In this episode of the Tudor Dixon Podcast, investigative journalist John Solomon uncovers the latest developments in the Arctic Frost investigation, calling it a modern-day Watergate and raising red flags about the political targeting of members of Congress. Solomon explains how the judiciary is being leveraged in high-stakes political battles and connects it to massive fraud schemes in Minnesota tied to immigration programs. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
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 (00:00):
You are listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast, and we
have John Solomon here today, the founder of Just the News,
and you have a lot of good information on Arctic
frost and all the stuff that's going on.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
So John, welcome to the program. Let's dive right in.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Yeah, well, listen, I think Artic frost is going to
be our generation's Watergate, our generation's major civil liberties case.
We know there was a drag net basically dragging the
bottom of the ocean looking for anything they can hang
on Donald Trumper's supporters. That is something that our founding
fathers never intended the justice system to have. We specifically,
when we created our justice system with the founding fathers,
(00:37):
we rejected the notion of general warrants, meaning you look
for anything, find a crime, and then pin it on
a person. You're supposed to have a specific predicate of
a crime before you investigate. In America, so we reversed
the English law notion of general warrants. But Jack Smith's investigation,
and quite frankly, the predecessor to it inside the FBI,
was a general warrant fishing expedition. There's one thing I
(01:00):
want to focus people on because as I dig in
deeper into this and I start to create timetables about
what's going on. There are some oddities about the targeting
of some of the members of Congress whose phone records
were taken and they were kept in the dark, even
though there was a legal requirement at the time that
senators be notified if anybody was taking their phone records.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, I think this is something that people haven't really
heard that much about.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
So that's kind of why I want to dig into.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I don't even know how many people know that people
in Congress are dealing with this, because I've seen a
few tweets like how dare you look at my phone records?
Speaker 2 (01:35):
They didn't know what was happening, right, they did it?
Speaker 3 (01:37):
No, In fact, there were orders by the judges to
specifically instructing the prosecutors not to comply with a congressional
law that required notification to sense. So let's give people
the body of evidence. There are eight setting senators whose
phone records were taken by Jack Smith. There were at
least five House members that we now know these records
(02:00):
were taken by Jack Smith, including the Republican leader and
future Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the chairman of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the former chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Why is that important? Four or five
(02:21):
of those people whose phone records were taken were doing
oversight of the FBI and the Justice Department and looking
into issues of weaponization. When Jack Smith went and got
their records, and Jack Smith knew that he was treading
into dangerous territory, the Public Integrity Division of the Justice
Department told them, Hey, there are congressional equities here that
(02:44):
are protected by the Debate and Speech Clause, So you're
going to have to litigate this out, though we think
the risk of litigation is low. He doesn't litigate it
out by telling Congress and then fighting it out. Instead,
he goes to Judge Boseburg and gets the judge, the
chief of the Washington DC Courthouse, and a man who
has a clear animis for President Trump. We know that
(03:05):
from his own comments in rulings, and he's been reversed
on several of those rulings that you do not have
to comply with the law that says that senators must
be notified if their phone records. There he basically exempts
the executive branch from having to comply with the law
that had been passed by the United States Senate. But
(03:25):
I want to focus in on the people who were
doing oversight, because when you start to put a timetable together,
there's some oddities in Jacksmith's investigation. Jack Smith is seeking
in the spring of twenty twenty three records that he
thinks are related to an event that occurred three years
two years earlier. More than two years earlier. January sixth,
(03:47):
twenty twenty one, is when the event occurs. Why is
it so important in the spring of twenty twenty three,
two and a half years to suddenly start looking at
members of Congress. The answer is those members of Congress
in the spring of twenty twenty five, we're now in
the majority. That had been in the minority, they were
in the majority, and they're ramping up investigations of the
(04:07):
Justice Department on weaponization, specifically on January sixth, and whether
the FBI's rate of President Trump's mar Lago home and
the prosecution of various people on January sixth, was lawful,
whether there were ethical violations or criminal violations, He's literally
targeting the investigators of his own department. Then I want
(04:29):
to wind back.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
The investigators who are investigating him. He's going after them
to see if he can discribe. I mean, is the.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Judge you go along and keep it a secret?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
What is the goal?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Is the goal that he is going to discredit them,
that he's just going to go after Trump?
Speaker 3 (04:44):
What?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
We don't know.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
We don't know the answer. But I want to go
back a little earlier, because one guy stands out. The
vast majority of those who were being investigated or who
had their phone records taken, are done in the spring
of twenty twenty three, but it is in the spring
of twenty twenty two that one person in Congress is
singled out earlier by the Justice Department. It's it. It's
(05:07):
before Jack Smith is even named. It's the predecessor investigation
that eventually leads to Jack Smith. It occurs in April
of twenty twenty two. Who is at the future Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan. In April of
twenty twenty two, he is suddenly has two years of
(05:27):
his phone records taken from his Verizon phone company. It's
a sipenup. It didn't go to a judge, it wasn't
a warrant. And what's interesting about it is they don't
seek the period just around January sixth, twenty twenty twenty one,
which is their alleged reason for doing this. Right, all right,
(05:48):
let's look at the four or five days around January sixth,
at least, you say, okay, they're narrowing it down. In
Jim Jordan's case, they're looking for two full years of
Jim Jordan's phone records, meaning way beyond January sixth. What
is he doing that at that time, he's the ranking
member on House Judiciary, And just a day or so
(06:08):
around the time, the same week that the subpoena is
going out for Jim Jordan's phone records, he is making
a referral for FBI to serve about certain FBI agent's
conducts in the you got it, January sixth investigations. So
they're literally issuing a phone record subpoena, a broad subpoena,
two year subpoena, right around the time that Jim Jordan
(06:31):
is looking under his congressional oversight responsibilities at the FBI
Justice Department's own conduct in that case, it is very
disturbing the timeline in the pattern. We don't know enough
to know what the intentions are, but we know that
Jordan's subpoena is earlier and much broader. We know the
second round of subpoenas come right around the time that
(06:53):
these weaponization investigations are gearing to life, and that many
of the members of Congress who were taught targeted were
people that were involved in those investigations. Marshall Blackburn on
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsay Graham on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Former
Congressman Louis Gohmert on the House Judiciary Subcommittee that looked
(07:17):
at a lot of FBI weaponization investigations going all the
way back to Russia collusion. It is an odd group
of people that he's targeting three years, two or three
years later after the January sixth event. It makes one
wonder whether he was looking at something other than January sixth.
Maybe this was a fishing expedition on these members of
(07:38):
Congress doing oversight on his department.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
But if this is illegal, I mean, is it illegal?
And can they get in trouble. You you talked about Watergate.
I mean, at what point, as a member of Congress
can you go back and say you had no right
to do this?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
And I mean, what is a legal recourse here?
Speaker 3 (07:59):
The great questions. So Marshall Blackburn's already sued, so we'll
see what her case does. The Senators put a provision
in the most recent spending bill that kept the government
reopened the government after the shutdown saying that any senator
whose phone records were taken would be entitled up to
five hundred thousand dollars in compensation for unlawful seizure of
(08:20):
the records that law. That provision makes note of the
fact that there was a law on the books that
said that the Senate had to be notified. So Jack Smith,
working with Bozburg, eviscerates that law. I don't know how
that's going to play out, but I assume that there's
going to be litigation over that.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
So I saw some I saw someone complaining that Marshall
Blackburn was looking to get her five hundred thousand dollars,
and I don't know if that's what was in her lawsuit.
But it's interesting because they see the Democrats seem to
always be able to turn these things around on Republicans.
