November 26, 2024 • 39 mins
Special Counsel Jack Smith is finally giving up on his political prosecutions of President-elect Trump. But the left isn't done with its lawfare yet.
Matt Gaetz has withdrawn himself from consideration to be the Attorney General, and his replacement pick is raising some eyebrows from gun rights activists.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Matt Gaetz has withdrawn himself from consideration to be the Attorney General, and his replacement pick is raising some eyebrows from gun rights activists.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Alrighty, what a week. Got a lot to talk about,
but I want to open it up with something kind
of fun. We've got some serious stuff to get into,
but let's start with some fun stuff. So the Democrats
are like wishing for some sort of buyer's remorse from
the Republicans, and they're trying to basically just like manifest
(00:38):
it out of thin air. And I don't know what
the logic is behind this, because, first of all, Trump's
not even in office, so even if we were to
have some buyer's remorse, it's not possible. Second of all,
I am almost a thousand percent sure there will be
no buyers Morse. We all know what we voted for.
We all want it. This is wishful thinking it best
(00:58):
regardless of that it's out there. I stumbled across this
post on X that I think perfectly exemplifies this. It's
from this page called Captain Obvious, and I don't know
anything about this page. I just scrolled across it. I
thought it was funny that they posted this, and you'll
see why in a second. So this Captain Obvious page
(01:19):
posted California farmers voted for Trump today, six of them
filed for bankruptcy after losing their workers. Welcome to the
world of f around and find out. Now, of course
this does kind of say the quiet part out loud.
For a long time, Democrats have every now and again,
let this slip. All that these illegal immigrants are to
them is cheap labor. They keep saying this, And I'll
(01:41):
pull up some examples here in a minute, just so
we can kind of make this point. Actually, let me
pull up the examples right now. This is a cut
of Kelly Osbourne back in twenty fifteen, So this is old.
This is back when he was first running for president,
and it was twenty sixteen or twenty fifteen. It's Kelly
Osbourne on the View. I don't know who Kelly Osbourne is.
I believe she's the daughter of Ozzie Osbourne, who I hate.
(02:04):
We'll get into that later. That's a whole story. But
here she is on the view and she accidentally says
the quiet part out loud. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Do you kick every Latino out of this country?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Then who is going to be cleaning your toilet?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Oh, that's in the sense that you know what I mean.
But I'm saying there.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
There's more jobs to l a. They always were, but
the Donalds are not. Only I don't mean it like that.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Come on, no, I would never mean it like that. Okay,
I'm not part of this argument.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I think what you're saying is that Trump himself.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
He's insulting.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
It's so funny because like the moment she says it,
she knows she's messed up. The moment the words pass
her lips, she realizes, Oh crap, I've said the quiet
part out loud. I shouldn't have done this. I've made
a mistake. And she immediately tries to walk it back.
She like, oh, no, I didn't mean it like that.
I no, No, that's not what yes it is. That's
exactly what you mean. You said exactly what you meant
(03:02):
to say, and you said the quiet part out loud.
Because that's what these people think of the illegal Limerius.
They try to pretend that this is some humanitarian thing.
It's not. It's just not. These people are cheap labor
to you, and that's all they are. And so this
tweet from Captain Obvious kind of makes that point. Six
of these farmers in California filed for bankruptcy after losing
(03:23):
their workers welcome to the world of f around and
find out. So they're making the point. See, look now
we can't pay people dirt wages to do labor, so
we're just gonna have to shut down Lotti doa da da.
I thought the left was the party of this is bad.
We need to pay people living wages. We can't just
throw pennies on the dollar to people to do work
(03:44):
that nobody wants to do. That was universally considered to
be a bad thing on the left, or so I thought.
But the best part of that tweet isn't actually the
tweet where they once again say the quiet part out loud.
The best part of that tweet was the community note
that imediately got slapped on it. And this is why
I think Twitter or X excuse me, I'm still getting
(04:05):
used to you, guys. I'm working on it. This is
why I think X is one percent the best social
media platform, because I've been hitting this point for several weeks,
back to back to back. The left says things to
low information voters that get an emotional response out of them,
that require no research whatsoever, and they do no research
whatsoever because that's not what they do they're not in
(04:26):
politics all the time, they're not thinking about politics, and
so they just jump to some conclusions. They just assume
what they're reading is true, and there's never any fact
check or anything against that except for community notes. So
community notes immediately pointed this out as a blatant falsehood,
and it's right there for everyone to see. You don't
have to do any extra research. You see the original post,
(04:48):
and then you see the community note right next to it, and
it says, as of this posting, there is no verified
or unverified stories in existence of this event taking place
other than this account's post. The largest recent bankruptcy filing
by California farmers has been due to low almond prices,
so they can't pay for their workers. Allmend prices are low.
(05:13):
These are almond farmers. Almond prices are low. They can't
pay their bills just by selling almends like they had
planned to do, and so they file for bankruptcy. Not
Trump has deported a bunch of people, because that hasn't
even happened yet. Trump is still not in office, guys.
He doesn't come into office until January twentieth. I know
(05:34):
I'm counting the days, trust me, I'm waiting very excitedly.
But this is exactly the type of thing that someone
that is a low information voter who pays attention to
politics casually will see and then just assume it's true.
They just think, oh, yeah, this is probably happening, and
then they lose their minds over it. They get all upset.
But it's actually not happening. It's not real, it's made up.
(05:57):
We have got to be fact checking people, and that's
why I actively encourage everyone to spend more time on X.
I truly believe this is a great platform. Specifically because
of things like this, we have blown up the left's
echo chamber and it is amazing. But that's not even
the best part. I mean, we talked about how their
buyer remorse that they keep hoping for isn't happening. Not
(06:19):
only is it not happening, but people are incredibly excited
about this. I want you to take a listen to
this cut from CNN where they're talking about the transition team.
They're talking about how popular Trump's transition has been so far. Already.
People do not have buyer remorse. We know what we
voted for, and we want it severely bad.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Take a listen or take a look here president Trump's
transition net approval. You go back to November at twenty sixteen,
Look at this, it was just a plus one point,
just a plus one point.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
That is well well well below.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
The historical norm. Look get where we are today, significantly higher,
plus eighteen points. That seventeen points higher on the presidential
trainansition net approval rating. The bottom line is this, If
eight years ago Americans were lukewarm on Donald Trump at
this particular point, they're giving him much more of the
benefit of the doubt. A lot more Americans are in
love with this transition. This much more meets the historical
(07:14):
norms where normally presidents get that boost coming out of
their victory. And what we're seeing here is Donald Trump's
presidential transition is getting a thumbs up. And dare I
say two thumbs up from the American people.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
What the American people are seeing right now and this
makes that point perfectly. They're saying, Look, we see what
Donald Trump is doing right now, and we like it.
We see the fact that Donald Trump has already begun
working very diligently on fulfilling the promises that he made
during his campaign and We're excited about that because I'll
(07:45):
tell you what the people voted for. They voted for
lower prices, they voted for less illegal immigration. They voted
for the illegal immigrants that are here right now to
get out. That's what the American people wanted. They see
that they're getting it, and they like it. And listen,
despite what the left might try to tell you, those
things aren't mutually exclusive. Those things should not be controversial,
and I think we're entering a point where they aren't anymore.
(08:08):
People have rejected leftism and I'm one hundred percent here
for it. All Right, we got a great show coming up.
I'm excited. You should be excited. We'll be right back
after some ads. All right, So I want to talk
real quick about some news that broke last week. Matt Gates,
who of course was Trump's incredibly controversial nominee for Attorney General.
He is out. I said that this might happen. He
(08:31):
might be the pick that Trump kind of throws out
just to catch some heat and then not actually get through.
I don't know if that's what happened, but Matt Gates
is out. He withdrawed his nomination or withdrew his nomination.
Forgive me. He did that. Last Thursday. He did that
on Twitter, he posted this statement. He said, I had
excellent meetings with senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback
(08:54):
and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum
was strong, it's clear that my confirmation was on fairly
becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump
vance transition. There was no time to waste on a
needlessly protracted Washington's scuffle. Thus, I'll be withdrawing my name
from consideration to serve as Attorney general. Trump's DOJ must
be in place and ready on day one. That is
(09:17):
a great point, because whether you think that Gates was
a good pick or not, I tend to like Gates
as Attorney general. I tend to like Gates period. I
like his politics, other controversies notwithstanding, I like his politics,
and I think he would have been a good attorney general.
