1-30-25 - 9am - Kash Patel Hearing and Trump Is Responsible for the Crash

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Mike, to your point about all the added sugars
in our food, even the so called health foods, I
am in a similar situation to drag In, except with me,
I dropped a lot of weight just by cutting out
process sugars and added sugars. And you should just see

(00:22):
how little there is actually available for me to eat
if I do not plan ahead.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
It's ridiculous what's in our food.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
So so my my anti aging doctor, doctor Grossman, when
he I'm in with him for what ten years or more,
and he taught me how to look for, you know,
the high fruit, uh syrup, the sugar, all the things

(00:51):
that you know are disguised but they really are sugar.
And then he gave me an allowance of like and
I don't I'm not as strict as dragon. I don't
strictly adhere to this, but on average it would be
like seven grams or sugar per day. So you know,
if you eat three meals a day, or actually I

(01:12):
eat two meals a day plus any snacks, you know,
that's very little sugar. And trying to ascertain like how
much is and of course sugar alcohols they say don't count,
but you count the real sugar. It's it is difficult
to adhere to that. And most of the weight loss,

(01:34):
Like you, most of my weight loss has been attributed
to two things. Portion control, just not eating as much
I used to. Oh, I love the taste of food,
and and I know it's emotional, but I love to.

Speaker 4 (01:47):
Take you just keep going till it's gone.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
And I was brought up that way too. Yep, you
got to clean that plate off. There are starving kids
in the Africa. There's startings. Actually, these are starving kids
in China. I think in my my family, and that
was a real thing for me to overcome. Plus, you
go to a restaurant and Tara, I've not gotten to
this stage yet because we like eat different things. But
I see so many people our age that are splitting

(02:13):
a meal. Well, some people may be doing that for
cost saving benefits, but now I look at it and
I ordered just an entree and it comes out and
I look at it, I'm like, holy cow, I mean
this is the cow. I love good steak, but I
don't need a side to be for my steak, you know.
And so I've just I've kept between cutting out or

(02:35):
cutting down on the portions and the other thing, dragon,
Do you do this? I've tried it, and I'm not
very good at this at all. To eat slower.

Speaker 4 (02:45):
Yeah, that's that's difficult to do. That's very difficult for me.

Speaker 3 (02:48):
To do because my entire life has been eating on
the run, other than maybe in the evening at dinner.
You know, of course, I'm now I do the fasting,
so I'm not doing breakfast, but I just would.

Speaker 4 (03:00):
Yeah, I've tried very hard to put the fork down,
take a bite, put the fork down, let your hand
to be empty to your food and to your food,
then pick the fork back up, and then shovel it
back in your face. Hold. But it has helped to
put the fork down between bites.

Speaker 3 (03:19):
Yeah, Oh, I guess this is so hard anyway. Cash
Battel is uh in his hearing, but the plane crash
is preempting that right now because Trump's getting ready to speak,
and over here on CNN there's news conference pretty soon,
but I'm want to focus on cash Battel, So, as expected,

(03:44):
Dick Durbin is already lying.

Speaker 5 (03:49):
During the time I've served on this committee, I've had
the opportunity to consider four FBI director nominations. Each one
was a Republican, and I voted for all of them.
My concerns about the director of the FBI are not partisan.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
Oh so, what's different between the others that you voted
for whom turned out to be disasters versus this one
that you have the chance to vote for, because he
has exactly the kind of experience that I think we
need if you're going to culturally change the FBI at

(04:28):
the same time get it refocused on its core mission
of law enforcement. I don't think there's a better person
than cash Ptel. And he's a change agent too. Let's
go through the Let's go through his resume. He was
chief of Staff to the DoD. He was a Deputy
Assistant to the President to President Trump. He was responsible

(04:50):
for implementing critical missions involving more than three million employees.
He had US oversaw administered as seven hundred and forty
billion dollar budget two trillion dollars in assets. He served
as most people don't think, don't even know this one.
He served as the Deputy DNI, the Deputy Director of
National Intelligence. You know the d and I oversees seventeen

(05:13):
intelligence community agencies. He was part of the Presidential Daily Brief,
not just for the president, but for cabinet officials and
on vital national security issues. He led President Trump's Trump
one point zero counter Terrorism Mission as Deputy Assistant to
the President on the National Security Council. His focus his