We are bad at messaging, and when it comes to this,
(08:58):
because she has every right to go after them and
say no, you cannot go into my private records. But
now the Democrats are like, oh, look, she wants government money.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah, listen, I think at the end of the day,
the Senate provision that set up that money for the
fund for money is not going to be as important
as the argument she makes in the court about why
her Fourth Amendment rights were seized and or broken, and
then also why her work as a member of the
Senate confirming the twenty twenty election results, why that was
(09:31):
intruded on. There is clearly a separation of powers issue,
and the Public Integrity Division of the Justice Department warrened
Jacksmith before it let him go do this, that there
was going to be these equities and the way, meaning
there should be a notification to Congress. You fight it
out with Congress, then you get the phone records. That
was the recommendation.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
But she's never going to get through Congress with that.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
So yeah, well she's going to She's gonna have to
get through the courts, right where she's going to have
to succeed is in the courts. Tennessee jury or a
Tennessee judge may be more favorable to Marshall Blackburn that
a Washington DC judge has been to Donald Trump and
so well. I have to look and see how this
plays out. But Blackburn taking this to federal court in
Tennessee is a significant act and I think one that
(10:15):
will be one of the cases to watch this in
addition to whatever the Florida Grand jury that the Justice
Department has set in motion to look at this whole
decade of alleged weaponization. What does that do? Is that
what evidence that do they look at? Jack Smith getting
these phone records the same as Jack Smith talking to
Lois Lender back in twenty fourteen about the targeting of
(10:38):
by the irs of conservative groups, or the Russia collusion
or Ukraine impeachment or all the other things that followed.
I think now you're beginning to see similar characters showing
up at different timeframes in that alleged conspiracy. You got
Jack Smith in twenty fourteen, Jack Smith in twenty twenty
four You've got other people who come in and out
(10:59):
of this FBI agents that play in multiple anti Trump investigations,
and the Justice Department make a criminal conspiracy case like
they bring against the mob or drug cartels against the
Biden Obama Justice Department there I don't know yet, but
there's certainly work in Florida going on that suggests they're
looking at it.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
How do you know that you've gotten rid of this
deep state? I mean, this still must there must be
so much protection for this, we have it.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Why do we know we haven't? Because there are still
people leaking. There's a Miranda Divine story today of these
agents writing a report they're going to send to Congress.
They're still trying to resist what Cash Hotel is doing today.
They're still trying to resist what Pam Bondi is doing today.
And the deep state now is clearly embedded in the judiciary.
You've got judges throwing out President Trump's picks for US
(11:48):
attorneys in New Jersey and in Northern Virginia. You've got
judges throwing out the case against James Comey, not on
the merits, but looking for technicalities. You've got Judge Boseburg
okaying a secret search of phone members, of phone records
from members of Congress, even though a law said notification
was required. So the deep state is not just in
(12:09):
the Justice Bartman FBI. It does appear to the people
who I talked to that had just crept into the judiciary,
and that the judiciary, the Federal bureocracy, the Democrat leaning
media are all working together on this, and I think
that that's what's so concerning. And then you get the
Democratic members of Congress, like those who suggest it the
(12:30):
other day that members in the military should not abide
by President Trump's orders as a commander in chief if
they can deem them illegal. Though not a single member
of that group could identify any illegal order that President
Trump gave, So why would you raise a concern if
he didn't have one.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. So the President has said that
he thinks that there can be legal action taken against
those senators and congressmen. They were they're called the Seditious six.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
You know that one of my senator US senators is
Alyssa Slotkin. I don't like to claim her, but she
is the Michigan Senator. And she went out and she
even talked about the National Guard just before what happened
in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
And said she and to me, this is very telling
because she.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Is a CIA analyst, so she understands all of the
behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
She understands the training.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
She was actually deployed or went out on deployments with
military on military assignments, so she understands that the training
that's involved in being military, national guard at law enforcement,
you don't get scared and just start randomly shooting people.
But that's what she said on National TV.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Yeah, well, listen, I think that those six need to
be interviewed, and they're going to be interviewed because cash
Mittel asked for interviews of each of them. What did
you know? Why did you say it? Were you in
touch with any people who were funders or campaign find
dan stoners? Were they encouraging you to do it? Did
you have any basis to think that anything President Trump
has done was illegal? When you make the comment, if
(14:07):
you didn't have a single order that you think was illegal,
why would you make that comment and undercut the credibility
of the commander in chief and the relationship between the
commander in chief and these troops. Nowt here's the one
thing that Democrats don't appreciate. The members of the military
like the current a president. They like the current return
(14:29):
of war fighting and not social engineering in their ranks.
So you're not going to turn a lot of active
duty members against the president with that stunt. But what
those six senators did do was further inflame the public,
a public that has a lot of already cycle of
anger over politics. Politics. Democrats have mastered the art of anger.
(14:51):
They are the party of anger, they are the party
of hatred, They're the party of intolerance. Look at their language,
look at their lives. You have House members that can't
eat even get the circumstances right about an EPA administrator's donation.
You've got a Democrat law.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
They don't care and they don't care about He didn't
get that wrong. She knew when she went up there.
That wasn't the that wasn't Jeffrey's exactly right. That is
the scary thing about where we are with them right now. Yeah,
you made it point earlier that these judges have now
been their Democrats and they're working for the Democrat Party,
and the media is working for the Democrat Party. I mean,
(15:29):
my goodness, if a Republican, if Republicans had made that
video saying Biden was doing illegal things, that would be
all we'd be talking about.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
That's right, Yeah, No, listen, the Democrat media is just
catching up now to the extraordinary scandal that we broke
a year ago, back in August of twenty twenty four
against Governor Tim Waltz in Minnesota and the Somali fraud
that was going on, and the fact that the Waltz
administration was literally making it easier for that fraud to
be committed. We wrote that before voters voted on Tim
(16:01):
Waltz and Kamala Harris. The New York Times waited until
another seventy seven people were indicted before they decided to
write it. A year later. They protected Tim Waltz from
that story back in twenty twenty four. The media is
never going to do its job in the era of Trump.
We see that over and over again. Not the traditional media,
but we've created an equal on opposite system now like
(16:22):
your show and my site Justin News, that can get
this information around them. What we don't have a solution
to are judges unless the Supreme Court continues to intervene
ruling in ways that are inconsistent with the law or constitution.
What we don't have is a way yet of punishing
those who have clearly corrupted the criminal justice system in
(16:46):
the past. We have a clear record of what they did.
We have so few punishments. There is no deterrence for
a person today to do what someone did ten years
ago during Russia collusion, which is mislead. The Fiser Court
believe we're close to showing that most of the testimony
that made up the basis of and the evidence that
made up the basis for President Trump's impeachment was bogus.
(17:10):
It wasn't true. We're now seeing that in the documents
that are being released and that I sued the fight
to get there's been no accountability to any of those people,
even though some of them are repeat actors. And so
I think our questions are now, if Pam Bondi's Justice
Department doesn't create accountability, is this system going to become normalized.
(17:30):
I think we're very close to the abyz abyss of
without any future, without any current punishment, that this is
going to be the new norm for Democrats. They will
feel unencumbered by the law, unincumbered by ethics, unincovered by
the rules this country generally operated on, which is, we
can disagree, but we won't violate the law, and disagreeing
to we'll violate the law anytime. We want to make
(17:53):
sure we win our disagreement, and the optionence of deterrence
is a big problem.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
You made a statement there, you said, if Pam Bondi's
Department of Justice doesn't go after these people and push them,
do you fear that that is going on all?
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Hey, listen, She's clearly ramped up a major grand jury
investigation in Florida. That's something that cash Betel laid out
in March. That's operating now. She brought charges against John Bolton,
against James Comy, against Letitia James. Though two of those
three have been thrown out, one has been sustained. Do
they refile the charges do they do a sea preceding
indictment with Komy? I think the jury is still out,
(18:28):
and I also want to remind people how complicated these
cases have been made by things that we're now learning about.
James Comy's records were nearly burned in a burn bag.