But the point he makes here is good. We want
Trump to be ready to go on day one as
(09:38):
quickly as possible. That is what's best for the conservative agenda.
So if you have a critical part of your administration,
like your ag that's being just held up behind debates
and allegations, and this stuff can drag on forever, literally forever.
So if your goal is to just get people in
(09:59):
to start breaking things as fast as possible at the
federal level, which is what America desperately needs, then gates
pulling out is a good move and we can continue
to speculate all we want about whether or not he's
guilty of some of the things that he's been accused of.
As of right now, all we have official to go
on is a three year DOJ investigation that ended with
(10:20):
them saying we're not gonna bring charges. We clear him
of any wrongdoing. But the House was doing an ethics report.
There's questions about what would have been in that. There's
questions about whether or not Gates wanted that to come out.
They had announced that they were not going to release
that report because he had resigned his seat in Congress.
So the fact of the matter is Gates is out,
and we saw that coming. We knew that was gonna happen.
(10:41):
So here's the question, who did Trump replace him with.
He replaced him with the former Florida Attorney general, somebody
by the name of Pam Bondi. I'm not super familiar
with her, but I've seen a lot of very conservative
people get very very excited about that. Frankly, I have
a few I want to play you this clip of her.
(11:03):
I don't know when and where this is exactly, but
I believe this is back when she was still the
Attorney General of Florida, I believe. Don't quote me on that,
but this was posted by the National Association for Gun Rights,
who is a group that I really like. I really like.
I have a great relationship with their Texas division. Here
they're great people. Kyle Rittenhouse is with them. But here
(11:24):
she is talking about some red flag laws that I
believe she either supported or actually on the books in Florida.
So take a listen to this.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
You're going to bring in something called the gun violence
Restraining Order. So if someone is civilly committed for and yeah,
typically you can hold them for up to seventy two hours,
but people are getting out within twenty four hours, the
majority of them. So what we want to do is
let law enforcement come in and take the guns. They
are a danger to themselves, well because without being adjudicated,
(11:57):
so because they are a danger to them.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
You want them to take the gun when they are
not go through six months of legal trials and everything exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
But we also have to give the mentally ill the
due process in which they deserve. President. So what we're
doing is they're going to be able to take the
guns when they're taken into custody or into the hospital,
and then when they're released within twenty four hours or
seventy two hours later. Typically it's twenty four hours, but
law enforcement will have seventy two hours to determine whether
(12:27):
they should give those guns back, or they can go
to a judge and say, your honor, please keep these guns.
We feel this person is still a danger to himself
or others.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Okay, So there she is just outright supporting red flag laws,
which are terrible, absolute violations of the Constitution. It is
literally the absence of due process. You're saying, this due
process is too dangerous, it takes too long. We can't
have this. We need to take their guns before they
get the due process. So the problem with this is
(13:00):
you could have an antisecond Amendment judge who, no matter what,
we'll always say no, don't give them back the guns.
You can have this whole process of this person as
a threat to themselves and others initiated by some like
annoyed X or annoyed former employee or annoyed anyone going
and filing a report about this and calling it in
and saying, hey, this guy's dangerous. You need to go
(13:20):
take his guns. And then they go in, they take
the guns without any due process, and then you have
to do month's worth of legal battles in order to
get your guns back because you ticked off the wrong
person and they filed some bs report against you. This
has happened. There are cases where that has happened, where
people in states with red flag laws lose their guns
(13:40):
at a who knows how long amount of time because
somebody filed some garbage report against them. So red flag
laws are a problem. Now. I will say that in
the position of Attorney General, her stance on red flag
laws almost makes no difference because she can't actually make laws,
like if you wanted national red flag laws, which I
(14:02):
think is a lot of the concern Pam Bondi's going
to come in and create national red flag laws because
that's what she supports. Okay, she's the attorney general. She
can't do that. I have my questions about her. I'm
not supporting her. I'm not throwing my hat in the
ring or whatever. This is something that concerns me as
a gun owner and Second Amendment absolutist. But if we're
(14:23):
being honest with ourselves, she can't actually take that ideology
that she may or may not still have and impose
that from the position of Attorney general. Congress would have
to act in order for that to become a law
that she can enforce as attorney general, because remember, that's
the role of the Attorney general is to, you know,
basically be the lawyer for the United States. So if
the United States is prosecuting someone, that's what the Attorney
(14:46):
general does. Now, I will say, she has said some
things that I like. She says some things I dislike.
She says some things I do like. I'm gonna be
honest with you. I'm fifty to fifty. I could go
either way on her. Let's see how the Senate hearings go.
I'd like to see what her views on Red flaglars
are now and how she intends to let those views
affect how she does her job. But I will say
(15:07):
I like a lot of the stuff she said on
Jeffrey Epstein. I think we can all agree that the
Epstein list should have been out years ago. It's insane
that it's still not and we need to do something
about it. Well, here's Pambondi on Fox again. I don't
know when exactly this is. I'm finding all these clips
on ex and they don't all say this happened here
at this time. But here she is on Fox saying like, look,
(15:29):
why isn't this out yet? Why don't we know who
these people are? It's suspicious that we don't, and we
need to correct that.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I want to know why ag Garland and the Justice
Department are so quiet on this tonight. You know they're
out there labeling parents domestic terrorists, yet they're saying nothing
about this, and these documents were so slow to come out.
Human trafficking is a multi billion dollar business in this country.
And Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Gerlain Maxwell is in
(15:58):
prison for twenty years where she belongs. And if people
in that report are still fighting to keep their names private, Sean,
they have no legal basis to do so unless they're
a child, a victim, or a cooperating defendant by some
chance against some potential case against Gerlaine Maxwell. And I
think Mark Garagus as a great criminal defense attorney. I'll
(16:20):
back that up as well.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
So, I mean, from the sounds of that, it sounds
like she's the type of person that's going to really
go after the people on the Epstein list, or at
least try to get to Epstein list out there so
we can all see it, so we can know who
are these people that were doing this despicable stuff with
Jeffrey Epstein. For years, they have been essentially protected by
the DOJ, who refuses to release all this information because
(16:45):
it's not like this is a secret. It's not like
this is stuff that the government doesn't know, stuff that
the prosecutors don't know. They know who was on those lists.
They know who Jeffrey Epstein was doing business with. They
know who Gishline Maxwell was finding underage girls for. They
know exactly who was doing this stuff, and yet they
(17:06):
refuse to release that information. They refuse to tell us.
Trump has said that he's going to release it. Some
other people around him during the campaign said that it
was going to be released. So if she does that,
I think she would be great. If she commits to that,
then I will give her my full support. But again
I have questions about her, and she just got picked,
(17:27):
so let's give it some time to let these questions
be answered. People are rushing to judgment on her already,
which I don't think is fair. That's an older video
of her talking in the gun control video, or her
views may have changed. I think she's at the very
least an interesting pick. Let's see what comes out during
the Senate hearings. Let's see what she has to say,
(17:47):
because I'm sure she'll be asked about this. I'm sure
pro gun senators will ask her about this, and they
definitely should. I've seen a lot of people on x
that are saying, call your senator, tell them to vote no.
Don't do that. Call your senator and tell them what
questions you want to hear answered. That's infinitely more productive
because we're all operating off of the little bit of
(18:08):
information we see online. We need more info. Call your
senators and tell them to ask questions. Don't tell them
to just vote no based on what you saw in
one clip. Okay, some more big news that came out yesterday.
Jack Smith has dropped his case against Donald Trump. That's say, uh,
(18:29):
we saw this coming. Everybody saw this coming. This was
just one of many cases that were brought against Trump
in the years leading up to this year's election that
were obviously bs just obviously, like this whole case against
Donald Trump was all about how he did January sixth,
there were I believe four different felony charges that were
(18:52):
related to that. I don't remember what they were exactly.
I think obstruction of officials something or other was one
of them. The case had already been put on hold.