(05:35):
portfolio eliminating high value targets such as Al Taida and
ISIS leaders, while at the same time negotiating the repatriating
of American hostages. He was the National Security Prosecutor at
the Department of Justice under the Obama administration. He led

(05:56):
during that time. Under Obama, he led investigations into terrorism
and served as the Department of Justice liaison officer to
the Joint Special Operations Command, the JAYSAK. That meant he
was coordinating operations in high threat areas. And He started
his career as a public defender, specifically trying complex cases

(06:19):
across federal and state courts. So he brings to the
table a striking combination of prosecutorial acumen, legal defense advocacy,
high level government service, which sets him apart from his predecessors.
Compared to Chris Ray, William Webster, Clarence Kelly, Thomas Picard,

(06:41):
William Sessions, who each had less prosecutorial experience than Cash.
Ptel his years of experience in prosecution high stakes cases
focused on national security encounter terrorism. That already that alone
tips the scale his favor. Moreover, his experience as a

(07:01):
defense attorney sets him apart from the likes of Moeller
combea Ray who had little to no exposure to that
side of the legal system. So Cash Betel knows what
it means to argue on behalf of the accused and
to ensure that justice is not only administered but administered fairly.

(07:21):
That's the dual perspective, a nuanced understanding of both the
prosecution side and the defense side. Because what do we have.
What's my big bugaboo about the FBI The complete lack
of do process, the complete lack and ignoring the constitution,

(07:43):
the abuse of the phis A court actually lying on
warrants to get warrants from the PHISI court to spy
on Americans. No, he will not allow that to happen.
But we also forget that he served as the senior

(08:04):
council for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Oh well, Michael,
who is it. That's the committee that did the investigation
into the Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election. And
Cash Patel was directly responsible for uncovering the all the
illegal surveillance measures, and during that time he had oversight

(08:31):
for sensitive programs for the US Special Operations Forces. So
he has direct involvement in tackling some of the most
pressing national security challenges. And then you think about go
back to that stupid statement by Dick Durbin, William Sessions
or Clarence Kelly primarily had judicial or local law enforcement backgrounds.

(08:55):
Patel's national security credentials, I think make him exceptionally well
equal whipped to tackle the complex threats that this country
faces cyber espionage, terrorism. It's the kind of experience precisely
needed by the FBI if it's going to refocus his
mission on the true dangers facing this country rather than

(09:15):
engaging in all the stupid, political motivated witch hunts that
we've been enduring for the past eight years. Mean what
the criticism are of Patel that he wants to clean house?
Wait a minute, I think when I voted for Trump,
I voted for the guy that was going to clean house.

(09:36):
I voted for the guy that was going to challenge
the status quo. That's what Cash Pateel wants to do.
That's his greatest strength. That's what he's good at. Look
at where the Look where the FBI is right now.
Their current predicament, the way they're structured, in the way
and their culture right now demands somebody who is not

(09:57):
beholden to the entrensed bureaucratic interests that have insulated corruption,
have absolutely fostered incompetence for too long. You bring in
another insider like Chris Ray, or Louis free or or
Thomas Picard, that's exactly the wrong direction to take. You
need an outsider, but an outsider that understands the problem,

(10:20):
and an outsider that understands the bureau but does not
beholden to the bureau or enmeshed with friendships within the bureau.
You think about the FBI, their failure to act on
credible intelligence in numerous mass shootings, perpetuating the Steel Dossier
hopes the FBI has become so insulated and so interested

(10:42):
in protecting its own rather than upholding its core mission.
I won't tell you his name, but I have a
friend who's a special agent, and in fact we had
a long conversation and then after the conversation, I get

(11:04):
a message, Hey, what we talked about is not for
discussion on your program. Okay, I won't discuss what he
and I talked about, but I will tell you this,
everything that I just said about the problems within the
FBI may have been what I heard, may have been

(11:26):
exactly what I heard. So what really drives me, Baddy,
are some Republicans and some Democrats who are so entrenched
inside the Beltway that they don't want things to change.
They got a great gig going, why they don't worry
about the FBI ever investigating them. No, they got too