According to the court filings, someone tried to destroy that
evidence back in January of this year. The Deep State
was alive and well. As President Trump was coming into office,
somebody was in a skiff, someone was in dealing with
(18:50):
burn bags. If the FBI and the Justice Department's account
is accurate, that is our generation's nineteen minute gap, like
the Nixon tape, Remember the Nixon tape. That someone to
raise nineteen minutes off of Richard Nixon's tape, that operation
and that skiff, that effort to burn documents that weren't
properly recorded in the system so they couldn't be found,
(19:11):
couldn't be used to prosecute. If that turns out to
be a true crime, that is our generation's Watergate moment.
But will anyone pay for it to be determined? I
do see Pambondi ramping up a lot of activity. The
question is does that activity not only result in indictments.
If you indict and don't convict, you've basically created an
(19:33):
incentive for people to do this in the future. So
you got to bring cases, you got to bring good cases,
you got to bring them in venues. We got a
chance to convict. If you're going to create the turns
and all that is still waiting to be written. We'll
see if it happens.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
You brought up the fraud in Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
I think we have all seen that Tim Walls is
still out there, still quite a bit of the Democrat
Party and quite a focus of the Democrat Party. Walk
us a little bit through that fraud, because I think
that's a big fear for Americans, regardless of what side
of the aisle you're on, is this illegal immigration and
what's happening on the ground once people get here.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
So walk us through that.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
At the end of the day, people have to step
back and look at immigration and fraud as interlinked in
ways that we could never have imagined. A few years ago.
Illegal immigration in fraud. Tim Waltz and his administration loosened
the controls on money. As the borders are being opened
in America and the Somali refugees are coming into the
United States, Joe Biden is bringing in Afghans without proper vetting,
(20:35):
as we learned painfully again one more time with the
horrific shooting outside the White House. So there's a knowing
and willful effort to bring people into the country and
then allow them to stay in the country and to
live reasonable lives so that they stay in the Blue states,
so that apportionment and congressional redistricting and how federal funds
(20:57):
are determined are hijacked by the blue state. What this
was systemic. The first idea to do this goes all
the way back to the Clinton years, but it was
modernized in the twenty eighteen to twenty twenty four time frame.
So open the borders, get these illegal aliens to blue
sanctuary states and cities, because then they count in the
(21:18):
population because the census was changed under Joe Biden. Account that,
and then you have better federal funds flowing to Blue
states permanently, and you have more representation in Congress. And
I think that this was systemic. And so in some
in little Somalia as they call Minneapolis neighborhoods where the
(21:38):
Somalian immigrants are. By the way, I'm sure there are
many good, lawful Somali immigrants there too, but the illegal
ones that were there, or the ones who were there
lawfully but then defrauding the government, they ran these scams.
One of them was to rob money. In the current
estimate is it may be as high as two billion
dollars COVID. You had two billion dollars from one entitlement program.
(22:01):
This was an entitlement program created during COVID to help
people who were having hard time finding food. During COVID,
they didn't have work, so it was the most vulnerable people,
people who may be going hungry are the victims of
the Somali crime. Seventy seven defendants have been charged already
and it looks like many more will be. Then there's
another program that was supposed to help parents with autistic children.
(22:24):
We know autism is massively on the rise in America.
They have a Somali doctor who, according to her indictment,
was giving out bogus diagnoses of autism so that these
Somali families could get federal aid. And then there were
kickbacks apparently back to various people. So these we weren't
(22:44):
only taxpayers, weren't the victim of these frauds. People who
were the most vulnerable, the people that the Democrats tell
us all day they're fighting for. It was their fraud
that victimized those people. And Tim Waltz, according to the
Legislative Audit Bureau, according to other documents, including to some
of his own state workers who have come forward as whistleblowers,
(23:06):
was loosening the restrictions to make this fraud easier to happen.
And then it took a new and bold federal prosecutor
in Minneapolis under Donald Trump to finally roll up. We
started riding on this in the summer of twenty twenty four,
and he was important for the American people to understand
Tim waltz record on fraud. They did. They didn't pick
the guy. He's not one heartbeat from the presidency now.
(23:29):
But now the size and scope of that fraud and
the accountability that must come from it is just beginning
to ramp up. There is an example where Pamboni's Justice
Department's doing a lot of accountability. There are seventy almost
eighty defendants now seventy seven to one case three and another.
That's good accountability. That's one of the largest fraud cases
in modern history when you look at the total number
(23:50):
of defendants. But the system is not an accident. This
wasn't Keystone cops just not knowing how to do their job.
This was a not just decision to loosen this system
so that fraud could occur, so that illegal aliens who
crossed the border could stay in these blue cities and
rig apportionment for future elections and for future federal funding decisions.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
But too many of our young people don't even see
this as fraud. They're like all these people they needed
in socials. Okay, yes, right, yes, So what do we
do when we see these new polls coming out that
I mean, we're looking into twenty six, but we've got
to be looking into twenty eight. And everybody said, oh,
Trump won young men, And I believe that Trump.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Won young men. It wasn't Republicans, that.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
Was Trump, and Rob do you want them? Right?
Speaker 1 (24:40):
So my concern is if we don't have President Trump
on the ballot and we've got all fifty one percent
of young people that want democratic socialism, they don't even
see this as a problem, this kind of fraud.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Yeah. Well, President Trump's vice president is quite young. He
came from poverty. He understands the dilemma of affordability that
the working man and working women in America have been
running in place financially for two or three decades straight,
and because they're running in place, they fall further and
further behind. He has a unique ability to talk to
(25:15):
young young people in America. He has a unique experience
from his hillbilly elogy upbringing to make the affordability argument
that what your teachers taught you, and this is another
part of the Grand conspiracy. While governors like Waltz and
his administration were making it easier to fraud people, Joe
Biden was making it easier for people to come into
(25:36):
the country illegally and hijack the apportionment system. The teachers
unions aligned with that democrat and liberal machinery were putting
a new agenda into classrooms, which was, don't worry about
teaching math or arithmetic, or writing or history, talk about
social engineering, and make socialism romantic for today's young people.
(25:59):
So to generations went through school systems that suggested that
America was an evil state, that capitalism was bad, that
white people are pressors and non whites are the oppressed.
And then they went further into say, hey, people like
Castro had it right, people like the Marxists had it right.
And so a whole two generations of students have come
out to dislike the American experience. The things that make
(26:20):
America great, capitalism, freedom, and to They have a distorted
view of what socialism is. They believe socialism is giving
government money to people so that they can live decent lives.
That's not what socialism is. That's the lure of socialism
to sucker people into it. But history shows that that
socialism rips our freedoms away from the individual as part
(26:45):
of that system, that the greater collective eviscerates your personal freedoms.
And I've been saying for a couple of years now,
I've been giving this speech wherever I can go, that
we are in the middle of a war on truth,
something you just mentioned a little bit ago. The lying
goes on every day. That war on truth is designed
to get rid of some truths, like there's only men
(27:07):
and women. No, there's twenty five genders the men and women.
But the ultimate goal of that war on truth is
to eviscerate the ultimate truth that the American experiment was
built on, that our creator gave us in aliable rights
they couldn't be taken from us. And when I first
gave that speech, some of my colleagues in the media like, oh,
my god, sell them and you've gone off your rocker.
(27:27):
Why do you say things like that? That's not true?
And then Senator Tim Kane did me a big favor
among my old peeps in the profession. He came out
and set it on the record, which is, I don't
believe any longer that people get their rights from their God.
They get him from government. That's exactly the notion of socialism.
That is the dangerous lurb that the young people in
(27:47):
this country were not told about. They like the idea
that poor people can get some more money, maybe live
a better life based on taxpayers. I'm they might be
willing to accept that because it's been romanticized. But what
they don't realize in the trade off is that their
freedoms are going to be ripped out of their hands.