They did that, I believe a couple weeks or maybe
a month or two before the election. They it was
right after the Supreme Court immunity ruling came out. So
there were basically a bunch of questions about whether or
(19:14):
not what Trump did leaning up to inauguration day Back
in twenty twenty one where official actions or not, like
he had asked the UH Georgia Secretary of State to
find votes, which had been interpreted as him saying, I
want you to go create these votes illegally, which it's
(19:35):
pretty clear that what he was actually saying was I
think there has been a counting error. Go find these
votes that were cast that weren't counted. Whether or not
you should be saying that is up for debate. Who
cares that was four years ago. Nobody gives a crap
about any of that anymore. People do not actually care
about January sixth. And you know how, I know that
(19:56):
if they did care about January sixth, Trump would have
lost November fifth, but he didn't. He won by a lot.
We just don't care about this crap anymore. We have
bigger problems to deal with in the United States than
crap that Trump said four years ago. And I remind
you he said at that rally on January sixth, peacefully protest.
(20:19):
So you have to completely ignore everything that actually happened
to make the case that Donald Trump was trying to
get people to storm the Capitol. You just you have
to completely ignore it. That's the only way to get there.
So after this immunity ruling from the Supreme Court, that
basically kicks it down. So now the judge has to
decide whether or not what Trump did was subject to
(20:42):
the presidential immunity that he enjoys. That was up for debate,
So the case was basically put on hold leading up
to the election, and then right after Trump won. What's
his face? Jack Smith, the special special prosecutor, I believe
it's the technical term for the appointm that he held
Special Council, he started signaling that he was going to
(21:03):
start winding these cases down. According to ktihnews dot com
or KTRH dot com Ethan Buchanan reporting, look at that, Wow,
shameless plug. KTRH dot com. Read my articles. I post
new ones every day. They're good stuff. But after Special
Counsel Jacksmith officially moved to drop the four felony January
sixth related charges against the forty fifth and soon to
(21:24):
be forty seventh president, the judge in the case, Democrat
Tanya Chutkin, has agreed to grant the request and drop
the case. So what we're seeing here is slowly, over time,
as these things play out, it's becoming more and more
obvious that these cases were always just lawfare. That's all
they were. Because remember he has already had one of
(21:47):
those cases thrown out. I believe it's the classified Documents case.
The judge in that case is basically like, yeah, Jacksmith
was not appointed properly to be the Special Council. He
has no right to bring these cases or to bring
these charges in this documents case. This is all bs
I'm throwing this case out, So of his four big
(22:10):
felony indictments, he's already scott free on two of them,
and the third one that they actually convicted him on
is on its way out. But here's what Trump actually
said himself in response to these cases being thrown out.
He said, these cases, like all the other cases that
I have been forced to go through, are empty and
(22:32):
lawless and should never have been brought. Over one hundred
million dollars of taxpayer money has been wasted in the
Democrat Party's fight against their political opponent, me in all caps,
just like he does. Nothing like this has ever happened
in our country before. They have also used state prosecutors
and district attorneys such as Fanny Willis and her lover
Nathan Wade. That's funny he's calling him out because that
(22:55):
did happen. That did happen, and her lover Nathan Wade,
who is absolutely zero experience in cases like this but
was paid millions enough for them to take numerous trips
and cruises around the globe. That was the fourth case
of the four big ones that they were bringing against him,
And it's worth noting that that one has also been
suspended because they're investigating the relationship between Fanny Willis and
(23:20):
Nathan Wade, and that one was the one in Georgia
where that was relating to the call that he made
with the Georgia Secretary of State. So they prosecuted him
for that, but they had to suspend the case because
the person who brought it was sleeping with the other
person that brought it, and they're investigating that. So, I mean,
the more and more you dig into these the less
(23:40):
and less it adds up. The more you try to
analyze this even slightly, you start to realize this is
all just very corrupt people who were using our legal system,
our justice system to try and basically buddy Trump's name
so much they just want to be able to throw
that he's a convicted felon argument so much that he
(24:00):
loses the election because people don't want to vote for
a convicted felon. But people saw through it, and props
to the American people. Props to the voters, because going
into election night, I wasn't sure if the Democrats had
failed or not in doing that. I wasn't sure that
people were going to be able to see through this,
but thankfully they were, and the left is still mad
(24:22):
about this. One of my favorite things all day has
been just sitting back and watching the Democrats just kind
of melt down over this. They are not happy. It's
like Trump one all over again. I love this. We
just keep winning and I'm not tired of it. I'm
not tired of it. So take a look at I
believe this is ABC. They're reporting on this, and they
(24:43):
are so upset. I'll just I'll let you hear it
and then we'll talk about it, because they are not
having a good time.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
They write specifically in this filing, and it's important that
that prohibition, the prohibition of course, being that you don't
charge a president elect or sitting president. That prohibition is
categorical and does not on the gravity of the crimes charged,
the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of
the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind. So while
the Trump team will attempt to spend this in the statements,
(25:12):
in this statement and in any future statements that they
make as a victory for the rule of law and
a victory for them, we should obviously remind our viewers
that this isn't the government saying they don't stand by
their case. They're saying they fully stand behind the evidence
that they have, They fully stand behind the case, but
because Trump won the election, this can't move forward.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
So they're basically trying to say, no, no, no, no, he
still did it. He's still guilty. We still have all
this proof and all this evidence that Trump was trying
to basically destroy our democracy and ruin the country. We
just unfortunately, we can't bring the case because he's president now,
so you know the rules, we can't. Okay, first of all,
(25:49):
that's bullcrap. These people don't care about president. If they
cared about president, they never would have brought this case
in the first place. They don't care about the fact
that you can't charge a president because it used to
be that you couldn't charge a former president. It used
to be just common practice that you don't bring these
frivolous type of cases against former presidents of the United
States because it looks bad, it looks political. That has
(26:12):
always been the rule. Trump even extended that courtesy to
Hillary Clinton when his DOJ did not charge her, even
though she definitely should have been charged. You know, for
all the documents on her server. We all know that story.
She had the document she bleach bit her server so
that she could get rid of all the evidence, and
Donald Trump made the joke, you'll be in jail. But
(26:33):
then she never did go to jail, did she. That's
because he understood that that's a bad look. It's fun
to stay on the campaign trail, but if you actually
do it, that creates a problem. It looks like you're
politicizing the justice system, which is exactly what the Democrats
have been doing for the last two years. Basically. So
(26:55):
if they thought that they actually had a case, I
truly believe that they would pursue it. But they know,
first of all, they don't have a case. And two,
Jack Smith is about to get fired. There's been reports
that members of his team are already resigning because they
know that the moment Trump comes back into office, they're gone.
There's been a lot of talk about who Trump will
(27:17):
and won't cut when he gets back into office, what
the Department of Government Efficiency is and is not going
to do when it comes to reducing federal personnel and
lowering the budget. I guarantee you him and everyone that
works for him is at the very very top of
that list. They are out of there. But I think
It's important to note exactly how important this victory is
(27:40):
because I mean, this was a case that I believe
was brought out of DC, which means that's the jury
pool that he would have gotten had he gone to trial.
I don't need to tell y'all how ridiculously liberal and
left wing the city of DC is, and this judge,
Tanya Chudkin, who was running this case, was just as
(28:02):
liberal and left wing. If y'all think this would have
been a fair trial had this gone to trial, you're
one hundred percent wrong. It is one thousand percent worth
noting that Donald Trump would have gone to jail if
he didn't win on November fifth. That's what would have happened.
See Trump joked about throwing Hillary Clinton in jail, and
(28:24):
he may have thrown that about to get his base
riled up. And we all enjoyed it. We thought it
was funny, we thought it was savage. We got the
thug life. He's owning the libs clips the Democrats were
going to actually do that. They weren't kidding, they weren't
joking about it. They would rather have their political opponents
in jail, in prison than actually have to run an election.
(28:47):
Then actually have to earn votes, and the reason for
that is they can't. Their ideas aren't popular. Nobody likes
the vision for the country that they're putting forward, and
so their best option is to throw their opposition in prison.