(11:50):
many friends over there. They would never do that. And
I'm not saying that they that they need to be investigated.
I'm simply saying that if there is probable cause, if
there's a reasonable suspicion, you know, the basic tenets of
criminal law, then they should be investigated. Don't read into
that that I think Cash Betel's going to go in

(12:12):
and start instigating lawfare against members of Congress or anybody
else for that matter, or against Joe Biden or anybody
you know. No, but if there's been wrongdoing done, he's
willing to stand up and hold him accountable. If judges
or prosecutors did something wrong, they violated the civil rights

(12:36):
of individuals. Oh, let's say in the January sixth case,
or let's say that maybe, and again I don't know.
I'm just giving you hypotheticals. If Liz Cheney violated federal
law by destroying evidence that belonged to a committee and
that belonged to the taxpayers, and she destroyed that, and

(12:57):
there is a reasonable suspicion that she did, and maybe
it ought to be investigated, and if the investigation leads
to at an indictable offense, then maybe she ought to
be indicted. Now she's probably covered by her stupid pardon,
but nonetheless, maybe you ought to do the investigation anyway,

(13:19):
turn over the turn over the investigation, or turn over
the information you garner in an investigation, turn it over
to the appropriate congressional committee, and let them do an
investigation where she can't plead the fifth and have them
come in and testify about what they really did. You
see part of what we want Trump to do. Even

(13:44):
if Biden pardoned people did preempty pardons. And while I
don't like it, I agree as the power to do it,
But that doesn't prevent us from at least getting a
big ash flashlight and showing a light on the wrong
doing that was done and now that they've been pardoned.
Take doctor Fauci, for example, did he violate federal law

(14:06):
by funding gain of research in Wuhan, Well, then let's
haven come testify about it. You're protected from any sort
of criminal indictment, so let's let's have you answer where
you can't invoke the fifth This this is an opportunity

(14:27):
and you I just guarantee you the evening news. Do what? Oh?

Speaker 2 (14:34):
Trump?

Speaker 3 (14:34):
Yeah, let's let's see what Trump's saying.

Speaker 6 (14:48):
Do me.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
No, Oh, they could be a definite. Thank you very much.

Speaker 7 (15:03):
I speak to you this morning in an hour of
anguish for a nation. Just before nine pm last night,
in American Airlines, regional jet carrying sixty passengers and four
crew collided with an Army black Hawk helicopter carrying three
military service members over the Potomac River in Washington, DC

(15:24):
while on final approach to rega national airport. Both aircraft
crashed instantly and were immediately submerged into the icy waters
of the Potomac.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
Real tragedy.

Speaker 7 (15:37):
The massive search and rescue mission was underway throughout the night,
leveraging every asset at our disposal. And I have to
say the local, state, federal military, including the United States
Coast Guard in particular, they've done a phenomenal job, so quick,
so fast, it was mobilized immediately. The work is now

(16:00):
shifted to a recovery mission. Sadly, there are no survivors.
This was a dark and excruciating night in our nation's capital,
then in our nation's history, and a tragedy of terrible proportions.
As one nation, we grieve for every precious soul that

(16:21):
has been taken from us so suddenly, and we are
a country of really we are in mourning. Is this
really shaking a lot of people, including people very sadly
from other nations who are on the flight for the
family members back in Wichita, Kansas, Here in Washington and
Sea and throughout the United States, and in Russia we

(16:46):
have a Russia contingents and very talented people. Unfortunately we're
on that plane, very very very sorry about that. Whose
loved ones were board the passenger jet.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
We can only get to imagine.

Speaker 3 (16:58):
The the consolar chief.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
We'll be right back, Michael.