And that is what socialism has done historically for two
centuries since it was first invented. That's what has to
(28:09):
be reprogrammed. Now we got a great moment the two
hundred and fiftieth birthdays next year. Can we create a
cultural moment in America to help two generations of Americans
learn what they were denied in school, that America is
generally good. Yeah, we got some problems, but we're still
the greatest nation. That freedom is important, that we were
given these rights as inalienable rights from our creator. We
got an amazing year next year to sell that. We'll
(28:32):
see if the Trump administration and conservatives across the country
can reprogram some of our young people. I think they're
very impressionable. They're not seeing the world turn out the
way they're teachers, the way they're teachers predicted. The question
is can Republicans and conservatives offer them something different than
what they were given in schools. We'll see.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
I will just say it is so deeply ingrained in
our schools. I send my kids to private school, and
it's even in the textbooks that are like, you know,
these are the the supposedly non biased textbooks. So my
daughter is in US politics and government this year, would
I would love to say, I'm gonna.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Screenshot some of the pages of her book.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Every almost every page is anti Trump anti It's like
a full focus on Trump, and my daughter every day
she's like, oh my gosh, look at this, Mom, look
at this. But if you don't know it's not true,
and you don't have somebody at home telling you this
is not true and I'm paying for this, you can
see why so many parents. When I was going around
to the state of Michigan, we would talk about school choice,
(29:33):
and I had so many parents of private school say, look,
stop talking about that. I don't want any government money
coming to our school because the government always thinks they
can get into your school. Then, and I mean, they
make a good point, because we're fighting. Even though we're
we have teachers that agree with us.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Yeah. Well, listen, we have not conquered the education equation.
We have. We've conquered something called DEI and CRT. But
it's just gonna be rebranded. And you look at what
these teacher union's leaders gave in speeches going back a
decade or fifteen years ago. They declared war on the
American experience. They declared war on our children, and we
(30:11):
were too busy to notice it for ten years. COVID
gave us a moment to say, what is going on?
But have we truly reversed in The answer is not yet. Now,
Linda mcmhon's cut the Education department bureaucracy in half. President
has put a plan to get rid of the US
Education Department that will have some impact. But the real
(30:33):
fight here is in getting these ideologies banned in schools
in a way that they can't come back just by
a new name or a new brand. We have to
get back to making our kids focus on math and
English and history and not on social engineering, which has
been the primary focus of the last fifteen or twenty
years of education in most at least most blue states,
(30:55):
and quite frankly, it's creeping into religious gools. Now there
is a big effort by liberals of fun this indoctrination
into what used to be the refuge for parents, which
is private schools. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Absolutely, in private colleges, I mean even the faith based
colleges around us. We hear parents constantly complaining that we've
got these radical professors and they're in there and they're
trying to change minds and take them away from traditional value.
So it is a battle, and that's what we tell
parents all the time. It's like, you have to be
(31:26):
so involved in and I mean even through college, you've
got to be heavily involved in your kids' lives. Is
your this is what you're your biggest investment and what
you're passing on to the next generation is your child.
So you want to make sure that you show them
the path that you've walked in the values that we
have as Americans. I appreciate that you are out there
(31:46):
reporting on those every day, John.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
I love what I do and listen. The best way
to find a war on truth is by putting more
truths and facts out there. And one of the things
that's happened that I think is the benefit of America
is what you've done with your great show, what Joe
Rogan can do with this podcast, what I've done with
justin news. We don't have to be dependent on the
legacy media and their alliances with the far left to
(32:09):
get our information. We have found a way to get
that information around the logjam of the old media into
the American people. In spite of the legacy media. We've
made the legacy media far less relevant today. We need
to do the same thing with teachers' unions. We need
to do the same things with bureaucrats. We need to
create an eco and opposite competitive system on every threat
(32:32):
that this country faces, because that's ultimately what our free
market has given us. The competition has proven time and
again to be the best panacea to ills, particularly those
ills imposed by the left. So competition is and I
think what's happened in the media space is a great son.
I saw a story summer. It might have been The
New York Times, but it was a New York Times
today saying that the climate extremists think they're lose a
(32:54):
messaging war. Yeah, that's because facts got out there. All
their predictions turned out not to be true were and
you know, even Bill Gates is repudiating them. Now. They
lost the messaging more because those of us, two of
us sitting right here, decided to go out and build
an alternative system that got the information to the American people.
The left has one weakness. It's the Achilles he All
(33:16):
the left they think American people are stupid. And I
think that that is their greatest thing. That's elitism at
its highest level. The American people are perceptive. They just
need the tools. And if we get them the tools,
they U should make the right decision.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
And as soon as they start to lose voices like
Bill Gates who looks at this and goes, I can't
I can't continue to say this without being embarrassed. And
then you've got Greta who found her new passion for Palestine,
so she's moved on. You lost your whole, your whole
climate warrior face.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
So now they're done with that.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
And in electric vehicles were a political disaster for them,
so they are even walking back from that.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
I mean, you can are.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
Cut a forest in South America to have their climate.
A conference eight miles of a forest has cut down.
How much more insane hypocrisy there is our young people.
That's the thing that young people are seeing. They're looking like,
wait a second, you guys sold me a bill. Here's
what I think that if the President wants to effectively
fight what just happened in New York with Mandanmi, the
(34:19):
ultimate manifestation that we have a young generation that's willing
to try socialism, he has to create an alternative argument
for affordability in America because young people look at it
and say, I'm never going to afford a million dollar home.
And by the way, million dollar home is becoming the
medium in a lot of places now, they're becoming illusion
I think the President needs an Oval Office speech in
(34:40):
the next few weeks where he lays out the alternative.
There is a better way to do this. And by
the way, the very people that are trying to lure
you in socialism are the people that created the nanty state,
that made it this country so unaffordable. They made gas
unaffordable for you. They made prescriptions unaffordable for you, they
made healthcare on a afordable for you. They made eggs
(35:02):
unaffordable for you because they killed all the chickens for
no good reason. I'm starting to reverse that. But here's
how we're going to make housing affordable. Here's how we're
going to make healthcare affordable. I think this president is
so uniquely positioned to have one of the great moments
in oval office speeches in the next few weeks in
lay on to the table before Mondani begins his insanity
(35:23):
in New York. The alternative vision, which is we can
make housing affordable, just like we made gas affordable, just
like we made eggs affordable. He should go back and
hearken to the GA GI bills and all the GI
homes that were built in the nineteen fifties, which gave
America its greatest affordable housing boom in history. We can
do that again. Maybe it's not sticking motorhouses, maybe it's
(35:46):
manufactured homes. But there is a way to do this.
And what the President has to do is explain to
people that those Blue Democrats who are aligned with the media,
ligned with your teachers' union, aligned with the deep staters,
once you created all those regulations in your community that
make your house what used to cost three hundred thousand
(36:06):
now cost a million dollars. Regulatory mandates on every aspect
of a home have made it unaffordable. And for those
who don't believe me, just look at what's going on
in Palisides. No one can get a home rebuilt because
California's code is so insane the house can be built
under it. That's what's creating the affordability crisis in America.
I think the President in an Oval Office address could
(36:27):
blow that up for the American people like no one
else can. He is the master of the spotlight and
help turn this argument around before more cities and more
states start dabbling with these socialists who are very, very dangerous.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
a Tutor Dixon podcast. If you knew the behind the scenes,
I mean, the Palisades is a great example in Michigan.
When I was traveling around the state, I had so
many gas station owners who would say, we had the
environmental agency come out and say that the tank we
(37:02):
have has to be replaced. It's been years that they
can't decide how we get the tank out of the
ground because of the regulation. So they know they want
to replace it, they can't replace it because it's so backwards.
It's just ridiculous. Well, John Solomon, thank you so much
for being on the podcast today, and everybody out there
(37:22):
check out Just the News for sure. Thank you and
thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
As always. You can get it on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts, and you
can watch it on Rumble or YouTube at Tutor Dixon.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
Have a blessed day.