And the only thing stopping them from doing that is
the fact that we won. If Trump had lost, these
cases would not be getting suspended, these cases would not
(29:08):
be getting thrown out, these cases would be going to trial.
Donald Trump would be in jail by next year in
New York if he hadn't won. The fact that that's
even a possible reality should terrify you. Okay, So it's
worth pointing out at this point that it's not just Trump.
They're doing this with everybody that's associated with Trump, everyone
(29:31):
that is maybe considered a cabinet pick, possibly or has
officially been picked and announced for a cabinet position. Everybody
associated with Trump basically is gonna start getting hit with
these bs legal problems. And this has already started with
Pete Hexseth. They actually, let's be honest, it started with
(29:53):
Brett Kavanaugh. They threw those nonsense allegations at him when
he was supposed to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Thankfully,
none of that held up under any amount of scrutiny.
It immediately fell apart, and Kavanaugh was of course confirmed,
So that hasn't stopped, that hasn't gone away. So the
latest person that they're doing this to is Pete Hegseth,
(30:15):
who you'll remember is the guy that Trump has nominated
to be the Secretary of Defense. I believe we've talked
about him. He's the guy that's going to go in
and basically get rid of all the woke stuff in
the military. He's the guy that the left is painting
as a Fox News host. They're ignoring his twenty years
of military experience, his two Ivy League degrees. He's just
(30:36):
a Fox News host, and now they're trying to basically
just dirty his name with a rape allegation that has
no evidence. And as it turns out, the chick in
question that he allegedly raped may have actually gotten him
drunk and been the aggressor in what is now appearing
to be a consensual sexual encounter. So none of this
(30:59):
is good. This is obviously bad stuff that happened between
these two adults. None of it is illegal, and they're
trying to paint this as he's some criminal who should
never be allowed anywhere near public authority, when in reality,
he's probably some guy who foolishly got drunk and then
some lady took advantage of him. So this is an
(31:21):
article from Breitbart that basically breaks down how this police
report from the night that this alleged rape occurs basically
debunks all of this anyway, So let's see police report
from twenty seventeen, released this week via freedom of information request,
casts doubt on a sexual assault allegation made against President
elect Donald Trump's Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. The accuser,
(31:45):
whose identity is redacted, claimed heg Seth raped in twenty
seventeen during a Republican's women's conference at a hotel in Monterey, California.
According to the accuser, it happened after conference organizers went
to the hotel bar for an after party followed that
day's events. So this article basically details like fifteen different
(32:05):
points that basically debunk her entire allegation. So the first
one that they point out, and this is Breitbart reporting
directly on what's in the police report. Okay, the first
point they outline is the accuser said she did not
remember how she got into Hegseth's hotel room, but remembered
details such as Hegseth allegedly blocking the door with his
body and her allegedly saying quote no a lot and
(32:28):
quote not much else. Two. There was no evidence of rape,
according to the police report Adam number three. Earlier in
the day of the alleged rape, she texted her husband
numerous times about Hegseth, including that women at the conference
will quote freaking drooling over him and that quote he
talks pretty. Though as the night progressed, she stopped responding
(32:49):
to her worried husband's text messages. For A person whose
name is redacted but also appears to be her husband
told police that after she returned to their hotel room,
she did not have a hard time walking around and
was not slurring her words. The accuser told the person
believed to be her husband that she quote must have
fallen asleep and was apologetic. So that's important to note
(33:12):
because her claim is that Hegseth puts something in her drink,
walked her up to his hotel room, and sexually assaulted her.
You don't just immediately recover from that instantaneously. She was
back in her own hotel room at that conference with
her husband and was fine moments later. That doesn't add up.
(33:33):
I'm not an expert, but that does not pass the
sniff test even slightly. Okay, Item number five. The accuser
later told police that she remembered asking Hegseth if he
had a condom. That's suspicious. Again, I'm not an expert,
but I have to assume that if you're in the
middle of getting sexually assaulted, your primary concern is not
(33:55):
going to be, hey, do you have a condom? That
doesn't add up either. This doesn't even almost make sense
the moment you open up the police report, it's obvious
that this is just a bad thing that two adults
did that's not illegal, and now they're trying to use
it as a political weapon to attack their political opponents.
It's the exact same thing that they did with Brett
(34:17):
Kavanaugh back when he was being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
They just had this chick basically make up a bunch
of unverifiable facts about how twenty years ago Brett Kavanaugh
raped her and nobody ever did anything about it, nobody
ever reported it, She never told anyone all of her
friends who she knew in college at the time when
(34:38):
this allegedly happened, was like, Yeah, this never happened. She's
making this up and they're doing it again. They learned nothing.
They're throwing legal attacks at everyone that they disagree with
and they don't care how little sense it makes. But
don't worry. It goes on. The accuser declined to conduct
a quote unquote pretext phone call with Hegseth where she
(34:59):
would call him to discussed the alleged rape with the
police listening in. That's suspicious. Anytime someone makes an accusation
is then given the opportunity to prove it and then
all of a sudden doesn't want to prove it. Be
suspicious of that. That's the exact same thing that Jesse
Smalay did when he made up that hoax about how
(35:20):
two Maga guys had beat him up and poured bleach
on him and attacked him because he was a gay
star and an outspoken democrat. And then the police are
investigating it and they're like, okay, well can we see
your phone and he's like, no, I don't want to
do that. I don't want to show you my phone
because he had been texting the people that he paid
to attack him. Basically all right out of number seven.
(35:41):
A hotel worker told police he received complaints at approximately
one thirty am from two separate guests that a couple
near the pool was causing a disturbance and being allowed.
Their worker went to the pool and the accuser. Remember
this is the lady when they say the accuser, this
is the lady that Hegxeth allegedly sexually ass saw. The
accuser apologized for Hegseth's actions and put her arm or
(36:05):
put her hand and arm on Hegseth's back, and walked
him away from the pool area towards building four and five,
where Hegseth's room was located. So heg Seth is drunk,
and she's apologizing for his actions and walking him back
to his room. The hotel worker said Hegseth was quote
very intoxicated, but the accuser was standing on her own
(36:28):
and was very coherent, So Hegseth was intoxicated, she was not.
Hotel surveillance video shows the accuser and Hegseth leaving the
hotel bar together at approximately one fifteen am with locked
arms and headed towards the pool An eyewitness said she
saw the accuser flirting with Hegseth, and the flirting consisted
of touching of the body or arm. The same eyewitness
(36:52):
said she saw the accuser the next morning and that
she did not seem any different and was her normal self. Well.
Hegseth said he was quote buzzed, but not intoxicated. He
told police he was led out of the bar but
could not remember by whom, but described the person's clothing,
which matched the accuser's dress. Hag Seth also said that
(37:13):
he did not remember being chastised for being too loud
by the pool. He said he went back to his
hotel room with the accuser, but was confused as to
why she stayed in his room. He said quote things
progressed between himself and the accuser and that the interaction
was consensual. He said that they would both stop and
say we shouldn't do this, but things consensually continued. He
(37:35):
also confirmed that she asked if he had a condom. Yeah.
This does not pass the sniff test at all. It
just it doesn't. This is plain and simple to adults
that were not controlling themselves at all, That's what this is.
It's wrong it's bad, it should be condemned, but it's
(37:56):
not illegal, And at this point in American political life,
it's not even close to a good reason for him
to not be confirmed. I mean, let's be honest with ourselves.
Look at who Donald Trump is and his record with
things of this nature. It's not much better. But he
didn't commit any crimes here. He didn't. There's a reason
(38:18):
no charges were ever brought here. This happened in twenty seventeen.
If he did something wrong in California, of all places,
you'd better believe he'd be going to jail. Better believe it,
and he would have been there already for a long time.
If a DA in California gets the opportunity to put
away a white guy, a white conservative guy, for anything,
(38:41):
they're gonna take it, I guarantee you, because they can
then go all over the place and run this as
an attack on all Republicans. That didn't happen, but they're
trying to do it anyway, and it's not gonna stop here.
This is a important reminder to keep your eyes open.
Do not believe everything your pold don't you can. You
are being lied to more often than people want you
(39:03):
to know, do research, look into things. Don't take the
first flashy headline and just latch onto it, because that's
what the left wants. They want to take advantage of you.