Speaker 6 (17:17):
Just listening to that SoundBite from President Trump just shows
how lucky we are to have a president like him
that truly cares about every single person in our country.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
I just I was scrolling through my x account, which,
by the way, you need to be following me at
Michael Brown USA. I had not seen this. A CNN
political commentator by the name of the Cary Sellers is
basically everything I'm reading, is now apologizing after he tried

(17:56):
to connect Trump to this mid air collision that killed
sixty plus people at on a Reagan National Airport and
in Arlington last night Wednesday night. Now it's been confirmed
at least it is on the tyrons that all the

(18:16):
passengers and crew, along with three military personnel have all died.
So then Sellers, this CNN commentator posted a screenshot on
social media of a Democrat Party press release alleging that
Trump had frozen air traffic controller hirings last week. So
here's what he wrote on X eight days ago with

(18:40):
the Democratic Party press release screenshot. Despite the Democrats and
Sellers claims, the hiring freeze that was instituted by Trump
excluded military personnel and positions related to immigration enforcement, national security,
and public safety, which obviously includes air traffic controllers. This

(19:03):
guy such an idiot, But you know. In addition to that,
there's no indication that an air traffic controller air caused
the collision or that rushed hirings would have changed the
events that resulted in that daily crash last night. The
article is under the Transportation Infrastructure subhead of CNN Trump's

(19:28):
dangerous freeze of air traffic control hiring. So then he
got some pushback. Then he decided to delete his post,
and then later followed up with Maya Coupa. I deleted
the post because timing matters politics at this point does not.
I f'd up and I own that. I am very prayerful,

(19:51):
but I'm also very frustrated, upset and disturbed where we
are as a country. I recognize and I will do better.
The only thing that matters is rescuing the survivors and
ensuring this never happens again. I always love that never
happens again. It's been confirmed that there are no survivors.

(20:13):
Now I can't find any comment from CNN on the
matter beyond stating that the corporate news network stands by
his public apology. You know, CNN continues to suffer a
loss of viewership over the past year, which has led
to the layoffs including jem A Costa is gone. Well,
do you don't have Jemma Costa to kick around anymore

(20:34):
until he finds a podcast or something that shows up somewhere.
I think this might be why why do we politicize everything?
And then why do we always rush to judgment? You know,
Koa had somebody on. Somebody told me the name because

(20:56):
I was really curious. But I told you what Trump's
statement was earlier. In fact, let me I think I
still have it up somewhere. Here's what to do to
do to do to do?

Speaker 4 (21:09):
Was well really quickly, while you're do to do to
do to doing, I would just like to point out
that Trump is still talking, and it's very refreshing. Whether
you like Orange Man Bad or you hate Orange Man Bad,
He's still talking publicly about this event. And I was
trying to think during the previous break or two. I
know he's only been in office for ten days, but

(21:30):
has there been a day where he has not been
on TV and not answered questions about anything and everything?

Speaker 3 (21:39):
I would no, I think he's been. I think it's
been every single day there's either been an informal press
conference at an event, or there's been a gaggle on
Air Force one, or he's spoken from the Oval office,
or like he is right now, he's speaking, he's speaking
from the briefing room. He's acting in the Brady briefing
room giving this statement again. Do you love Orangeman bad?

(22:01):
Or you hate Orangeman bad. He has been a public
leader since he took office. He's been in the public
eye and been out there every day. And I can't
find the story off the top that had the quote
from Trump from last night. But I walked out into
the newsroom during the break and they had some guests on,

(22:25):
and he was really loud in the newsroom and he
was really mad about I just can't believe it said it.
It was totally he's some aviation expert they had on.
I cannot believe that the President said what he said.
It was just totally uncalled for and it was just
totally inappropriate or whatever. He's just ramming on him. He
ran and enough that I kind of did one of

(22:46):
those double takes, like who the hell are you and
you know, what are you ramming on about? So I
went into the control room and asked, because he was
sitting in the in KOA at the time, and I
asked Shannon, I just said, who is that guy? And
Shannon told me, and I just kind of rolled my
eyes because I thought, if you're an aviation expert, why

(23:08):
don't you talk about, you know, what went on? And
maybe he did. I don't know, because I didn't listen
to the interview, but at least in the newsroom, he
was politicizing it, just like the CNN guy did. Why
do we politicize everything, even a tragedy there? Look, take
the California wildfires for example. I think there is plenty

(23:32):
to criticize Karen Bass and her predecessors, and Gavin Newsom
and his predecessors, and the California State Assembly and their predecessors,
and all the stupid, dumbass things that California has done
to make the Pacific Palisades fire even worse than it
was going to be. And that's a direct attribution to

