In this episode, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer discusses ongoing Republican-led investigations into Joe Biden’s mental fitness and the legitimacy of executive actions taken during his administration. Comer criticizes the partisan atmosphere in Congress, accuses Democrats of prioritizing opposition to Trump over substantive policy, and raises concerns about the use of autopen signatures on executive orders and pardons. He also highlights media bias in protecting Biden and expresses skepticism about Democratic cooperation in oversight efforts. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:01):
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we try
to uncover the truth for you. Today, we've got a
special guest, someone who knows a thing or two about
uncovering the truth. He does it for a Living House
Oversight Chairman James Comer. He's going to join us to
unpack his relentless investigation into Joe Biden's mental fitness. We're
also going to talk to him about the explosive dynamics
(00:23):
of Jasmine Crockett being on his committee.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
What's that like.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
We're also going to talk about his pursuit, his continued
pursuit of the autopin of Joe Biden and trying to
get answers from at least sixteen former Biden White House
officials who was running the country. And lastly, what does
he think about the Justice Department telling us that Jeffrey
Epstein did not kill himself and that there is no
(00:48):
client list. Did that news surprise him as much as
it surprised a lot of conservatives surprised a lot of
you listening. So stay tuned for the Unfiltered Truth with
the guy who uncovered the Truth for a Living Chairman
James Comer. Well Chairman comer. I appreciate you making the time.
(01:10):
You're you're a busy man right now. You've got a
few things going on, so we appreciate you making the
time my pleasure.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
So before we.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Get into the substance of the Biden investigation, what is
it like having Jasmine Crockett on the committee?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Well, you know, it's been quite the journey with Jasmine Crockett.
She she got on my committee, the overs that Committee,
when she first came here four years ago, and she
walked in and she wore a suit, and she was
professional and she you know, talked like a professional trial attorney,
and I was honestly really impressed. And over the four years,
(01:47):
her whole behavior has changed and she's you know, her
her dialect has changed, and you know, she's really kind
of regressed as a professional member of Congress. That's I
guess I could say it without getting in trouble, but yeah,
she's really changed a lot in the last four years.
(02:08):
So it's it's been an interesting journey to watch her
demise in the US House.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Interesting do you think that's just you know, she got
a little bit taste of the attention, and so she's
kind of like putting it on for the cameras or white.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
White she's you know, unfortunately, there are a lot of
members of Congress who are more interested in UH theatrics
and UH performing as opposed to governing and representing their districts.
And I think that's what she is. She's a she's
an actress, and she wants to get on MSNBC. And
the only way she can do it is by you know,
(02:45):
showing out. She can't do it by you know, proposing
anything of substance or being of any type of value
to the committee. She can only get on the MSNBC
if she's yelling at Marjorie Taylor Green or me.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Although she was unting for the ranking to be ranking
member on the Overstate Committee, but Representative Robert Garcia got
it instead. What you tell us about him kind of
what do you expect those dynamics to look like?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
And oversain it moving forward?
Speaker 3 (03:14):
I mean, you know, I look, anybody's better than Jamie
you're askin. That's what I tell everybody. But I don't
know how Garcia will be. I don't think he has
any interest in oversight. I don't think he has any
interest in trying to fulfill our duties. As going after waste, fraud, abuse,
and mismanagement in the government. He knows the government is
(03:37):
comprised of mostly Democrats. He wants to protect him. He
has one objective and that's to hurt the Trump agenda,
hurt the president, go after the president, harass the president.
And that's what he wants to do. And unfortunately, I
don't think he'll be of much use. But I hope
I'm wrong. I hope I'm proven wrong. There are good
(03:58):
Democrats on that commit that I think would would be
good partners and and you know, they could represent their
left wing values and maybe their liberal districts, but also
try to govern and get the backs of the taxpayers.
I mean, it shouldn't it should be bipartisan to save
taxpayer dollars. That should be by partisan to go after
waste front of use. And there are some good Democrats
(04:19):
on the committee. Kwame Infumey from Maryland comes to mind.
He's a good member. You know, there are days when
Rocanna is a decent member and rash Christa Morte is
a decent member. But you know, when you look at
the the troublemakers and instigators on the Democrat side, you've
got Jasmine Crockhead and Garcia and Stansbury from New Mexico.
(04:42):
They don't really want to want to work with Republicans
at all. They just want to attack and fight and
be divisive. So it's it's unfortunate.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Have you been surprised by sort of the resistance, because obviously,
you know, one of the big themes of the Trump
administration and one thing that he's really been focused on
on is you know, trying to reduce some of that corruption,
trying to reduce uh, you know, spending too much, trying
to sort of rein in you know, the government, and
obviously it's all been met with just a ton of
(05:12):
resistance from the left. Have you been surprised by that
at all? Or is that just kind of like what
you've gotten used to on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Unfortunately, it's what I've gotten used to. I've been in
Congress for nine years, and they it just gets worse
every year. The Democrats get more partisan. They're obsessed with
Donald Trump. I mean, uh, Trump derangement syndrome is real, Okay,
it is. It is real as any virus that that's
ever spread across America. And they're they're stage four on
(05:43):
the Oversight Committee you know they have TDS at stage four.
It's uh, that's all they think about is how they
can come after Trump. And if if a disaster happens
in the midterm elections and the Democrats free gain control
of the House, the first thing they will do is
try to impeach Donald Trump. I mean, and they won't.
(06:05):
I mean, they could impeach him in the House. The
Senate's never gonna convict because, you know, impeachment. The Democrats
saturated impeachment, ruined impeachment, and there will probably never be
anyone impeach now because of how how they abused that
part of the system that was there for tricks and balance.
But the bottom line is all the Democrat base wants
(06:27):
to see is Democrats go after Trump. It's I don't
see much concern out there from Democrats that show up
at at events the protests. May they're not protesting because
I'm not doing enough to save taxpayer dollars or I'm
not doing enough to grow the economy, or I'm not
doing enough to reduce crime. They're always complaining I'm not
(06:47):
doing enough to investigate Donald Trump. I mean, it's all
about Trump, and I think that's what the Democrats, not
just on the House Oversight Committee with the Democrats and
the whole US House of Representams. That's what they represent.