They want you to be gullible. Do not give them
that power over you. All Right, that's all I got,
Happy Thanksgiving. I'll see y'all next week
Alrighty, what a week. Got a lot to talk about,
but I want to open it up with something kind
of fun. We've got some serious stuff to get into,
but let's start with some fun stuff. So the Democrats
are like wishing for some sort of buyer's remorse from
the Republicans, and they're trying to basically just like manifest
(00:38):
it out of thin air. And I don't know what
the logic is behind this, because, first of all, Trump's
not even in office, so even if we were to
have some buyer's remorse, it's not possible. Second of all,
I am almost a thousand percent sure there will be
no buyers Morse. We all know what we voted for.
We all want it. This is wishful thinking it best
(00:58):
regardless of that it's out there. I stumbled across this
post on X that I think perfectly exemplifies this. It's
from this page called Captain Obvious, and I don't know
anything about this page. I just scrolled across it. I
thought it was funny that they posted this, and you'll
see why in a second. So this Captain Obvious page
(01:19):
posted California farmers voted for Trump today, six of them
filed for bankruptcy after losing their workers. Welcome to the
world of f around and find out. Now, of course
this does kind of say the quiet part out loud.
For a long time, Democrats have every now and again,
let this slip. All that these illegal immigrants are to
them is cheap labor. They keep saying this, And I'll
(01:41):
pull up some examples here in a minute, just so
we can kind of make this point. Actually, let me
pull up the examples right now. This is a cut
of Kelly Osbourne back in twenty fifteen, So this is old.
This is back when he was first running for president,
and it was twenty sixteen or twenty fifteen. It's Kelly
Osbourne on the View. I don't know who Kelly Osbourne is.
I believe she's the daughter of Ozzie Osbourne, who I hate.
(02:04):
We'll get into that later. That's a whole story. But
here she is on the view and she accidentally says
the quiet part out loud. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Do you kick every Latino out of this country?
Speaker 3 (02:15):
Then who is going to be cleaning your toilet?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (02:18):
Oh, that's in the sense that you know what I mean.
But I'm saying there.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
There's more jobs to l a. They always were, but
the Donalds are not. Only I don't mean it like that.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Come on, no, I would never mean it like that. Okay,
I'm not part of this argument.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I think what you're saying is that Trump himself.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
He's insulting.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
It's so funny because like the moment she says it,
she knows she's messed up. The moment the words pass
her lips, she realizes, Oh crap, I've said the quiet
part out loud. I shouldn't have done this. I've made
a mistake. And she immediately tries to walk it back.
She like, oh, no, I didn't mean it like that.
I no, No, that's not what yes it is. That's
exactly what you mean. You said exactly what you meant
(03:02):
to say, and you said the quiet part out loud.
Because that's what these people think of the illegal Limerius.
They try to pretend that this is some humanitarian thing.
It's not. It's just not. These people are cheap labor
to you, and that's all they are. And so this
tweet from Captain Obvious kind of makes that point. Six
of these farmers in California filed for bankruptcy after losing
(03:23):
their workers welcome to the world of f around and
find out. So they're making the point. See, look now
we can't pay people dirt wages to do labor, so
we're just gonna have to shut down Lotti doa da da.
I thought the left was the party of this is bad.
We need to pay people living wages. We can't just
throw pennies on the dollar to people to do work
(03:44):
that nobody wants to do. That was universally considered to
be a bad thing on the left, or so I thought.
But the best part of that tweet isn't actually the
tweet where they once again say the quiet part out loud.
The best part of that tweet was the community note
that imediately got slapped on it. And this is why
I think Twitter or X excuse me, I'm still getting
(04:05):
used to you, guys. I'm working on it. This is
why I think X is one percent the best social
media platform, because I've been hitting this point for several weeks,
back to back to back. The left says things to
low information voters that get an emotional response out of them,
that require no research whatsoever, and they do no research
whatsoever because that's not what they do they're not in
(04:26):
politics all the time, they're not thinking about politics, and
so they just jump to some conclusions. They just assume
what they're reading is true, and there's never any fact
check or anything against that except for community notes. So
community notes immediately pointed this out as a blatant falsehood,
and it's right there for everyone to see. You don't
have to do any extra research. You see the original post,
(04:48):
and then you see the community note right next to it, and
it says, as of this posting, there is no verified
or unverified stories in existence of this event taking place
other than this account's post. The largest recent bankruptcy filing
by California farmers has been due to low almond prices,
so they can't pay for their workers. Allmend prices are low.
(05:13):
These are almond farmers. Almond prices are low. They can't
pay their bills just by selling almends like they had
planned to do, and so they file for bankruptcy. Not
Trump has deported a bunch of people, because that hasn't
even happened yet. Trump is still not in office, guys.
He doesn't come into office until January twentieth. I know
(05:34):
I'm counting the days, trust me, I'm waiting very excitedly.
But this is exactly the type of thing that someone
that is a low information voter who pays attention to
politics casually will see and then just assume it's true.
They just think, oh, yeah, this is probably happening, and
then they lose their minds over it. They get all upset.
But it's actually not happening. It's not real, it's made up.
(05:57):
We have got to be fact checking people, and that's
why I actively encourage everyone to spend more time on X.
I truly believe this is a great platform. Specifically because
of things like this, we have blown up the left's
echo chamber and it is amazing. But that's not even
the best part. I mean, we talked about how their
buyer remorse that they keep hoping for isn't happening. Not
(06:19):
only is it not happening, but people are incredibly excited
about this. I want you to take a listen to
this cut from CNN where they're talking about the transition team.
They're talking about how popular Trump's transition has been so far. Already.
People do not have buyer remorse. We know what we
voted for, and we want it severely bad.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Take a listen or take a look here president Trump's
transition net approval. You go back to November at twenty sixteen,
Look at this, it was just a plus one point,
just a plus one point.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
That is well well well below.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
The historical norm. Look get where we are today, significantly higher,
plus eighteen points. That seventeen points higher on the presidential
trainansition net approval rating. The bottom line is this, If
eight years ago Americans were lukewarm on Donald Trump at
this particular point, they're giving him much more of the
benefit of the doubt. A lot more Americans are in
love with this transition. This much more meets the historical
(07:14):
norms where normally presidents get that boost coming out of
their victory. And what we're seeing here is Donald Trump's
presidential transition is getting a thumbs up. And dare I
say two thumbs up from the American people.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
What the American people are seeing right now and this
makes that point perfectly. They're saying, Look, we see what
Donald Trump is doing right now, and we like it.
We see the fact that Donald Trump has already begun
working very diligently on fulfilling the promises that he made
during his campaign and We're excited about that because I'll
(07:45):
tell you what the people voted for. They voted for
lower prices, they voted for less illegal immigration. They voted
for the illegal immigrants that are here right now to
get out. That's what the American people wanted. They see
that they're getting it, and they like it. And listen,
despite what the left might try to tell you, those
things aren't mutually exclusive. Those things should not be controversial,
and I think we're entering a point where they aren't anymore.
(08:08):
People have rejected leftism and I'm one hundred percent here
for it. All Right, we got a great show coming up.
I'm excited. You should be excited. We'll be right back
after some ads. All right, So I want to talk
real quick about some news that broke last week. Matt Gates,
who of course was Trump's incredibly controversial nominee for Attorney General.
He is out. I said that this might happen. He
(08:31):
might be the pick that Trump kind of throws out
just to catch some heat and then not actually get through.
I don't know if that's what happened, but Matt Gates
is out. He withdrawed his nomination or withdrew his nomination.
Forgive me. He did that. Last Thursday. He did that
on Twitter, he posted this statement. He said, I had
excellent meetings with senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback
(08:54):
and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum
was strong, it's clear that my confirmation was on fairly
becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump
vance transition. There was no time to waste on a
needlessly protracted Washington's scuffle. Thus, I'll be withdrawing my name
from consideration to serve as Attorney general. Trump's DOJ must
be in place and ready on day one. That is
(09:17):
a great point, because whether you think that Gates was
a good pick or not, I tend to like Gates
as Attorney general. I tend to like Gates period. I
like his politics, other controversies notwithstanding, I like his politics,
and I think he would have been a good attorney general.