(23:54):
their public policies cutting fire and public safety in favor
of illegal aliens or the environmental wackos or whatever, failing
to do the things that you need to do to
do proper forest management. Yes, all of that needs to
be criticized. But while people's houses are burning down, you
might want to just take a deep breath and wait,

(24:15):
you know, two minutes, just one hundred and twenty seconds,
until you know where people stand or where they don't stand,
or what stands or what doesn't stand. And kind of
like the fire this morning, I was trying or not
the fire, the plane crash this morning. I told you
that I went to bed last night that there been
a plane crash in the Potomac River, and I didn't
know what was going on because I went to bed.

(24:37):
Plane crash, horrible tragedy. People die, some people would live.
I didn't know, but I went to bed, woke up.
First thing I hear is there's a briefing going on
from the Secretary of Defense and there's a transportation secretary
and they're talking about they've talked to the White House
situation in the room, and I'm like, what the hell's
going on? And that's when I learned that, oh, there
was a military there's a black Hawk helicopter involved, and

(25:01):
it was on some sort of training mission apparently. Okay, well,
that's what we ought to talk about, and maybe we
can ask questions, but to start criticizing right now, maybe
we held the criticism until we find out what the
facts are.

Speaker 4 (25:14):
And I think what the KWA guest was upset about
was a tweet from last night is from.

Speaker 3 (25:19):
Did you find the tweet?

Speaker 4 (25:20):
Yeah? From trumping from his truth social The airplane was
on a perfect and routine line, routine line of approach
to the airport. The helicopter was going straight at the
airplane for an extended period of time. It is a
clear night, all in caps. The lights on the plane
were blazing. Why didn't the helicopter go up or down

(25:41):
or turn? Why didn't the control tower tell the helicopter
what to do instead of asking if they saw the plane?
This is a bad situation that looks like it should
have been prevented. Not good all in caps. Hmm.

Speaker 3 (25:58):
I'm not quite certain that I have a problem with
that tweet. I think that I think ATC did say
do you have him in sight? Which is pretty standard
air traffic control chatter that I've heard before. And I've
heard air traffic controls say hey, pass on your you know,
pass behind him, or pass below.

Speaker 4 (26:19):
Or But I think the criticism from the aviation guy
that Kawa had on was probably more or less from Trump,
who was not an aviation guy who says why didn't
the control tower tell the helicopter what to do instead
of asking if they saw the plane? I can see
a criticism there.

Speaker 3 (26:34):
Well, yeah, because and maybe what time was that?

Speaker 4 (26:38):
This was just after midnight?

Speaker 3 (26:40):
Okay, so maybe Trump didn't know the ATC had actually
told the helicopter, hey, do you have him in sight
and go behind him? Don't go in front, or don't
go below or above, go behind him. Okay, So I
might accept that. But boy, he was really pissed off,
wasn't he.

Speaker 4 (26:54):
He was. He was shouting.

Speaker 3 (26:55):
He was shouting in the newsroom about it, and he
just it was to me, it was just like, okay,
that's pretty weird. So it's kind of like this guy
from CNN. The immediate assumption is that somehow Donald Trump
is directly responsible for because of freezing funds, except they
never go and say, okay, you froze funds. That's a

(27:16):
pretty broad statement. As I told you earlier in the program,
I read verbatim what they said they did not freeze,
and including here it excluded military personnel, immigration enforcement, national security,
and public safety, which obviously would include air traffic controllers.
So way off the mark, CNN. But I'm not surprised.

Speaker 8 (27:40):
I'll be right back, Michael. When senators like Elizabeth Warren
are speaking maybe above her head, we should have somebody
put in little chirons that say sponsored by Pfizer for
this number of dollars, and you know, just kind of

(28:00):
where she gets her money from.

Speaker 3 (28:02):
That'd be great, like a little clock over in the
corner or a cairo and that just you know, scrolls
financial contributions and just lists the company and the amount
of dollars and just kind of have it scroll through
while she's asking questions.

Speaker 4 (28:14):
Yeah, instead of the stock market ticker, just you know,
paid x amount from such and such, paid x amount from.