A base that just wants to to see the Trump
agenda stopped and Donald Trump destroyed. That's all they want.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I'm trying to think throughout history, like if there's been
a time where an entire party, sole identity is just
hating one person.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
You know, I can't think of one, and I'm a
student of political history, but I will tell you that
is their agenda. What you know, you guys, what Republicans
are fighting for. We're trying to reduce spending. That's what
part of the Big Beautiful Bill was. We're trying to
grow the economy. We reduce taxes, you know, that's we
(07:39):
secured the border. We want to deport the criminal illegals.
We want to put people in jail who commit crimes
and keep them in jail for for public safety. That's
the Republican agenda. What is the Democrat agenda? Open borders,
you know, an economy built on government subsidies and safety net,
(08:03):
and destroy the Trump agenda. I mean that whatever Trump's for,
the Democrator gets. Whatever Trump's gets, the Democrats are for.
It's all about Donald Trump. Donald Trump is all the
Democrats focus on in Congress. Just how can they do
something to stop Trump or hurt Trump or bass Trump
or antagonize Trump.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah, no, it's it's uh, it's you know, like when
Trump says I could cure cancer and they would find
a reason to be against it or really do think
that's actually true? Sadly, I wanted to dig into because
obviously one big thing you guys are focused on right
now is taking a look at Joe Biden and his
mental acuity and just very avide various avenues related to that.
(08:48):
So kind of just break it down for the audience,
you know, what are you trying to get to the
bottom of and sort of what are the different avenues
that you're exploring.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Well, we've brought the first doctor in the head doctor
of the White House position, and we wanted to with
the first question we asked was were you ever told
to lie about Joe Biden's health? That's a simple question,
and he pled the Fifth Amendment. The second question was
did you ever see anything that would lead you to
(09:17):
believe Joe Biden wasn't able to fulfill his duties as president?
Had tates once again he pled the Fifth Amendment. So
the doctor didn't want to self incriminate himself for whatever
reason on some pretty basic questions that shouldn't have been
very hard to answer, considering the doctor always gave report
saying that Joe Biden was in perfect health. The reason
(09:38):
we want to know whether he was mentally fit to
be president was somebody used that autopen an awful lot
for whatever reason, Joe Biden couldn't or wasn't around to
sign his name on a document. And we want to
know is it because they just put him in the
(09:59):
corner he wasn't able, They just went ahead and governed
without him because they knew they could. I mean, we
want to know, did Joe Biden first of all give
the authority to sign his name on all these pardons
and executive orders that were done at the end of
the administration, And secondly, was he able to comprehend what
(10:22):
he was giving the staff the authority to sign. And
some of these are pretty big executive orders deal with
the energy policy, dealing with allowing the criminal illegals to
stay over here, making it even more difficult to fire
workless government employees, and the end government programs. I mean,
all the stuff they did at the end was proof
(10:43):
this administration, and they were all done by executive order
signed by an auto pen at a time when Joe
Biden never had a press conference on the executive order,
he never answered in questions, he didn't even issue statements,
and in many of the days when they used the ottophant,
he was in the White House supposed to. So, you know,
this is an important investigation because I think a lot
(11:04):
of this stuff that was signed with the auto pin
could be declared void in court, and that's a big
deal for the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Well, you know, particularly when you look at, you know,
some of the pardons that were given, whether it's Millie
or Fauci or even his own son Hunter. You know,
he did that interview with the New York Times, Like
what went through your mind when you found out about this?
It's like, I don't know if he just he just
has like terrible political instincts. But you would think at
(11:35):
a time when the Oversight Committee, when you guys are
running this investigation, like why add fuel to any you know, like,
were you like thank you or what were you thinking
when you you sort of read this interview that he
did with the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
And why do you think he gave the interview.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
I think that somebody in his camp said, Okay, this
is getting out of control. We need to let Joe
Biden sit down with a friendly reporter with a friendly publication.
And all Joe had to do is tell them he
knew what was going on. And the course, the New
York Times has defended Biden, and they've attacked me for
(12:14):
having the audacity to investigate Joe Biden. And they asked him,
did you know about every single pardon? Did you authorize
every single party? It's like, well, no, I mean there's
a lot of pardons. I mean I gave you the
staff the authority to go through and sign my name
on those partons. That's illegal. The Constitution does not grant
the president the authority to authorize someone to make a
(12:42):
decision and use his signature on whether or not the
partons one. When you think about this pardon process, the
parting process is like impeachment. It's supposed to be the
last check in balance, a last resort. It's all else fails.
So you've got all these people, many of whom were
were prosecuted. Uh, prosecutors spent years prosecuting these cases. They
(13:05):
spent you know, thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars. Jurys
spent you know, time away from their families to make
decisions to convict people. And then some staffer is given
the authority by Joe Biden apparently who apparently was you know,
according to him, of say on mental state, Say you
(13:26):
you decide on whether or not we need to overrule
all this stuff. You need to decide whether we need
to overrule all these prosecutors and all these juries and
all this stuff. And I'm just gonna sit on the
beach and stare at the at the ocean and the sunset.
I mean that it's it's preposterous. And the interview Joe
Biden gave with the New York Times only gave more
(13:47):
evidence to the fact that I think all of these
pardons and executive orders done in the last especially from
the time Joe Biden was kicked off the ticket by
Obama or whoever, till the end, I think they should
be being void in a court of law.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
We've got to take a quick commercial break. We've got
more with House Oversight Chairman James Comer if you're enjoying
the interview, share with your friends, maybe post on social media.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
We always appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Why do you think reporters are so against you guys
trying to get to the bottom of this? Because I
remember after the disastrous debate between Joe Biden and you
know then, you know, former President Trump at the time,
obviously President Trump now, but the media they were the
ones sort of holding, you know, cream Jean Pierre's feet
(14:38):
to the fire at a press conference, questioning, well, like
why isn't O'Connor available for questions like why won't you
release the details of the the you know, the last
health memo?
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Right?