But the point he makes here is good. We want
Trump to be ready to go on day one as
(09:38):
quickly as possible. That is what's best for the conservative agenda.
So if you have a critical part of your administration,
like your ag that's being just held up behind debates
and allegations, and this stuff can drag on forever, literally forever.
So if your goal is to just get people in
(09:59):
to start breaking things as fast as possible at the
federal level, which is what America desperately needs, then gates
pulling out is a good move and we can continue
to speculate all we want about whether or not he's
guilty of some of the things that he's been accused of.
As of right now, all we have official to go
on is a three year DOJ investigation that ended with
(10:20):
them saying we're not gonna bring charges. We clear him
of any wrongdoing. But the House was doing an ethics report.
There's questions about what would have been in that. There's
questions about whether or not Gates wanted that to come out.
They had announced that they were not going to release
that report because he had resigned his seat in Congress.
So the fact of the matter is Gates is out,
and we saw that coming. We knew that was gonna happen.
(10:41):
So here's the question, who did Trump replace him with.
He replaced him with the former Florida Attorney general, somebody
by the name of Pam Bondi. I'm not super familiar
with her, but I've seen a lot of very conservative
people get very very excited about that. Frankly, I have
a few I want to play you this clip of her.
(11:03):
I don't know when and where this is exactly, but
I believe this is back when she was still the
Attorney General of Florida, I believe. Don't quote me on that,
but this was posted by the National Association for Gun Rights,
who is a group that I really like. I really like.
I have a great relationship with their Texas division. Here
they're great people. Kyle Rittenhouse is with them. But here
(11:24):
she is talking about some red flag laws that I
believe she either supported or actually on the books in Florida.
So take a listen to this.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
You're going to bring in something called the gun violence
Restraining Order. So if someone is civilly committed for and yeah,
typically you can hold them for up to seventy two hours,
but people are getting out within twenty four hours, the
majority of them. So what we want to do is
let law enforcement come in and take the guns. They
are a danger to themselves, well because without being adjudicated,
(11:57):
so because they are a danger to them.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
You want them to take the gun when they are
not go through six months of legal trials and everything exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
But we also have to give the mentally ill the
due process in which they deserve. President. So what we're
doing is they're going to be able to take the
guns when they're taken into custody or into the hospital,
and then when they're released within twenty four hours or
seventy two hours later. Typically it's twenty four hours, but
law enforcement will have seventy two hours to determine whether
(12:27):
they should give those guns back, or they can go
to a judge and say, your honor, please keep these guns.
We feel this person is still a danger to himself
or others.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Okay, So there she is just outright supporting red flag laws,
which are terrible, absolute violations of the Constitution. It is
literally the absence of due process. You're saying, this due
process is too dangerous, it takes too long. We can't
have this. We need to take their guns before they
get the due process. So the problem with this is
(13:00):
you could have an antisecond Amendment judge who, no matter what,
we'll always say no, don't give them back the guns.
You can have this whole process of this person as
a threat to themselves and others initiated by some like
annoyed X or annoyed former employee or annoyed anyone going
and filing a report about this and calling it in
and saying, hey, this guy's dangerous. You need to go
(13:20):
take his guns. And then they go in, they take
the guns without any due process, and then you have
to do month's worth of legal battles in order to
get your guns back because you ticked off the wrong
person and they filed some bs report against you. This
has happened. There are cases where that has happened, where
people in states with red flag laws lose their guns
(13:40):
at a who knows how long amount of time because
somebody filed some garbage report against them. So red flag
laws are a problem. Now. I will say that in
the position of Attorney General, her stance on red flag
laws almost makes no difference because she can't actually make laws,
like if you wanted national red flag laws, which I
(14:02):
think is a lot of the concern Pam Bondi's going
to come in and create national red flag laws because
that's what she supports. Okay, she's the attorney general. She
can't do that. I have my questions about her. I'm
not supporting her. I'm not throwing my hat in the
ring or whatever. This is something that concerns me as
a gun owner and Second Amendment absolutist. But if we're
(14:23):
being honest with ourselves, she can't actually take that ideology
that she may or may not still have and impose
that from the position of Attorney general. Congress would have
to act in order for that to become a law
that she can enforce as attorney general, because remember, that's
the role of the Attorney general is to, you know,
basically be the lawyer for the United States. So if
the United States is prosecuting someone, that's what the Attorney
(14:46):
general does. Now, I will say, she has said some
things that I like. She says some things I dislike.
She says some things I do like. I'm gonna be
honest with you. I'm fifty to fifty. I could go
either way on her. Let's see how the Senate hearings go.
I'd like to see what her views on Red flaglars
are now and how she intends to let those views
affect how she does her job. But I will say
(15:07):
I like a lot of the stuff she said on
Jeffrey Epstein. I think we can all agree that the
Epstein list should have been out years ago. It's insane
that it's still not and we need to do something
about it. Well, here's Pambondi on Fox again. I don't
know when exactly this is. I'm finding all these clips
on ex and they don't all say this happened here
at this time. But here she is on Fox saying like, look,
(15:29):
why isn't this out yet? Why don't we know who
these people are? It's suspicious that we don't, and we
need to correct that.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I want to know why ag Garland and the Justice
Department are so quiet on this tonight. You know they're
out there labeling parents domestic terrorists, yet they're saying nothing
about this, and these documents were so slow to come out.
Human trafficking is a multi billion dollar business in this country.
And Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Gerlain Maxwell is in
(15:58):
prison for twenty years where she belongs. And if people
in that report are still fighting to keep their names private, Sean,
they have no legal basis to do so unless they're
a child, a victim, or a cooperating defendant by some
chance against some potential case against Gerlaine Maxwell. And I
think Mark Garagus as a great criminal defense attorney. I'll
(16:20):
back that up as well.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
So, I mean, from the sounds of that, it sounds
like she's the type of person that's going to really
go after the people on the Epstein list, or at
least try to get to Epstein list out there so
we can all see it, so we can know who
are these people that were doing this despicable stuff with
Jeffrey Epstein. For years, they have been essentially protected by
the DOJ, who refuses to release all this information because
(16:45):
it's not like this is a secret. It's not like
this is stuff that the government doesn't know, stuff that
the prosecutors don't know. They know who was on those lists.
They know who Jeffrey Epstein was doing business with. They
know who Gishline Maxwell was finding underage girls for. They
know exactly who was doing this stuff, and yet they
(17:06):
refuse to release that information. They refuse to tell us.
Trump has said that he's going to release it. Some
other people around him during the campaign said that it
was going to be released. So if she does that,
I think she would be great. If she commits to that,
then I will give her my full support. But again
I have questions about her, and she just got picked,
(17:27):
so let's give it some time to let these questions
be answered. People are rushing to judgment on her already,
which I don't think is fair. That's an older video
of her talking in the gun control video, or her
views may have changed. I think she's at the very
least an interesting pick. Let's see what comes out during
the Senate hearings. Let's see what she has to say,
(17:47):
because I'm sure she'll be asked about this. I'm sure
pro gun senators will ask her about this, and they
definitely should. I've seen a lot of people on x
that are saying, call your senator, tell them to vote no.
Don't do that. Call your senator and tell them what
questions you want to hear answered. That's infinitely more productive
because we're all operating off of the little bit of
(18:08):
information we see online. We need more info. Call your
senators and tell them to ask questions. Don't tell them
to just vote no based on what you saw in
one clip. Okay, some more big news that came out yesterday.
Jack Smith has dropped his case against Donald Trump. That's say, uh,
(18:29):
we saw this coming. Everybody saw this coming. This was
just one of many cases that were brought against Trump
in the years leading up to this year's election that
were obviously bs just obviously, like this whole case against
Donald Trump was all about how he did January sixth,
there were I believe four different felony charges that were
(18:52):
related to that. I don't remember what they were exactly.
I think obstruction of officials something or other was one
of them. The case had already been put on hold.