Speaker 3 (28:20):
So and so, the name of the company, the dollar amount,
you know, Dennis Semi Cola, and then the next name,
and just scroll it through, just keep on going. I
think I think that's a wonderful idea. So I we'll
talk more about Tulsa Gabbard tomorrow. But she gave her
opening statement, and there's she says something in here that
I want you to hear, because well the New York
Times glosses over it.

Speaker 9 (28:41):
The fact is what truly unsettles my political opponents is
I refuse to be their puppet I have no love
for Asad or Goodafi or any dictator.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
I just hate Al Qaida.

Speaker 9 (28:55):
I hate that we have leaders who cozy up to
Islamist extremist minimum them to so called rebels. As Jake
Sullivan said to Hillary Clinton, quote, al Qaida is on
our side in Syria.

Speaker 4 (29:09):
Well, Syria is now controlled.

Speaker 9 (29:10):
By an al Qaida offshoot at HTS, led by an
Islamus jihadis who danced in the streets on nine to
eleven and who is responsible for the killing of many
American service members. Democrat senators in the past resorted to
anti Christian bigotry against them of President Trump's judicial nominees

(29:30):
like Amy Coney Barrett and Brian bouchet. I condemned those
actions as a Democrat in Congress at the time, as
religious bigotry must be thoroughly condemned by all of us,
no matter the religion. Unferently, there are some Democrat senators
who still don't understand the principle of freedom of religion
and Article.

Speaker 4 (29:50):
Six of the Constitution quote.

Speaker 9 (29:52):
No religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification
to any office or public trust under the United States.

Speaker 4 (30:01):
Unfortunately, they're once.

Speaker 9 (30:02):
Again using the religious bigotry card, but this time trying
to foment religious bigotry against Hindus and Hinduism. If anyone
is sincerely interested in knowing more about my own personal
spiritual path of Hinduism, I welcome you to go to
my account on x or I'll share more on this topic.

(30:23):
If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will continue
to live by the oath that I have sworn at
least eight times in my life, both in uniform and
as a member of Congress. I will support and defend
our God given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I

(30:45):
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Thank
you very much for your time.

Speaker 4 (30:51):
I look forward to your question.

Speaker 3 (30:53):
So she talks about the weaponization and the politicization of
the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA for that matter.
What many people don't realize is The New York Times
ran a story a horrible hip piece either yesterday or

(31:16):
day before. I read through it. It was disgusting, and
in addition to that, so did National Review. And part
of the hip piece was the fact that she is
opposed to Section seven oh two of the FAISA Act. Well,
I'm glad that she is, National Review wrote, For example,

(31:37):
throughout her career, Gabert has been ideologically hostile to the
job she's been selected for. She's long opposed section seven
oh two of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows
us to monitor the communications of non Americans located outside
the United States. Well, what they did not mention, though,

(31:59):
that precisely that same FIZIS statute was used and allowed
the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign and
later the Trump administration itself. Nowhere National Reviews piece do
they mentioned the words politicization, weaponization, or even reform. Nor
does The New York Times. I'm opposed to the Foreign

(32:23):
Intelligence Surveillance Act. I've given you examples on many occasions
where the original intend of section seven o two was
that if somebody from a payphone in Yemen or Iran,
all right, now Afghanistan, somebody on a payphone or just
a household phone or a cell phone calls my cell phone,

(32:45):
all n Essay is supposed to do is to be able.

Speaker 4 (32:48):
To track that foreign call, but not.

Speaker 3 (32:52):
Me, because I'm an American citizen and I'm entitled to
a warrant, but they've abused section two and they now
argue that, well, because somebody called me, even if they
called me accidentally, Oh, then we have to investigate or
wiretap you because you got a phone call from Yemen

(33:15):
from someone that we think is a known terrorist or
maybe not, maybe just because it came from a country
that is an enemy of the United States. So somebody
in Tehran, I don't know whether they're still alive or not.
But I used to know a person that lives in Tehran.
What if they called me today, does that subject me
to essay surveillance under section seven oh two of the

(33:37):
Faiza Act. Well, legally, I don't think so, but the
way they've interpreted, probably so. And she's opposed to that.
So I say good for her, because that's the kind
of reform that's needed in the intelligence communit