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Like, they were the ones who were getting after right,
So it's like why why was it okay for them
to ask those questions then, but it's not okay for
you guys to be asking these questions now.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
They were asking the questions at the point when they
saw that the curtain had been removed and the American
people saw Joe Biden at that particular moment wasn't mentally
fit to serve for four more years and he was
not going to win the election, which meant Trump was
going to win the election. That's when the media pivoted.
And that's when whoever's leading the Democrat Party, George Souroch
(15:20):
or Barack Obama I said all right, now, you all
can turn on Joe until he gets out of the race.
And once he gets out of the race. Once he
finally got out of the race, then the media said, oh,
he's going to be remembered as a great statesman. You know,
they tried to create this false narrative that Joe Biden's
a great president, that he realized that he needed to
pass the torch to a female and all, you know,
(15:43):
a minority and all this other stuff, and you know,
the public didn't buy it and everything that just look
at what all the Maintrea media has been proven wrong on.
They've been proven wrong on the Russia Gate. That was
a hope, that is a fact now, but the media
went all in on it. They were proved that the
(16:03):
hunter By laptop was not Russian disinformation, it was really
Hunter by the laptop. They've proven that a lot of
what we said in the beginning about COVID originating from
a lab in Wuhunt was correct, even though they called
us conspiracy theories. A lot of our concerns about virus
about vaccines have been proven to be correct. All the
stuff that they you know, virtual learning, we said was
(16:26):
going to ruin a generation of school children. But they went,
you know, they said, no, we were wrong, and we
were putting kids in danger, even though no kids hardly
anywhere died of COVID. I mean, it was not even
an issue with school as short. You know, the mask
they went all into. Anyone that didn't wear a mask
should be placed in Alligator Alcatraz if it had been
(16:49):
there at that time. So much of what they went
all in on attacking conservatives has been debunked, and I
just think that they're getting sick of being proven wrong
and they just you know, draw a line in the
sand and try to fight and fight and fot. But
it's a Loserve battle board.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
At what point do you think Joe Biden started losing
his marbles? Because I believe it was in the original
sim book. I think I was saying that even in
twenty nineteen, he was forgetting like a staffer that had
been with him since like the nineteen eight I'm like
remembering this off the cuff, but I think it was
like night that had been with him since like the
nineteen eighties, right, so basically a family member he would
(17:26):
like you know, botched his name or whatever. So it's like,
at what point, like because remember in twenty twenty he
ran the basement campaign and everyone said, oh, that was
just because of COVID.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
He's trying to be safe, But like.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Was it COVID or was he already kind of like
starting to lose it and they're trying to cover it up?
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Like at what point do you think he started to
lose it?
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I think that it really escalated the last two years
of his administration. And the shame and the crime and
all this one of the mini crime. But the shame
is that these people wanted him to run for four
more years and they had him. They they blocked anyone
from running. You know what, they could have had Robert F.
(18:06):
Kennedy be their nominee and and that might have been
a different race. You know, maybe Gavin Knew some ran
that might have been a different race. But no, the
Biden insider said, no, we're gonna fix this where Robert
Kennedy can't get on the ballot. We've we've talked Knew
some out of running, and you know, they cleared the
field for Joe Biden, and they knew they knew that
(18:31):
that he wasn't in the possibility of him being able
to be president for four more years was virtually zero. Uh.
You know, there's there's rumors if you go back to
Joe Biden and do an interview when he said he
had cancer, and then the White House came out and said, no,
he miss spoke, spoke. How do you misspeak about cancer?
(18:54):
How do you miss speak and say you have cancer
and you don't. Now, what we've learned about is probably
think cancer. It's very likely. And we were going to
ask that question to the doctor, doctor O'Connor, but he
kept playing the fifth and it was obviously he wasn't
going to answer the question. It's very possible. He had answer,
uh two years into his administration and they lied about it,
(19:15):
which you know, if you lie about cancer, that's that's bad.
But then you seek to run for re election again
in your Joe Biden's age and mental capacity. I mean,
this is a terrible group. It shows me, you know,
in my opinion, you had three or four people calling
the shots and and they I mean, heck, they were
the making executive orders and pardoning people and and you know,
(19:40):
doing whatever who knows what was arms and traded agreements
and everything else, and and lying on Air Force one
and eating fine at the White House, and you know,
no accountability. You know, they didn't have to answer to anyone,
They didn't have to do any press conferences. They they
just you know, poor old Joe out here. If you
if you're buble because they're picking on him, They're gonna
(20:01):
make old people mad. They're picking on old people. I
mean that was kind of the narrative that they would
have the press say. And I just think every one
of these people need to be trided in for deposition,
which we're doing. And if they keep pleading the fifth
I mean, I think that validates everything that I just
said in this interview about Joe Biden wasn't mentally able
(20:24):
to make those decisions, and those staffers did it. They
didn't have the authority to do it.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
So who were those three to four people then? So
who was running the country.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Well, we've got more people coming in and I'm gonna
be careful what I say here, but I mean I
think a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
I mean, you don't have to be but I understand why.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Yeah, yeah, well you could look at who the more
people we're bringing in, who we think are those people
we're starting at the bottom and the ones that we
get to at the end, I think, or at the
top of the pyramid.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
But certainly Ron Klaine, who was the cheapest staff, he
certainly had a lot of influence. And you're going to
say that both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We're making
a lot of big decisions down the stretch. So we'll
see what these other people say in their depositions. The
first interview or two we did was fairly substitive, But
(21:17):
I think now the the media and the Democrat machine
has told everybody to just plead the fifth and hope
this goes away.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
What's interesting too, because I remember Kevin O'Connor, I think
it was in twenty nineightteen, had said that Biden was
being treated for a large prostate and explicitly stated that
it wasn't cancer. But you know, it's you know, who
knows who's telling the truth, at what point and when
he happened to get at So how far are you willing.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
To take this?
Speaker 1 (21:46):
You know, if you got people at Kevin O'Connor who
you know, calm, they plead the fifth refuse to answer questions,
how do you compel more information from them?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
And like how far are you willing to take this?
Speaker 3 (21:57):
We'll go as far as the trail leads. We're going
to Ron Klaine, We're going to go to the hot
the highest level staffers. If they implicate Biden family members,
will will bring them in. If not, then we'll issue
the report. We're going to do all we can and
turn it, turn it over to the Attorney General, and
I think the Attorney General then will have the basis
(22:20):
to do things like perhaps grant immunity and and things
like that if if she sees fit, and hopefully she will,
because look, I don't think some of these executive orders
should should be the rule of the land because they did.