They did that, I believe a couple weeks or maybe
a month or two before the election. They it was
right after the Supreme Court immunity ruling came out. So
there were basically a bunch of questions about whether or
(19:14):
not what Trump did leaning up to inauguration day Back
in twenty twenty one where official actions or not, like
he had asked the UH Georgia Secretary of State to
find votes, which had been interpreted as him saying, I
want you to go create these votes illegally, which it's
(19:35):
pretty clear that what he was actually saying was I
think there has been a counting error. Go find these
votes that were cast that weren't counted. Whether or not
you should be saying that is up for debate. Who
cares that was four years ago. Nobody gives a crap
about any of that anymore. People do not actually care
about January sixth. And you know how, I know that
(19:56):
if they did care about January sixth, Trump would have
lost November fifth, but he didn't. He won by a lot.
We just don't care about this crap anymore. We have
bigger problems to deal with in the United States than
crap that Trump said four years ago. And I remind
you he said at that rally on January sixth, peacefully protest.
(20:19):
So you have to completely ignore everything that actually happened
to make the case that Donald Trump was trying to
get people to storm the Capitol. You just you have
to completely ignore it. That's the only way to get there.
So after this immunity ruling from the Supreme Court, that
basically kicks it down. So now the judge has to
decide whether or not what Trump did was subject to
(20:42):
the presidential immunity that he enjoys. That was up for debate,
So the case was basically put on hold leading up
to the election, and then right after Trump won. What's
his face? Jack Smith, the special special prosecutor, I believe
it's the technical term for the appointm that he held
Special Council, he started signaling that he was going to
(21:03):
start winding these cases down. According to ktihnews dot com
or KTRH dot com Ethan Buchanan reporting, look at that, Wow,
shameless plug. KTRH dot com. Read my articles. I post
new ones every day. They're good stuff. But after Special
Counsel Jacksmith officially moved to drop the four felony January
sixth related charges against the forty fifth and soon to
(21:24):
be forty seventh president, the judge in the case, Democrat
Tanya Chutkin, has agreed to grant the request and drop
the case. So what we're seeing here is slowly, over time,
as these things play out, it's becoming more and more
obvious that these cases were always just lawfare. That's all
they were. Because remember he has already had one of
(21:47):
those cases thrown out. I believe it's the classified Documents case.
The judge in that case is basically like, yeah, Jacksmith
was not appointed properly to be the Special Council. He
has no right to bring these cases or to bring
these charges in this documents case. This is all bs
I'm throwing this case out, So of his four big
(22:10):
felony indictments, he's already scott free on two of them,
and the third one that they actually convicted him on
is on its way out. But here's what Trump actually
said himself in response to these cases being thrown out.
He said, these cases, like all the other cases that
I have been forced to go through, are empty and
(22:32):
lawless and should never have been brought. Over one hundred
million dollars of taxpayer money has been wasted in the
Democrat Party's fight against their political opponent, me in all caps,
just like he does. Nothing like this has ever happened
in our country before. They have also used state prosecutors
and district attorneys such as Fanny Willis and her lover
Nathan Wade. That's funny he's calling him out because that
(22:55):
did happen. That did happen, and her lover Nathan Wade,
who is absolutely zero experience in cases like this but
was paid millions enough for them to take numerous trips
and cruises around the globe. That was the fourth case
of the four big ones that they were bringing against him,
And it's worth noting that that one has also been
suspended because they're investigating the relationship between Fanny Willis and
(23:20):
Nathan Wade, and that one was the one in Georgia
where that was relating to the call that he made
with the Georgia Secretary of State. So they prosecuted him
for that, but they had to suspend the case because
the person who brought it was sleeping with the other
person that brought it, and they're investigating that. So, I mean,
the more and more you dig into these the less
(23:40):
and less it adds up. The more you try to
analyze this even slightly, you start to realize this is
all just very corrupt people who were using our legal system,
our justice system to try and basically buddy Trump's name
so much they just want to be able to throw
that he's a convicted felon argument so much that he
(24:00):
loses the election because people don't want to vote for
a convicted felon. But people saw through it, and props
to the American people. Props to the voters, because going
into election night, I wasn't sure if the Democrats had
failed or not in doing that. I wasn't sure that
people were going to be able to see through this,
but thankfully they were, and the left is still mad
(24:22):
about this. One of my favorite things all day has
been just sitting back and watching the Democrats just kind
of melt down over this. They are not happy. It's
like Trump one all over again. I love this. We
just keep winning and I'm not tired of it. I'm
not tired of it. So take a look at I
believe this is ABC. They're reporting on this, and they
(24:43):
are so upset. I'll just I'll let you hear it
and then we'll talk about it, because they are not
having a good time.
Speaker 3 (24:49):
They write specifically in this filing, and it's important that
that prohibition, the prohibition of course, being that you don't
charge a president elect or sitting president. That prohibition is
categorical and does not on the gravity of the crimes charged,
the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of
the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind. So while
the Trump team will attempt to spend this in the statements,
(25:12):
in this statement and in any future statements that they
make as a victory for the rule of law and
a victory for them, we should obviously remind our viewers
that this isn't the government saying they don't stand by
their case. They're saying they fully stand behind the evidence
that they have, They fully stand behind the case, but
because Trump won the election, this can't move forward.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
So they're basically trying to say, no, no, no, no, he
still did it. He's still guilty. We still have all
this proof and all this evidence that Trump was trying
to basically destroy our democracy and ruin the country. We
just unfortunately, we can't bring the case because he's president now,
so you know the rules, we can't. Okay, first of all,
(25:49):
that's bullcrap. These people don't care about president. If they
cared about president, they never would have brought this case
in the first place. They don't care about the fact
that you can't charge a president because it used to
be that you couldn't charge a former president. It used
to be just common practice that you don't bring these
frivolous type of cases against former presidents of the United
States because it looks bad, it looks political. That has
(26:12):
always been the rule. Trump even extended that courtesy to
Hillary Clinton when his DOJ did not charge her, even
though she definitely should have been charged. You know, for
all the documents on her server. We all know that story.
She had the document she bleach bit her server so
that she could get rid of all the evidence, and
Donald Trump made the joke, you'll be in jail. But
(26:33):
then she never did go to jail, did she. That's
because he understood that that's a bad look. It's fun
to stay on the campaign trail, but if you actually
do it, that creates a problem. It looks like you're
politicizing the justice system, which is exactly what the Democrats
have been doing for the last two years. Basically. So
(26:55):
if they thought that they actually had a case, I
truly believe that they would pursue it. But they know,
first of all, they don't have a case. And two,
Jack Smith is about to get fired. There's been reports
that members of his team are already resigning because they
know that the moment Trump comes back into office, they're gone.
There's been a lot of talk about who Trump will
(27:17):
and won't cut when he gets back into office, what
the Department of Government Efficiency is and is not going
to do when it comes to reducing federal personnel and
lowering the budget. I guarantee you him and everyone that
works for him is at the very very top of
that list. They are out of there. But I think
It's important to note exactly how important this victory is
(27:40):
because I mean, this was a case that I believe
was brought out of DC, which means that's the jury
pool that he would have gotten had he gone to trial.
I don't need to tell y'all how ridiculously liberal and
left wing the city of DC is, and this judge,
Tanya Chudkin, who was running this case, was just as
(28:02):
liberal and left wing. If y'all think this would have
been a fair trial had this gone to trial, you're
one hundred percent wrong. It is one thousand percent worth
noting that Donald Trump would have gone to jail if
he didn't win on November fifth. That's what would have happened.
See Trump joked about throwing Hillary Clinton in jail, and
(28:24):
he may have thrown that about to get his base
riled up. And we all enjoyed it. We thought it
was funny, we thought it was savage. We got the
thug life. He's owning the libs clips the Democrats were
going to actually do that. They weren't kidding, they weren't
joking about it. They would rather have their political opponents
in jail, in prison than actually have to run an election.
(28:47):
Then actually have to earn votes, and the reason for
that is they can't. Their ideas aren't popular. Nobody likes
the vision for the country that they're putting forward, and
so their best option is to throw their opposition in prison.
And the only thing stopping them from doing that is
the fact that we won. If Trump had lost, these
cases would not be getting suspended, these cases would not
(29:08):
be getting thrown out, these cases would be going to trial.