You are listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast, and we
have John Solomon here today, the founder of Just the News,
and you have a lot of good information on Arctic
frost and all the stuff that's going on.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
So John, welcome to the program. Let's dive right in.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Yeah, well, listen, I think Artic frost is going to
be our generation's Watergate, our generation's major civil liberties case.
We know there was a drag net basically dragging the
bottom of the ocean looking for anything they can hang
on Donald Trumper's supporters. That is something that our founding
fathers never intended the justice system to have. We specifically,
when we created our justice system with the founding fathers,
(00:37):
we rejected the notion of general warrants, meaning you look
for anything, find a crime, and then pin it on
a person. You're supposed to have a specific predicate of
a crime before you investigate. In America, so we reversed
the English law notion of general warrants. But Jack Smith's investigation,
and quite frankly, the predecessor to it inside the FBI,
was a general warrant fishing expedition. There's one thing I
(01:00):
want to focus people on because as I dig in
deeper into this and I start to create timetables about
what's going on. There are some oddities about the targeting
of some of the members of Congress whose phone records
were taken and they were kept in the dark, even
though there was a legal requirement at the time that
senators be notified if anybody was taking their phone records.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, I think this is something that people haven't really
heard that much about.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
So that's kind of why I want to dig into.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
I don't even know how many people know that people
in Congress are dealing with this, because I've seen a
few tweets like how dare you look at my phone records?
Speaker 2 (01:35):
They didn't know what was happening, right, they did it?
Speaker 3 (01:37):
No, In fact, there were orders by the judges to
specifically instructing the prosecutors not to comply with a congressional
law that required notification to sense. So let's give people
the body of evidence. There are eight setting senators whose
phone records were taken by Jack Smith. There were at
least five House members that we now know these records
(02:00):
were taken by Jack Smith, including the Republican leader and
future Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the chairman of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the former chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Why is that important? Four or five
(02:21):
of those people whose phone records were taken were doing
oversight of the FBI and the Justice Department and looking
into issues of weaponization. When Jack Smith went and got
their records, and Jack Smith knew that he was treading
into dangerous territory, the Public Integrity Division of the Justice
Department told them, Hey, there are congressional equities here that
(02:44):
are protected by the Debate and Speech Clause, So you're
going to have to litigate this out, though we think
the risk of litigation is low. He doesn't litigate it
out by telling Congress and then fighting it out. Instead,
he goes to Judge Boseburg and gets the judge, the
chief of the Washington DC Courthouse, and a man who
has a clear animis for President Trump. We know that
(03:05):
from his own comments in rulings, and he's been reversed
on several of those rulings that you do not have
to comply with the law that says that senators must
be notified if their phone records. There he basically exempts
the executive branch from having to comply with the law
that had been passed by the United States Senate. But
(03:25):
I want to focus in on the people who were
doing oversight, because when you start to put a timetable together,
there's some oddities in Jacksmith's investigation. Jack Smith is seeking
in the spring of twenty twenty three records that he
thinks are related to an event that occurred three years
two years earlier. More than two years earlier. January sixth,
(03:47):
twenty twenty one, is when the event occurs. Why is
it so important in the spring of twenty twenty three,
two and a half years to suddenly start looking at
members of Congress. The answer is those members of Congress
in the spring of twenty twenty five, we're now in
the majority. That had been in the minority, they were
in the majority, and they're ramping up investigations of the
(04:07):
Justice Department on weaponization, specifically on January sixth, and whether
the FBI's rate of President Trump's mar Lago home and
the prosecution of various people on January sixth, was lawful,
whether there were ethical violations or criminal violations, He's literally
targeting the investigators of his own department. Then I want
(04:29):
to wind back.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
The investigators who are investigating him. He's going after them
to see if he can discribe. I mean, is the.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Judge you go along and keep it a secret?
Speaker 2 (04:39):
What is the goal?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Is the goal that he is going to discredit them,
that he's just going to go after Trump?
Speaker 3 (04:44):
What?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
We don't know.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
We don't know the answer. But I want to go
back a little earlier, because one guy stands out. The
vast majority of those who were being investigated or who
had their phone records taken, are done in the spring
of twenty twenty three, but it is in the spring
of twenty twenty two that one person in Congress is
singled out earlier by the Justice Department. It's it. It's
(05:07):
before Jack Smith is even named. It's the predecessor investigation
that eventually leads to Jack Smith. It occurs in April
of twenty twenty two. Who is at the future Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan. In April of
twenty twenty two, he is suddenly has two years of
(05:27):
his phone records taken from his Verizon phone company. It's
a sipenup. It didn't go to a judge, it wasn't
a warrant. And what's interesting about it is they don't
seek the period just around January sixth, twenty twenty twenty one,
which is their alleged reason for doing this. Right, all right,
(05:48):
let's look at the four or five days around January sixth,
at least, you say, okay, they're narrowing it down. In
Jim Jordan's case, they're looking for two full years of
Jim Jordan's phone records, meaning way beyond January sixth. What
is he doing that at that time, he's the ranking
member on House Judiciary, And just a day or so
(06:08):
around the time, the same week that the subpoena is
going out for Jim Jordan's phone records, he is making
a referral for FBI to serve about certain FBI agent's
conducts in the you got it, January sixth investigations. So
they're literally issuing a phone record subpoena, a broad subpoena,
two year subpoena, right around the time that Jim Jordan
(06:31):
is looking under his congressional oversight responsibilities at the FBI
Justice Department's own conduct in that case, it is very
disturbing the timeline in the pattern. We don't know enough
to know what the intentions are, but we know that
Jordan's subpoena is earlier and much broader. We know the
second round of subpoenas come right around the time that
(06:53):
these weaponization investigations are gearing to life, and that many
of the members of Congress who were taught targeted were
people that were involved in those investigations. Marshall Blackburn on
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsay Graham on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Former
Congressman Louis Gohmert on the House Judiciary Subcommittee that looked
(07:17):
at a lot of FBI weaponization investigations going all the
way back to Russia collusion. It is an odd group
of people that he's targeting three years, two or three
years later after the January sixth event. It makes one
wonder whether he was looking at something other than January sixth.
Maybe this was a fishing expedition on these members of
(07:38):
Congress doing oversight on his department.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
But if this is illegal, I mean, is it illegal?
And can they get in trouble. You you talked about Watergate.
I mean, at what point, as a member of Congress
can you go back and say you had no right
to do this?
Speaker 2 (07:55):
And I mean, what is a legal recourse here?
Speaker 3 (07:59):
The great questions. So Marshall Blackburn's already sued, so we'll
see what her case does. The Senators put a provision
in the most recent spending bill that kept the government
reopened the government after the shutdown saying that any senator
whose phone records were taken would be entitled up to
five hundred thousand dollars in compensation for unlawful seizure of
(08:20):
the records that law. That provision makes note of the
fact that there was a law on the books that
said that the Senate had to be notified. So Jack Smith,
working with Bozburg, eviscerates that law. I don't know how
that's going to play out, but I assume that there's
going to be litigation over that.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
So I saw some I saw someone complaining that Marshall
Blackburn was looking to get her five hundred thousand dollars,
and I don't know if that's what was in her lawsuit.
But it's interesting because they see the Democrats seem to
always be able to turn these things around on Republicans.