I mean, if the President United Sates cannot while he's
in the White House sign his name on one line,
(22:44):
then then I don't think that should be the case. Now, look,
everybody uses I mean saying this for every member of Congress,
every business person uses an Adobe signature on correspondence, they
use an auto pen on uh little you know, certificates
of achievement and certificates of recognition and things like that.
(23:06):
But anything pertaining to the law. Anything that is legal
you have to sign. If you do a real estate
transaction that's legal, you have to sign. And usually there's
a notary public. When I signed subpoenas, I have to
fly up here and sign one piece of paper and
then go back to Kentucky. You know, we have to
sign legal documents. A pardon is as big a legal
(23:31):
document as I can think, because you're telling the whole
judicial system, no, you're wrong, I'm going to overrule you.
An executive order is a major legal document that's bypassing
Congress and going above Congress. If the President, I think,
isn't able to sign that document. You know, the Obama
used an autopen once on an executive board. He was
(23:53):
in another country. Joe Biden was in the White House
in the White House, and if you do it once
or twice, that's what he need it thousands of times,
especially towards the end of the administration. And I think
it is suspicious. And you do wonder was Joe Biden
the one doing that or was it or was it
(24:13):
a staff acting you know, on their own.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
We've got more at Chairman Comerce. Stay tuned. The Democrats
under Joe.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Biden or the Biden administration rather sent Steve Bannon to
jail Peter Navarrow to jail for refusing to comply with subpoenas.
Do you think that Republicans and the Trump administration are
willing to go that far with some of these people.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
I think so. But you know, these people that we've
subpoenaed are coming in pleading the Fifth and you have
they have the constitutional right to do that. Then you
get into the process of well can you I know
there's some people on conservative networks that they saying, well,
Comber needs to grant them immunity. Well, here's the process
(24:59):
to granham unity. We have to have a committee vote
in the Oversight Committee, and it has to get a
two thirds vote, which means Democrats will have to vote
with Republicans to grant amenity to all these Biden staffers
that are going to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid
self incrimination. I don't think we're going to get many Democrats.
We'll probably try and see, and I hope I'm wrong,
(25:20):
But again, the Democrats aren't interested in exposing any corruption
in the in the Biden administration. But Pam Bondy's got
a whole lot more power than a congressional committee does.
What I tell you, we're going to investigate, We're gonna
We've already gotten a ton of information. I think our
investigations led to the New York Times interview with Joe
(25:42):
Biden where he admitted guilt. I mean that's that is,
he admitted wrongdoing. I mean he's like, why I didn't
see them all? I gave the staff the authority to
do that? That is illegal that there's nowhere in the
law or the constitution that gives the president the authority
to delegate to a staffer. Ah, yeah, you can pardon
(26:03):
whoever you want. I mean that I would go further
and say the Department Justice should look at some of
those staffers that were involved in the party to see
did you have any conflicts of interest here? Were you
related to any of them? But maybe they look at
their bank accounts? Did you have anything pop into your account?
I don't know. I don't know if they did or not,
And I probably don't have the resources or the time
(26:24):
to investigate that, but somebody probably should. I mean, there's
a lot of corruption that could take place if you've
got a president that's incapacitated, and he's got some staffers
running around signing executive orders and pardoning people from prison.
I mean, that's that's a big deal, you know.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
And before we go, you know, the Justice Department put
out a short minemo saying that you know, Jeffrey Epstein
did in fact kill himself and that there there was
no client list. It, you know, surprised a lot of
conservatives who thought otherwise.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Were you surprised by that?
Speaker 1 (26:59):
And are you kind of satisfied with what we've been
told so far or what are your thoughts about?
Speaker 2 (27:05):
You know, this is all that says taken place.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
This is really interesting to me, I'll say, because I
went on I think it was Benny Johnson's show several
months ago, and I said that I didn't think there
was an Epstein list, and Pam Bondi then was interviewed
and she laughed and she said, I, oh, no, no,
(27:28):
he's wrong, Coverer's wrong. Just stay tuned. And then she
did an interview the next day on either Hannity or
Jesse Waters and said she had the Epstein list, it
was on her desk and it was really bad. Well,
now she's come out and said there wasn't a list.
I go back to what I said before this ever
became an issue. I don't think that the last administration
(27:51):
left anything lying around that would incriminate him. Now I'm
not criticizing the Trump administration. I just I've said all alone,
I don't think there's a list. I think I think
there there should be a list, but I wouldn't put
it past the last administration to have destroyed the list.
So so I said this a long time ago, and
(28:13):
BONDI kind of I'm not gonna say she bit my
head off, but she laughed at off what I said,
and and you know, essentially said I wasn't being truthful.
I mean, I pretty much stand by what I said.
We'll see if she stands by what she said. So
I'm not saying she covered anything up. I just always
believed there wasn't a list because I don't trust anyone
(28:33):
in the det So you have to be under the mindset. Okay,
if if the federal government was involved in spine on
Epstein Island and allowing kids to be sex trafficked and
things like that, and to blackmail the most influential people
in the world, and they were doing that, which is
(28:54):
probably illegal. You know that that was. They didn't do
anything about it, and then they're just going to say, oh,
Donald Trump's will be president. Now we'll just lay this,
leave all these tapes in the filing cabinet, leave this
list to the filing cabinet for the treble registration. They're
not going to do that. They're gonna shred and destroy
and do like Hillary did with her phone and computer.
(29:16):
They're gonna get mallets out and be beating the crap
out of it. So that's what I said, and you know,
I felt like BONDI kind of fired on me, and
you know, here we are. So we'll see.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
History will tell interesting it will indeed.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
James Comer, Chairman of the House over sayt Committee, we
appreciate the work you're doing, probably one of the most
important committees on Capitol Hill, so we appreciate you, sir.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
That was Chairman James Comer of the House over Say Committee.
Appreciate him for making the time, Appreciate him coming on
the show. That was so interesting. I hope you enjoyed it.