Donald Trump would be in jail by next year in
New York if he hadn't won. The fact that that's
even a possible reality should terrify you. Okay, So it's
worth pointing out at this point that it's not just Trump.
They're doing this with everybody that's associated with Trump, everyone
(29:31):
that is maybe considered a cabinet pick, possibly or has
officially been picked and announced for a cabinet position. Everybody
associated with Trump basically is gonna start getting hit with
these bs legal problems. And this has already started with
Pete Hexseth. They actually, let's be honest, it started with
(29:53):
Brett Kavanaugh. They threw those nonsense allegations at him when
he was supposed to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Thankfully,
none of that held up under any amount of scrutiny.
It immediately fell apart, and Kavanaugh was of course confirmed,
So that hasn't stopped, that hasn't gone away. So the
latest person that they're doing this to is Pete Hegseth,
(30:15):
who you'll remember is the guy that Trump has nominated
to be the Secretary of Defense. I believe we've talked
about him. He's the guy that's going to go in
and basically get rid of all the woke stuff in
the military. He's the guy that the left is painting
as a Fox News host. They're ignoring his twenty years
of military experience, his two Ivy League degrees. He's just
(30:36):
a Fox News host, and now they're trying to basically
just dirty his name with a rape allegation that has
no evidence. And as it turns out, the chick in
question that he allegedly raped may have actually gotten him
drunk and been the aggressor in what is now appearing
to be a consensual sexual encounter. So none of this
(30:59):
is good. This is obviously bad stuff that happened between
these two adults. None of it is illegal, and they're
trying to paint this as he's some criminal who should
never be allowed anywhere near public authority, when in reality,
he's probably some guy who foolishly got drunk and then
some lady took advantage of him. So this is an
(31:21):
article from Breitbart that basically breaks down how this police
report from the night that this alleged rape occurs basically
debunks all of this anyway, So let's see police report
from twenty seventeen, released this week via freedom of information request,
casts doubt on a sexual assault allegation made against President
elect Donald Trump's Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. The accuser,
(31:45):
whose identity is redacted, claimed heg Seth raped in twenty
seventeen during a Republican's women's conference at a hotel in Monterey, California.
According to the accuser, it happened after conference organizers went
to the hotel bar for an after party followed that
day's events. So this article basically details like fifteen different
(32:05):
points that basically debunk her entire allegation. So the first
one that they point out, and this is Breitbart reporting
directly on what's in the police report. Okay, the first
point they outline is the accuser said she did not
remember how she got into Hegseth's hotel room, but remembered
details such as Hegseth allegedly blocking the door with his
body and her allegedly saying quote no a lot and
(32:28):
quote not much else. Two. There was no evidence of rape,
according to the police report Adam number three. Earlier in
the day of the alleged rape, she texted her husband
numerous times about Hegseth, including that women at the conference
will quote freaking drooling over him and that quote he
talks pretty. Though as the night progressed, she stopped responding
(32:49):
to her worried husband's text messages. For A person whose
name is redacted but also appears to be her husband
told police that after she returned to their hotel room,
she did not have a hard time walking around and
was not slurring her words. The accuser told the person
believed to be her husband that she quote must have
fallen asleep and was apologetic. So that's important to note
(33:12):
because her claim is that Hegseth puts something in her drink,
walked her up to his hotel room, and sexually assaulted her.
You don't just immediately recover from that instantaneously. She was
back in her own hotel room at that conference with
her husband and was fine moments later. That doesn't add up.
(33:33):
I'm not an expert, but that does not pass the
sniff test even slightly. Okay, Item number five. The accuser
later told police that she remembered asking Hegseth if he
had a condom. That's suspicious. Again, I'm not an expert,
but I have to assume that if you're in the
middle of getting sexually assaulted, your primary concern is not
(33:55):
going to be, hey, do you have a condom? That
doesn't add up either. This doesn't even almost make sense
the moment you open up the police report, it's obvious
that this is just a bad thing that two adults
did that's not illegal, and now they're trying to use
it as a political weapon to attack their political opponents.
It's the exact same thing that they did with Brett
(34:17):
Kavanaugh back when he was being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
They just had this chick basically make up a bunch
of unverifiable facts about how twenty years ago Brett Kavanaugh
raped her and nobody ever did anything about it, nobody
ever reported it, She never told anyone all of her
friends who she knew in college at the time when
(34:38):
this allegedly happened, was like, Yeah, this never happened. She's
making this up and they're doing it again. They learned nothing.
They're throwing legal attacks at everyone that they disagree with
and they don't care how little sense it makes. But
don't worry. It goes on. The accuser declined to conduct
a quote unquote pretext phone call with Hegseth where she
(34:59):
would call him to discussed the alleged rape with the
police listening in. That's suspicious. Anytime someone makes an accusation
is then given the opportunity to prove it and then
all of a sudden doesn't want to prove it. Be
suspicious of that. That's the exact same thing that Jesse
Smalay did when he made up that hoax about how
(35:20):
two Maga guys had beat him up and poured bleach
on him and attacked him because he was a gay
star and an outspoken democrat. And then the police are
investigating it and they're like, okay, well can we see
your phone and he's like, no, I don't want to
do that. I don't want to show you my phone
because he had been texting the people that he paid
to attack him. Basically all right out of number seven.
(35:41):
A hotel worker told police he received complaints at approximately
one thirty am from two separate guests that a couple
near the pool was causing a disturbance and being allowed.
Their worker went to the pool and the accuser. Remember
this is the lady when they say the accuser, this
is the lady that Hegxeth allegedly sexually ass saw. The
accuser apologized for Hegseth's actions and put her arm or
(36:05):
put her hand and arm on Hegseth's back, and walked
him away from the pool area towards building four and five,
where Hegseth's room was located. So heg Seth is drunk,
and she's apologizing for his actions and walking him back
to his room. The hotel worker said Hegseth was quote
very intoxicated, but the accuser was standing on her own
(36:28):
and was very coherent, So Hegseth was intoxicated, she was not.
Hotel surveillance video shows the accuser and Hegseth leaving the
hotel bar together at approximately one fifteen am with locked
arms and headed towards the pool An eyewitness said she
saw the accuser flirting with Hegseth, and the flirting consisted
of touching of the body or arm. The same eyewitness
(36:52):
said she saw the accuser the next morning and that
she did not seem any different and was her normal self. Well.
Hegseth said he was quote buzzed, but not intoxicated. He
told police he was led out of the bar but
could not remember by whom, but described the person's clothing,
which matched the accuser's dress. Hag Seth also said that
(37:13):
he did not remember being chastised for being too loud
by the pool. He said he went back to his
hotel room with the accuser, but was confused as to
why she stayed in his room. He said quote things
progressed between himself and the accuser and that the interaction
was consensual. He said that they would both stop and
say we shouldn't do this, but things consensually continued. He
(37:35):
also confirmed that she asked if he had a condom. Yeah.
This does not pass the sniff test at all. It
just it doesn't. This is plain and simple to adults
that were not controlling themselves at all, That's what this is.
It's wrong it's bad, it should be condemned, but it's
(37:56):
not illegal, And at this point in American political life,
it's not even close to a good reason for him
to not be confirmed. I mean, let's be honest with ourselves.
Look at who Donald Trump is and his record with
things of this nature. It's not much better. But he
didn't commit any crimes here. He didn't. There's a reason
(38:18):
no charges were ever brought here. This happened in twenty seventeen.
If he did something wrong in California, of all places,
you'd better believe he'd be going to jail. Better believe it,
and he would have been there already for a long time.
If a DA in California gets the opportunity to put
away a white guy, a white conservative guy, for anything,
(38:41):
they're gonna take it, I guarantee you, because they can
then go all over the place and run this as
an attack on all Republicans. That didn't happen, but they're
trying to do it anyway, and it's not gonna stop here.
This is a important reminder to keep your eyes open.
Do not believe everything your pold don't you can. You
are being lied to more often than people want you
(39:03):
to know, do research, look into things. Don't take the
first flashy headline and just latch onto it, because that's
what the left wants. They want to take advantage of you.
They want you to be gullible. Do not give them
that power over you. All Right, that's all I got,
Happy Thanksgiving. I'll see y'all next week
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.