We are bad at messaging, and when it comes to this,
(08:58):
because she has every right to go after them and
say no, you cannot go into my private records. But
now the Democrats are like, oh, look, she wants government money.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
Yeah, listen, I think at the end of the day,
the Senate provision that set up that money for the
fund for money is not going to be as important
as the argument she makes in the court about why
her Fourth Amendment rights were seized and or broken, and
then also why her work as a member of the
Senate confirming the twenty twenty election results, why that was
(09:31):
intruded on. There is clearly a separation of powers issue,
and the Public Integrity Division of the Justice Department warrened
Jacksmith before it let him go do this, that there
was going to be these equities and the way, meaning
there should be a notification to Congress. You fight it
out with Congress, then you get the phone records. That
was the recommendation.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
But she's never going to get through Congress with that.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
So yeah, well she's going to She's gonna have to
get through the courts, right where she's going to have
to succeed is in the courts. Tennessee jury or a
Tennessee judge may be more favorable to Marshall Blackburn that
a Washington DC judge has been to Donald Trump and
so well. I have to look and see how this
plays out. But Blackburn taking this to federal court in
Tennessee is a significant act and I think one that
(10:15):
will be one of the cases to watch this in
addition to whatever the Florida Grand jury that the Justice
Department has set in motion to look at this whole
decade of alleged weaponization. What does that do? Is that
what evidence that do they look at? Jack Smith getting
these phone records the same as Jack Smith talking to
Lois Lender back in twenty fourteen about the targeting of
(10:38):
by the irs of conservative groups, or the Russia collusion
or Ukraine impeachment or all the other things that followed.
I think now you're beginning to see similar characters showing
up at different timeframes in that alleged conspiracy. You got
Jack Smith in twenty fourteen, Jack Smith in twenty twenty
four You've got other people who come in and out
(10:59):
of this FBI agents that play in multiple anti Trump investigations,
and the Justice Department make a criminal conspiracy case like
they bring against the mob or drug cartels against the
Biden Obama Justice Department there I don't know yet, but
there's certainly work in Florida going on that suggests they're
looking at it.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
How do you know that you've gotten rid of this
deep state? I mean, this still must there must be
so much protection for this, we have it.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Why do we know we haven't? Because there are still
people leaking. There's a Miranda Divine story today of these
agents writing a report they're going to send to Congress.
They're still trying to resist what Cash Hotel is doing today.
They're still trying to resist what Pam Bondi is doing today.
And the deep state now is clearly embedded in the judiciary.
You've got judges throwing out President Trump's picks for US
(11:48):
attorneys in New Jersey and in Northern Virginia. You've got
judges throwing out the case against James Comey, not on
the merits, but looking for technicalities. You've got Judge Boseburg
okaying a secret search of phone members, of phone records
from members of Congress, even though a law said notification
was required. So the deep state is not just in
(12:09):
the Justice Bartman FBI. It does appear to the people
who I talked to that had just crept into the judiciary,
and that the judiciary, the Federal bureocracy, the Democrat leaning
media are all working together on this, and I think
that that's what's so concerning. And then you get the
Democratic members of Congress, like those who suggest it the
(12:30):
other day that members in the military should not abide
by President Trump's orders as a commander in chief if
they can deem them illegal. Though not a single member
of that group could identify any illegal order that President
Trump gave, So why would you raise a concern if
he didn't have one.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. So the President has said that
he thinks that there can be legal action taken against
those senators and congressmen. They were they're called the Seditious six.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
You know that one of my senator US senators is
Alyssa Slotkin. I don't like to claim her, but she
is the Michigan Senator. And she went out and she
even talked about the National Guard just before what happened
in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
And said she and to me, this is very telling
because she.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Is a CIA analyst, so she understands all of the
behind the scenes.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
She understands the training.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
She was actually deployed or went out on deployments with
military on military assignments, so she understands that the training
that's involved in being military, national guard at law enforcement,
you don't get scared and just start randomly shooting people.
But that's what she said on National TV.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Yeah, well, listen, I think that those six need to
be interviewed, and they're going to be interviewed because cash
Mittel asked for interviews of each of them. What did
you know? Why did you say it? Were you in
touch with any people who were funders or campaign find
dan stoners? Were they encouraging you to do it? Did
you have any basis to think that anything President Trump
has done was illegal? When you make the comment, if
(14:07):
you didn't have a single order that you think was illegal,
why would you make that comment and undercut the credibility
of the commander in chief and the relationship between the
commander in chief and these troops. Nowt here's the one
thing that Democrats don't appreciate. The members of the military
like the current a president. They like the current return
(14:29):
of war fighting and not social engineering in their ranks.
So you're not going to turn a lot of active
duty members against the president with that stunt. But what
those six senators did do was further inflame the public,
a public that has a lot of already cycle of
anger over politics. Politics. Democrats have mastered the art of anger.
(14:51):
They are the party of anger, they are the party
of hatred, They're the party of intolerance. Look at their language,
look at their lives. You have House members that can't
eat even get the circumstances right about an EPA administrator's donation.
You've got a Democrat law.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
They don't care and they don't care about He didn't
get that wrong. She knew when she went up there.
That wasn't the that wasn't Jeffrey's exactly right. That is
the scary thing about where we are with them right now. Yeah,
you made it point earlier that these judges have now
been their Democrats and they're working for the Democrat Party,
and the media is working for the Democrat Party. I mean,
(15:29):
my goodness, if a Republican, if Republicans had made that
video saying Biden was doing illegal things, that would be
all we'd be talking about.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
That's right, Yeah, No, listen, the Democrat media is just
catching up now to the extraordinary scandal that we broke
a year ago, back in August of twenty twenty four
against Governor Tim Waltz in Minnesota and the Somali fraud
that was going on, and the fact that the Waltz
administration was literally making it easier for that fraud to
be committed. We wrote that before voters voted on Tim
(16:01):
Waltz and Kamala Harris. The New York Times waited until
another seventy seven people were indicted before they decided to
write it. A year later. They protected Tim Waltz from
that story back in twenty twenty four. The media is
never going to do its job in the era of Trump.
We see that over and over again. Not the traditional media,
but we've created an equal on opposite system now like
(16:22):
your show and my site Justin News, that can get
this information around them. What we don't have a solution
to are judges unless the Supreme Court continues to intervene
ruling in ways that are inconsistent with the law or constitution.
What we don't have is a way yet of punishing
those who have clearly corrupted the criminal justice system in
(16:46):
the past. We have a clear record of what they did.
We have so few punishments. There is no deterrence for
a person today to do what someone did ten years
ago during Russia collusion, which is mislead. The Fiser Court
believe we're close to showing that most of the testimony
that made up the basis of and the evidence that
made up the basis for President Trump's impeachment was bogus.
(17:10):
It wasn't true. We're now seeing that in the documents
that are being released and that I sued the fight
to get there's been no accountability to any of those people,
even though some of them are repeat actors. And so
I think our questions are now, if Pam Bondi's Justice
Department doesn't create accountability, is this system going to become normalized.
(17:30):
I think we're very close to the abyz abyss of
without any future, without any current punishment, that this is
going to be the new norm for Democrats. They will
feel unencumbered by the law, unincumbered by ethics, unincovered by
the rules this country generally operated on, which is, we
can disagree, but we won't violate the law, and disagreeing
to we'll violate the law anytime. We want to make
(17:53):
sure we win our disagreement, and the optionence of deterrence
is a big problem.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
You made a statement there, you said, if Pam Bondi's
Department of Justice doesn't go after these people and push them,
do you fear that that is going on all?
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Hey, listen, She's clearly ramped up a major grand jury
investigation in Florida. That's something that cash Betel laid out
in March. That's operating now. She brought charges against John Bolton,
against James Comy, against Letitia James. Though two of those
three have been thrown out, one has been sustained. Do
they refile the charges do they do a sea preceding
indictment with Komy? I think the jury is still out,
(18:28):
and I also want to remind people how complicated these
cases have been made by things that we're now learning about.
James Comy's records were nearly burned in a burn bag.