I know I did every Tuesday and Thursday, but of
course you can listen throughout the week. I also want
to thank my producer John Cassio for working so hard
to put the show together.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Until next time.
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we try
to uncover the truth for you. Today, we've got a
special guest, someone who knows a thing or two about
uncovering the truth. He does it for a Living House
Oversight Chairman James Comer. He's going to join us to
unpack his relentless investigation into Joe Biden's mental fitness. We're
also going to talk to him about the explosive dynamics
(00:23):
of Jasmine Crockett being on his committee.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
What's that like.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
We're also going to talk about his pursuit, his continued
pursuit of the autopin of Joe Biden and trying to
get answers from at least sixteen former Biden White House
officials who was running the country. And lastly, what does
he think about the Justice Department telling us that Jeffrey
Epstein did not kill himself and that there is no
(00:48):
client list. Did that news surprise him as much as
it surprised a lot of conservatives surprised a lot of
you listening. So stay tuned for the Unfiltered Truth with
the guy who uncovered the Truth for a Living Chairman
James Comer. Well Chairman comer. I appreciate you making the time.
(01:10):
You're you're a busy man right now. You've got a
few things going on, so we appreciate you making the
time my pleasure.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
So before we.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Get into the substance of the Biden investigation, what is
it like having Jasmine Crockett on the committee?
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Well, you know, it's been quite the journey with Jasmine Crockett.
She she got on my committee, the overs that Committee,
when she first came here four years ago, and she
walked in and she wore a suit, and she was
professional and she you know, talked like a professional trial attorney,
and I was honestly really impressed. And over the four years,
(01:47):
her whole behavior has changed and she's you know, her
her dialect has changed, and you know, she's really kind
of regressed as a professional member of Congress. That's I
guess I could say it without getting in trouble, but yeah,
she's really changed a lot in the last four years.
(02:08):
So it's it's been an interesting journey to watch her
demise in the US House.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Interesting do you think that's just you know, she got
a little bit taste of the attention, and so she's
kind of like putting it on for the cameras or white.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
White she's you know, unfortunately, there are a lot of
members of Congress who are more interested in UH theatrics
and UH performing as opposed to governing and representing their districts.
And I think that's what she is. She's a she's
an actress, and she wants to get on MSNBC. And
the only way she can do it is by you know,
(02:45):
showing out. She can't do it by you know, proposing
anything of substance or being of any type of value
to the committee. She can only get on the MSNBC
if she's yelling at Marjorie Taylor Green or me.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Although she was unting for the ranking to be ranking
member on the Overstate Committee, but Representative Robert Garcia got
it instead. What you tell us about him kind of
what do you expect those dynamics to look like?
Speaker 2 (03:12):
And oversain it moving forward?
Speaker 3 (03:14):
I mean, you know, I look, anybody's better than Jamie
you're askin. That's what I tell everybody. But I don't
know how Garcia will be. I don't think he has
any interest in oversight. I don't think he has any
interest in trying to fulfill our duties. As going after waste, fraud, abuse,
and mismanagement in the government. He knows the government is
(03:37):
comprised of mostly Democrats. He wants to protect him. He
has one objective and that's to hurt the Trump agenda,
hurt the president, go after the president, harass the president.
And that's what he wants to do. And unfortunately, I
don't think he'll be of much use. But I hope
I'm wrong. I hope I'm proven wrong. There are good
(03:58):
Democrats on that commit that I think would would be
good partners and and you know, they could represent their
left wing values and maybe their liberal districts, but also
try to govern and get the backs of the taxpayers.
I mean, it shouldn't it should be bipartisan to save
taxpayer dollars. That should be by partisan to go after
waste front of use. And there are some good Democrats
(04:19):
on the committee. Kwame Infumey from Maryland comes to mind.
He's a good member. You know, there are days when
Rocanna is a decent member and rash Christa Morte is
a decent member. But you know, when you look at
the the troublemakers and instigators on the Democrat side, you've
got Jasmine Crockhead and Garcia and Stansbury from New Mexico.
(04:42):
They don't really want to want to work with Republicans
at all. They just want to attack and fight and
be divisive. So it's it's unfortunate.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Have you been surprised by sort of the resistance, because obviously,
you know, one of the big themes of the Trump
administration and one thing that he's really been focused on
on is you know, trying to reduce some of that corruption,
trying to reduce uh, you know, spending too much, trying
to sort of rein in you know, the government, and
obviously it's all been met with just a ton of
(05:12):
resistance from the left. Have you been surprised by that
at all? Or is that just kind of like what
you've gotten used to on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Unfortunately, it's what I've gotten used to. I've been in
Congress for nine years, and they it just gets worse
every year. The Democrats get more partisan. They're obsessed with
Donald Trump. I mean, uh, Trump derangement syndrome is real, Okay,
it is. It is real as any virus that that's
ever spread across America. And they're they're stage four on
(05:43):
the Oversight Committee you know they have TDS at stage four.
It's uh, that's all they think about is how they
can come after Trump. And if if a disaster happens
in the midterm elections and the Democrats free gain control
of the House, the first thing they will do is
try to impeach Donald Trump. I mean, and they won't.
(06:05):
I mean, they could impeach him in the House. The
Senate's never gonna convict because, you know, impeachment. The Democrats
saturated impeachment, ruined impeachment, and there will probably never be
anyone impeach now because of how how they abused that
part of the system that was there for tricks and balance.
But the bottom line is all the Democrat base wants
(06:27):
to see is Democrats go after Trump. It's I don't
see much concern out there from Democrats that show up
at at events the protests. May they're not protesting because
I'm not doing enough to save taxpayer dollars or I'm
not doing enough to grow the economy, or I'm not
doing enough to reduce crime. They're always complaining I'm not
(06:47):
doing enough to investigate Donald Trump. I mean, it's all
about Trump, and I think that's what the Democrats, not
just on the House Oversight Committee with the Democrats and
the whole US House of Representams. That's what they represent.
