have you back on again very soon to
talk about this because I still I'm very scared about it.
But I'm going to have to find some twenty year
old to help me downloadchat GPT so I can finally
get up with it and figure it out.
Speaker 3 (49:54):
All right, everybody, that's all we have. Grit Centerville is
at next We'll see tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.