According to the court filings, someone tried to destroy that
evidence back in January of this year. The Deep State
was alive and well. As President Trump was coming into office,
somebody was in a skiff, someone was in dealing with
(18:50):
burn bags. If the FBI and the Justice Department's account
is accurate, that is our generation's nineteen minute gap, like
the Nixon tape, Remember the Nixon tape. That someone to
raise nineteen minutes off of Richard Nixon's tape, that operation
and that skiff, that effort to burn documents that weren't
properly recorded in the system so they couldn't be found,
(19:11):
couldn't be used to prosecute. If that turns out to
be a true crime, that is our generation's Watergate moment.
But will anyone pay for it to be determined? I
do see Pambondi ramping up a lot of activity. The
question is does that activity not only result in indictments.
If you indict and don't convict, you've basically created an
(19:33):
incentive for people to do this in the future. So
you got to bring cases, you got to bring good cases,
you got to bring them in venues. We got a
chance to convict. If you're going to create the turns
and all that is still waiting to be written. We'll
see if it happens.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
You brought up the fraud in Minnesota.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
I think we have all seen that Tim Walls is
still out there, still quite a bit of the Democrat
Party and quite a focus of the Democrat Party. Walk
us a little bit through that fraud, because I think
that's a big fear for Americans, regardless of what side
of the aisle you're on, is this illegal immigration and
what's happening on the ground once people get here.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
So walk us through that.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
At the end of the day, people have to step
back and look at immigration and fraud as interlinked in
ways that we could never have imagined. A few years ago.
Illegal immigration in fraud. Tim Waltz and his administration loosened
the controls on money. As the borders are being opened
in America and the Somali refugees are coming into the
United States, Joe Biden is bringing in Afghans without proper vetting,
(20:35):
as we learned painfully again one more time with the
horrific shooting outside the White House. So there's a knowing
and willful effort to bring people into the country and
then allow them to stay in the country and to
live reasonable lives so that they stay in the Blue states,
so that apportionment and congressional redistricting and how federal funds
(20:57):
are determined are hijacked by the blue state. What this
was systemic. The first idea to do this goes all
the way back to the Clinton years, but it was
modernized in the twenty eighteen to twenty twenty four time frame.
So open the borders, get these illegal aliens to blue
sanctuary states and cities, because then they count in the
(21:18):
population because the census was changed under Joe Biden. Account that,
and then you have better federal funds flowing to Blue
states permanently, and you have more representation in Congress. And
I think that this was systemic. And so in some
in little Somalia as they call Minneapolis neighborhoods where the
(21:38):
Somalian immigrants are. By the way, I'm sure there are
many good, lawful Somali immigrants there too, but the illegal
ones that were there, or the ones who were there
lawfully but then defrauding the government, they ran these scams.
One of them was to rob money. In the current
estimate is it may be as high as two billion
dollars COVID. You had two billion dollars from one entitlement program.
(22:01):
This was an entitlement program created during COVID to help
people who were having hard time finding food. During COVID,
they didn't have work, so it was the most vulnerable people,
people who may be going hungry are the victims of
the Somali crime. Seventy seven defendants have been charged already
and it looks like many more will be. Then there's
another program that was supposed to help parents with autistic children.
(22:24):
We know autism is massively on the rise in America.
They have a Somali doctor who, according to her indictment,
was giving out bogus diagnoses of autism so that these
Somali families could get federal aid. And then there were
kickbacks apparently back to various people. So these we weren't
(22:44):
only taxpayers, weren't the victim of these frauds. People who
were the most vulnerable, the people that the Democrats tell
us all day they're fighting for. It was their fraud
that victimized those people. And Tim Waltz, according to the
Legislative Audit Bureau, according to other documents, including to some
of his own state workers who have come forward as whistleblowers,
(23:06):
was loosening the restrictions to make this fraud easier to happen.
And then it took a new and bold federal prosecutor
in Minneapolis under Donald Trump to finally roll up. We
started riding on this in the summer of twenty twenty four,
and he was important for the American people to understand
Tim waltz record on fraud. They did. They didn't pick
the guy. He's not one heartbeat from the presidency now.
(23:29):
But now the size and scope of that fraud and
the accountability that must come from it is just beginning
to ramp up. There is an example where Pamboni's Justice
Department's doing a lot of accountability. There are seventy almost
eighty defendants now seventy seven to one case three and another.
That's good accountability. That's one of the largest fraud cases
in modern history when you look at the total number
(23:50):
of defendants. But the system is not an accident. This
wasn't Keystone cops just not knowing how to do their job.
This was a not just decision to loosen this system
so that fraud could occur, so that illegal aliens who
crossed the border could stay in these blue cities and
rig apportionment for future elections and for future federal funding decisions.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
But too many of our young people don't even see
this as fraud. They're like all these people they needed
in socials. Okay, yes, right, yes, So what do we
do when we see these new polls coming out that
I mean, we're looking into twenty six, but we've got
to be looking into twenty eight. And everybody said, oh,
Trump won young men, And I believe that Trump.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Won young men. It wasn't Republicans, that.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
Was Trump, and Rob do you want them? Right?
Speaker 1 (24:40):
So my concern is if we don't have President Trump
on the ballot and we've got all fifty one percent
of young people that want democratic socialism, they don't even
see this as a problem, this kind of fraud.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Yeah. Well, President Trump's vice president is quite young. He
came from poverty. He understands the dilemma of affordability that
the working man and working women in America have been
running in place financially for two or three decades straight,
and because they're running in place, they fall further and
further behind. He has a unique ability to talk to
(25:15):
young young people in America. He has a unique experience
from his hillbilly elogy upbringing to make the affordability argument
that what your teachers taught you, and this is another
part of the Grand conspiracy. While governors like Waltz and
his administration were making it easier to fraud people, Joe
Biden was making it easier for people to come into
(25:36):
the country illegally and hijack the apportionment system. The teachers
unions aligned with that democrat and liberal machinery were putting
a new agenda into classrooms, which was, don't worry about
teaching math or arithmetic, or writing or history, talk about
social engineering, and make socialism romantic for today's young people.
(25:59):
So to generations went through school systems that suggested that
America was an evil state, that capitalism was bad, that
white people are pressors and non whites are the oppressed.
And then they went further into say, hey, people like
Castro had it right, people like the Marxists had it right.
And so a whole two generations of students have come
out to dislike the American experience. The things that make
(26:20):
America great, capitalism, freedom, and to They have a distorted
view of what socialism is. They believe socialism is giving
government money to people so that they can live decent lives.
That's not what socialism is. That's the lure of socialism
to sucker people into it. But history shows that that
socialism rips our freedoms away from the individual as part
(26:45):
of that system, that the greater collective eviscerates your personal freedoms.
And I've been saying for a couple of years now,
I've been giving this speech wherever I can go, that
we are in the middle of a war on truth,
something you just mentioned a little bit ago. The lying
goes on every day. That war on truth is designed
to get rid of some truths, like there's only men
(27:07):
and women. No, there's twenty five genders the men and women.
But the ultimate goal of that war on truth is
to eviscerate the ultimate truth that the American experiment was
built on, that our creator gave us in aliable rights
they couldn't be taken from us. And when I first
gave that speech, some of my colleagues in the media like, oh,
my god, sell them and you've gone off your rocker.
(27:27):
Why do you say things like that? That's not true?
And then Senator Tim Kane did me a big favor
among my old peeps in the profession. He came out
and set it on the record, which is, I don't
believe any longer that people get their rights from their God.
They get him from government. That's exactly the notion of socialism.
That is the dangerous lurb that the young people in
(27:47):
this country were not told about. They like the idea
that poor people can get some more money, maybe live
a better life based on taxpayers. I'm they might be
willing to accept that because it's been romanticized. But what
they don't realize in the trade off is that their
freedoms are going to be ripped out of their hands.