A base that just wants to to see the Trump
agenda stopped and Donald Trump destroyed. That's all they want.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I'm trying to think throughout history, like if there's been
a time where an entire party, sole identity is just
hating one person.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
You know, I can't think of one, and I'm a
student of political history, but I will tell you that
is their agenda. What you know, you guys, what Republicans
are fighting for. We're trying to reduce spending. That's what
part of the Big Beautiful Bill was. We're trying to
grow the economy. We reduce taxes, you know, that's we
(07:39):
secured the border. We want to deport the criminal illegals.
We want to put people in jail who commit crimes
and keep them in jail for for public safety. That's
the Republican agenda. What is the Democrat agenda? Open borders,
you know, an economy built on government subsidies and safety net,
(08:03):
and destroy the Trump agenda. I mean that whatever Trump's for,
the Democrator gets. Whatever Trump's gets, the Democrats are for.
It's all about Donald Trump. Donald Trump is all the
Democrats focus on in Congress. Just how can they do
something to stop Trump or hurt Trump or bass Trump
or antagonize Trump.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah, no, it's it's uh, it's you know, like when
Trump says I could cure cancer and they would find
a reason to be against it or really do think
that's actually true? Sadly, I wanted to dig into because
obviously one big thing you guys are focused on right
now is taking a look at Joe Biden and his
mental acuity and just very avide various avenues related to that.
(08:48):
So kind of just break it down for the audience,
you know, what are you trying to get to the
bottom of and sort of what are the different avenues
that you're exploring.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
Well, we've brought the first doctor in the head doctor
of the White House position, and we wanted to with
the first question we asked was were you ever told
to lie about Joe Biden's health? That's a simple question,
and he pled the Fifth Amendment. The second question was
did you ever see anything that would lead you to
(09:17):
believe Joe Biden wasn't able to fulfill his duties as president?
Had tates once again he pled the Fifth Amendment. So
the doctor didn't want to self incriminate himself for whatever
reason on some pretty basic questions that shouldn't have been
very hard to answer, considering the doctor always gave report
saying that Joe Biden was in perfect health. The reason
(09:38):
we want to know whether he was mentally fit to
be president was somebody used that autopen an awful lot
for whatever reason, Joe Biden couldn't or wasn't around to
sign his name on a document. And we want to
know is it because they just put him in the
(09:59):
corner he wasn't able, They just went ahead and governed
without him because they knew they could. I mean, we
want to know, did Joe Biden first of all give
the authority to sign his name on all these pardons
and executive orders that were done at the end of
the administration, And secondly, was he able to comprehend what
(10:22):
he was giving the staff the authority to sign. And
some of these are pretty big executive orders deal with
the energy policy, dealing with allowing the criminal illegals to
stay over here, making it even more difficult to fire
workless government employees, and the end government programs. I mean,
all the stuff they did at the end was proof
(10:43):
this administration, and they were all done by executive order
signed by an auto pen at a time when Joe
Biden never had a press conference on the executive order,
he never answered in questions, he didn't even issue statements,
and in many of the days when they used the ottophant,
he was in the White House supposed to. So, you know,
this is an important investigation because I think a lot
(11:04):
of this stuff that was signed with the auto pin
could be declared void in court, and that's a big
deal for the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Well, you know, particularly when you look at, you know,
some of the pardons that were given, whether it's Millie
or Fauci or even his own son Hunter. You know,
he did that interview with the New York Times, Like
what went through your mind when you found out about this?
It's like, I don't know if he just he just
has like terrible political instincts. But you would think at
(11:35):
a time when the Oversight Committee, when you guys are
running this investigation, like why add fuel to any you know, like,
were you like thank you or what were you thinking
when you you sort of read this interview that he
did with the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
And why do you think he gave the interview.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
I think that somebody in his camp said, Okay, this
is getting out of control. We need to let Joe
Biden sit down with a friendly reporter with a friendly publication.
And all Joe had to do is tell them he
knew what was going on. And the course, the New
York Times has defended Biden, and they've attacked me for
(12:14):
having the audacity to investigate Joe Biden. And they asked him,
did you know about every single pardon? Did you authorize
every single party? It's like, well, no, I mean there's
a lot of pardons. I mean I gave you the
staff the authority to go through and sign my name
on those partons. That's illegal. The Constitution does not grant
the president the authority to authorize someone to make a
(12:42):
decision and use his signature on whether or not the
partons one. When you think about this pardon process, the
parting process is like impeachment. It's supposed to be the
last check in balance, a last resort. It's all else fails.
So you've got all these people, many of whom were
were prosecuted. Uh, prosecutors spent years prosecuting these cases. They
(13:05):
spent you know, thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars. Jurys
spent you know, time away from their families to make
decisions to convict people. And then some staffer is given
the authority by Joe Biden apparently who apparently was you know,
according to him, of say on mental state, Say you
(13:26):
you decide on whether or not we need to overrule
all this stuff. You need to decide whether we need
to overrule all these prosecutors and all these juries and
all this stuff. And I'm just gonna sit on the
beach and stare at the at the ocean and the sunset.
I mean that it's it's preposterous. And the interview Joe
Biden gave with the New York Times only gave more
(13:47):
evidence to the fact that I think all of these
pardons and executive orders done in the last especially from
the time Joe Biden was kicked off the ticket by
Obama or whoever, till the end, I think they should
be being void in a court of law.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
We've got to take a quick commercial break. We've got
more with House Oversight Chairman James Comer if you're enjoying
the interview, share with your friends, maybe post on social media.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
We always appreciate that.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Why do you think reporters are so against you guys
trying to get to the bottom of this? Because I
remember after the disastrous debate between Joe Biden and you
know then, you know, former President Trump at the time,
obviously President Trump now, but the media they were the
ones sort of holding, you know, cream Jean Pierre's feet
(14:38):
to the fire at a press conference, questioning, well, like
why isn't O'Connor available for questions like why won't you
release the details of the the you know, the last
health memo?
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Right?
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Like, they were the ones who were getting after right,
So it's like why why was it okay for them
to ask those questions then, but it's not okay for
you guys to be asking these questions now.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
They were asking the questions at the point when they
saw that the curtain had been removed and the American
people saw Joe Biden at that particular moment wasn't mentally
fit to serve for four more years and he was
not going to win the election, which meant Trump was
going to win the election. That's when the media pivoted.