And that is what socialism has done historically for two
centuries since it was first invented. That's what has to
(28:09):
be reprogrammed. Now we got a great moment the two
hundred and fiftieth birthdays next year. Can we create a
cultural moment in America to help two generations of Americans
learn what they were denied in school, that America is
generally good. Yeah, we got some problems, but we're still
the greatest nation. That freedom is important, that we were
given these rights as inalienable rights from our creator. We
got an amazing year next year to sell that. We'll
(28:32):
see if the Trump administration and conservatives across the country
can reprogram some of our young people. I think they're
very impressionable. They're not seeing the world turn out the
way they're teachers, the way they're teachers predicted. The question
is can Republicans and conservatives offer them something different than
what they were given in schools. We'll see.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
I will just say it is so deeply ingrained in
our schools. I send my kids to private school, and
it's even in the textbooks that are like, you know,
these are the the supposedly non biased textbooks. So my
daughter is in US politics and government this year, would
I would love to say, I'm gonna.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Screenshot some of the pages of her book.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Every almost every page is anti Trump anti It's like
a full focus on Trump, and my daughter every day
she's like, oh my gosh, look at this, Mom, look
at this. But if you don't know it's not true,
and you don't have somebody at home telling you this
is not true and I'm paying for this, you can
see why so many parents. When I was going around
to the state of Michigan, we would talk about school choice,
(29:33):
and I had so many parents of private school say, look,
stop talking about that. I don't want any government money
coming to our school because the government always thinks they
can get into your school. Then, and I mean, they
make a good point, because we're fighting. Even though we're
we have teachers that agree with us.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Yeah. Well, listen, we have not conquered the education equation.
We have. We've conquered something called DEI and CRT. But
it's just gonna be rebranded. And you look at what
these teacher union's leaders gave in speeches going back a
decade or fifteen years ago. They declared war on the
American experience. They declared war on our children, and we
(30:11):
were too busy to notice it for ten years. COVID
gave us a moment to say, what is going on?
But have we truly reversed in The answer is not yet. Now,
Linda mcmhon's cut the Education department bureaucracy in half. President
has put a plan to get rid of the US
Education Department that will have some impact. But the real
(30:33):
fight here is in getting these ideologies banned in schools
in a way that they can't come back just by
a new name or a new brand. We have to
get back to making our kids focus on math and
English and history and not on social engineering, which has
been the primary focus of the last fifteen or twenty
years of education in most at least most blue states,
(30:55):
and quite frankly, it's creeping into religious gools. Now there
is a big effort by liberals of fun this indoctrination
into what used to be the refuge for parents, which
is private schools. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Absolutely, in private colleges, I mean even the faith based
colleges around us. We hear parents constantly complaining that we've
got these radical professors and they're in there and they're
trying to change minds and take them away from traditional value.
So it is a battle, and that's what we tell
parents all the time. It's like, you have to be
(31:26):
so involved in and I mean even through college, you've
got to be heavily involved in your kids' lives. Is
your this is what you're your biggest investment and what
you're passing on to the next generation is your child.
So you want to make sure that you show them
the path that you've walked in the values that we
have as Americans. I appreciate that you are out there
(31:46):
reporting on those every day, John.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
I love what I do and listen. The best way
to find a war on truth is by putting more
truths and facts out there. And one of the things
that's happened that I think is the benefit of America
is what you've done with your great show, what Joe
Rogan can do with this podcast, what I've done with
justin news. We don't have to be dependent on the
legacy media and their alliances with the far left to
(32:09):
get our information. We have found a way to get
that information around the logjam of the old media into
the American people. In spite of the legacy media. We've
made the legacy media far less relevant today. We need
to do the same thing with teachers' unions. We need
to do the same things with bureaucrats. We need to
create an eco and opposite competitive system on every threat
(32:32):
that this country faces, because that's ultimately what our free
market has given us. The competition has proven time and
again to be the best panacea to ills, particularly those
ills imposed by the left. So competition is and I
think what's happened in the media space is a great son.
I saw a story summer. It might have been The
New York Times, but it was a New York Times
today saying that the climate extremists think they're lose a
(32:54):
messaging war. Yeah, that's because facts got out there. All
their predictions turned out not to be true were and
you know, even Bill Gates is repudiating them. Now. They
lost the messaging more because those of us, two of
us sitting right here, decided to go out and build
an alternative system that got the information to the American people.
The left has one weakness. It's the Achilles he All
(33:16):
the left they think American people are stupid. And I
think that that is their greatest thing. That's elitism at
its highest level. The American people are perceptive. They just
need the tools. And if we get them the tools,
they U should make the right decision.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (33:29):
And as soon as they start to lose voices like
Bill Gates who looks at this and goes, I can't
I can't continue to say this without being embarrassed. And
then you've got Greta who found her new passion for Palestine,
so she's moved on. You lost your whole, your whole
climate warrior face.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
So now they're done with that.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
And in electric vehicles were a political disaster for them,
so they are even walking back from that.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
I mean, you can are.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
Cut a forest in South America to have their climate.
A conference eight miles of a forest has cut down.
How much more insane hypocrisy there is our young people.
That's the thing that young people are seeing. They're looking like,
wait a second, you guys sold me a bill. Here's
what I think that if the President wants to effectively
fight what just happened in New York with Mandanmi, the
(34:19):
ultimate manifestation that we have a young generation that's willing
to try socialism, he has to create an alternative argument
for affordability in America because young people look at it
and say, I'm never going to afford a million dollar home.
And by the way, million dollar home is becoming the
medium in a lot of places now, they're becoming illusion
I think the President needs an Oval Office speech in
(34:40):
the next few weeks where he lays out the alternative.
There is a better way to do this. And by
the way, the very people that are trying to lure
you in socialism are the people that created the nanty state,
that made it this country so unaffordable. They made gas
unaffordable for you. They made prescriptions unaffordable for you, they
made healthcare on a afordable for you. They made eggs
(35:02):
unaffordable for you because they killed all the chickens for
no good reason. I'm starting to reverse that. But here's
how we're going to make housing affordable. Here's how we're
going to make healthcare affordable. I think this president is
so uniquely positioned to have one of the great moments
in oval office speeches in the next few weeks in
lay on to the table before Mondani begins his insanity
(35:23):
in New York. The alternative vision, which is we can
make housing affordable, just like we made gas affordable, just
like we made eggs affordable. He should go back and
hearken to the GA GI bills and all the GI
homes that were built in the nineteen fifties, which gave
America its greatest affordable housing boom in history. We can
do that again. Maybe it's not sticking motorhouses, maybe it's
(35:46):
manufactured homes. But there is a way to do this.
And what the President has to do is explain to
people that those Blue Democrats who are aligned with the media,
ligned with your teachers' union, aligned with the deep staters,
once you created all those regulations in your community that
make your house what used to cost three hundred thousand
(36:06):
now cost a million dollars. Regulatory mandates on every aspect
of a home have made it unaffordable. And for those
who don't believe me, just look at what's going on
in Palisides. No one can get a home rebuilt because
California's code is so insane the house can be built
under it. That's what's creating the affordability crisis in America.
I think the President in an Oval Office address could
(36:27):
blow that up for the American people like no one
else can. He is the master of the spotlight and
help turn this argument around before more cities and more
states start dabbling with these socialists who are very, very dangerous.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
a Tutor Dixon podcast. If you knew the behind the scenes,
I mean, the Palisades is a great example in Michigan.
When I was traveling around the state, I had so
many gas station owners who would say, we had the
environmental agency come out and say that the tank we
(37:02):
have has to be replaced. It's been years that they
can't decide how we get the tank out of the
ground because of the regulation. So they know they want
to replace it, they can't replace it because it's so backwards.
It's just ridiculous. Well, John Solomon, thank you so much
for being on the podcast today, and everybody out there
(37:22):
check out Just the News for sure. Thank you and
thank you all for listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
As always. You can get it on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts, and you
can watch it on Rumble or YouTube at Tutor Dixon.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
Have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular 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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.