And that's when whoever's leading the Democrat Party, George Souroch
(15:20):
or Barack Obama I said all right, now, you all
can turn on Joe until he gets out of the race.
And once he gets out of the race. Once he
finally got out of the race, then the media said, oh,
he's going to be remembered as a great statesman. You know,
they tried to create this false narrative that Joe Biden's
a great president, that he realized that he needed to
pass the torch to a female and all, you know,
(15:43):
a minority and all this other stuff, and you know,
the public didn't buy it and everything that just look
at what all the Maintrea media has been proven wrong on.
They've been proven wrong on the Russia Gate. That was
a hope, that is a fact now, but the media
went all in on it. They were proved that the
(16:03):
hunter By laptop was not Russian disinformation, it was really
Hunter by the laptop. They've proven that a lot of
what we said in the beginning about COVID originating from
a lab in Wuhunt was correct, even though they called
us conspiracy theories. A lot of our concerns about virus
about vaccines have been proven to be correct. All the
stuff that they you know, virtual learning, we said was
(16:26):
going to ruin a generation of school children. But they went,
you know, they said, no, we were wrong, and we
were putting kids in danger, even though no kids hardly
anywhere died of COVID. I mean, it was not even
an issue with school as short. You know, the mask
they went all into. Anyone that didn't wear a mask
should be placed in Alligator Alcatraz if it had been
(16:49):
there at that time. So much of what they went
all in on attacking conservatives has been debunked, and I
just think that they're getting sick of being proven wrong
and they just you know, draw a line in the
sand and try to fight and fight and fot. But
it's a Loserve battle board.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
At what point do you think Joe Biden started losing
his marbles? Because I believe it was in the original
sim book. I think I was saying that even in
twenty nineteen, he was forgetting like a staffer that had
been with him since like the nineteen eight I'm like
remembering this off the cuff, but I think it was
like night that had been with him since like the
nineteen eighties, right, so basically a family member he would
(17:26):
like you know, botched his name or whatever. So it's like,
at what point, like because remember in twenty twenty he
ran the basement campaign and everyone said, oh, that was
just because of COVID.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
He's trying to be safe, But like.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
Was it COVID or was he already kind of like
starting to lose it and they're trying to cover it up?
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Like at what point do you think he started to
lose it?
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I think that it really escalated the last two years
of his administration. And the shame and the crime and
all this one of the mini crime. But the shame
is that these people wanted him to run for four
more years and they had him. They they blocked anyone
from running. You know what, they could have had Robert F.
(18:06):
Kennedy be their nominee and and that might have been
a different race. You know, maybe Gavin Knew some ran
that might have been a different race. But no, the
Biden insider said, no, we're gonna fix this where Robert
Kennedy can't get on the ballot. We've we've talked Knew
some out of running, and you know, they cleared the
field for Joe Biden, and they knew they knew that
(18:31):
that he wasn't in the possibility of him being able
to be president for four more years was virtually zero. Uh.
You know, there's there's rumors if you go back to
Joe Biden and do an interview when he said he
had cancer, and then the White House came out and said, no,
he miss spoke, spoke. How do you misspeak about cancer?
(18:54):
How do you miss speak and say you have cancer
and you don't. Now, what we've learned about is probably
think cancer. It's very likely. And we were going to
ask that question to the doctor, doctor O'Connor, but he
kept playing the fifth and it was obviously he wasn't
going to answer the question. It's very possible. He had answer,
uh two years into his administration and they lied about it,
(19:15):
which you know, if you lie about cancer, that's that's bad.
But then you seek to run for re election again
in your Joe Biden's age and mental capacity. I mean,
this is a terrible group. It shows me, you know,
in my opinion, you had three or four people calling
the shots and and they I mean, heck, they were
the making executive orders and pardoning people and and you know,
(19:40):
doing whatever who knows what was arms and traded agreements
and everything else, and and lying on Air Force one
and eating fine at the White House, and you know,
no accountability. You know, they didn't have to answer to anyone,
They didn't have to do any press conferences. They they
just you know, poor old Joe out here. If you
if you're buble because they're picking on him, They're gonna
(20:01):
make old people mad. They're picking on old people. I
mean that was kind of the narrative that they would
have the press say. And I just think every one
of these people need to be trided in for deposition,
which we're doing. And if they keep pleading the fifth
I mean, I think that validates everything that I just
said in this interview about Joe Biden wasn't mentally able
(20:24):
to make those decisions, and those staffers did it. They
didn't have the authority to do it.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
So who were those three to four people then? So
who was running the country.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Well, we've got more people coming in and I'm gonna
be careful what I say here, but I mean I
think a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
I mean, you don't have to be but I understand why.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Yeah, yeah, well you could look at who the more
people we're bringing in, who we think are those people
we're starting at the bottom and the ones that we
get to at the end, I think, or at the
top of the pyramid.
Speaker 3 (20:53):
But certainly Ron Klaine, who was the cheapest staff, he
certainly had a lot of influence. And you're going to
say that both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We're making
a lot of big decisions down the stretch. So we'll
see what these other people say in their depositions. The
first interview or two we did was fairly substitive, But
(21:17):
I think now the the media and the Democrat machine
has told everybody to just plead the fifth and hope
this goes away.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
What's interesting too, because I remember Kevin O'Connor, I think
it was in twenty nineightteen, had said that Biden was
being treated for a large prostate and explicitly stated that
it wasn't cancer. But you know, it's you know, who
knows who's telling the truth, at what point and when
he happened to get at So how far are you willing.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
To take this?
Speaker 1 (21:46):
You know, if you got people at Kevin O'Connor who
you know, calm, they plead the fifth refuse to answer questions,
how do you compel more information from them?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
And like how far are you willing to take this?
Speaker 3 (21:57):
We'll go as far as the trail leads. We're going
to Ron Klaine, We're going to go to the hot
the highest level staffers. If they implicate Biden family members,
will will bring them in. If not, then we'll issue
the report. We're going to do all we can and
turn it, turn it over to the Attorney General, and
I think the Attorney General then will have the basis
(22:20):
to do things like perhaps grant immunity and and things
like that if if she sees fit, and hopefully she will,
because look, I don't think some of these executive orders
should should be the rule of the land because they did.
I mean, if the President United Sates cannot while he's
in the White House sign his name on one line,
(22:44):
then then I don't think that should be the case. Now, look,
everybody uses I mean saying this for every member of Congress,
every business person uses an Adobe signature on correspondence, they
use an auto pen on uh little you know, certificates
of achievement and certificates of recognition and things like that.
(23:06):
But anything pertaining to the law. Anything that is legal
you have to sign. If you do a real estate
transaction that's legal, you have to sign. And usually there's
a notary public. When I signed subpoenas, I have to
fly up here and sign one piece of paper and
then go back to Kentucky. You know, we have to
sign legal documents. A pardon is as big a legal
(23:31):
document as I can think, because you're telling the whole
judicial system, no, you're wrong, I'm going to overrule you.
An executive order is a major legal document that's bypassing
Congress and going above Congress. If the President, I think,
isn't able to sign that document. You know, the Obama
used an autopen once on an executive board. He was
(23:53):
in another country. Joe Biden was in the White House
in the White House, and if you do it once
or twice, that's what he need it thousands of times,
especially towards the end of the administration. And I think
it is suspicious. And you do wonder was Joe Biden
the one doing that or was it or was it
(24:13):
a staff acting you know, on their own.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
We've got more at Chairman Comerce. Stay tuned. The Democrats
under Joe.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Biden or the Biden administration rather sent Steve Bannon to
jail Peter Navarrow to jail for refusing to comply with subpoenas.
Do you think that Republicans and the Trump administration are
willing to go that far with some of these people.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
I think so. But you know, these people that we've
subpoenaed are coming in pleading the Fifth and you have
they have the constitutional right to do that. Then you
get into the process of well can you I know
there's some people on conservative networks that they saying, well,
Comber needs to grant them immunity. Well, here's the process
(24:59):
to granham unity. We have to have a committee vote
in the Oversight Committee, and it has to get a
two thirds vote, which means Democrats will have to vote
with Republicans to grant amenity to all these Biden staffers
that are going to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid
self incrimination. I don't think we're going to get many Democrats.
We'll probably try and see, and I hope I'm wrong,
(25:20):
But again, the Democrats aren't interested in exposing any corruption
in the in the Biden administration. But Pam Bondy's got
a whole lot more power than a congressional committee does.
What I tell you, we're going to investigate, We're gonna
We've already gotten a ton of information. I think our
investigations led to the New York Times interview with Joe
(25:42):
Biden where he admitted guilt. I mean that's that is,
he admitted wrongdoing. I mean he's like, why I didn't
see them all? I gave the staff the authority to
do that? That is illegal that there's nowhere in the
law or the constitution that gives the president the authority
to delegate to a staffer. Ah, yeah, you can pardon
(26:03):
whoever you want. I mean that I would go further
and say the Department Justice should look at some of
those staffers that were involved in the party to see
did you have any conflicts of interest here? Were you
related to any of them? But maybe they look at
their bank accounts? Did you have anything pop into your account?
I don't know. I don't know if they did or not,
And I probably don't have the resources or the time
(26:24):
to investigate that, but somebody probably should. I mean, there's
a lot of corruption that could take place if you've
got a president that's incapacitated, and he's got some staffers
running around signing executive orders and pardoning people from prison.
I mean, that's that's a big deal, you know.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
And before we go, you know, the Justice Department put
out a short minemo saying that you know, Jeffrey Epstein
did in fact kill himself and that there there was
no client list. It, you know, surprised a lot of
conservatives who thought otherwise.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Were you surprised by that?
Speaker 1 (26:59):
And are you kind of satisfied with what we've been
told so far or what are your thoughts about?
Speaker 2 (27:05):
You know, this is all that says taken place.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
This is really interesting to me, I'll say, because I
went on I think it was Benny Johnson's show several
months ago, and I said that I didn't think there
was an Epstein list, and Pam Bondi then was interviewed
and she laughed and she said, I, oh, no, no,
(27:28):
he's wrong, Coverer's wrong. Just stay tuned. And then she
did an interview the next day on either Hannity or
Jesse Waters and said she had the Epstein list, it
was on her desk and it was really bad. Well,
now she's come out and said there wasn't a list.
I go back to what I said before this ever
became an issue. I don't think that the last administration
(27:51):
left anything lying around that would incriminate him. Now I'm
not criticizing the Trump administration. I just I've said all alone,
I don't think there's a list. I think I think
there there should be a list, but I wouldn't put
it past the last administration to have destroyed the list.
So so I said this a long time ago, and
(28:13):
BONDI kind of I'm not gonna say she bit my
head off, but she laughed at off what I said,
and and you know, essentially said I wasn't being truthful.
I mean, I pretty much stand by what I said.
We'll see if she stands by what she said. So
I'm not saying she covered anything up. I just always
believed there wasn't a list because I don't trust anyone
(28:33):
in the det So you have to be under the mindset. Okay,
if if the federal government was involved in spine on
Epstein Island and allowing kids to be sex trafficked and
things like that, and to blackmail the most influential people
in the world, and they were doing that, which is
(28:54):
probably illegal. You know that that was. They didn't do
anything about it, and then they're just going to say, oh,
Donald Trump's will be president. Now we'll just lay this,
leave all these tapes in the filing cabinet, leave this
list to the filing cabinet for the treble registration. They're
not going to do that. They're gonna shred and destroy
and do like Hillary did with her phone and computer.
(29:16):
They're gonna get mallets out and be beating the crap
out of it. So that's what I said, and you know,
I felt like BONDI kind of fired on me, and
you know, here we are. So we'll see.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
History will tell interesting it will indeed.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
James Comer, Chairman of the House over sayt Committee, we
appreciate the work you're doing, probably one of the most
important committees on Capitol Hill, so we appreciate you, sir.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
That was Chairman James Comer of the House over Say Committee.
Appreciate him for making the time, Appreciate him coming on
the show. That was so interesting. I hope you enjoyed it.
I know I did every Tuesday and Thursday, but of
course you can listen throughout the week. I also want
to thank my producer John Cassio for working so hard
to put the show together.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.