8-1-25 - 7am - Russiagate Docs

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Is that you send the talk of the town. Michael
and Dragon breaking it down from left to right.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
They spend the toe Jazzy Flair on Malver Fail.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
The topics range from big to small world affair suit corky,
call Michael Sharp his wind on Cue Dragon Chanson with
a joboard too.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
You are listening to this Situation with Michael Brown on
KHW six thirty. Here are the rules of engagement. Text
the word Mike to three three one zero three. Download
the free to you iHeartRadio app. Be sure to favorite
two shows, The Situation with Michael Brown and The Weekend
with Michael Brown. Touch the little red microphone button and

(00:43):
leave a talkback message if you'd like. You can follow
Michael on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, as well as stream
the program live. Download the podcast, listen to a compilation
of different talkback see the various stories and photos that
Dragon post. You can visit Michael says, Go here dot com.

(01:03):
What's that Michael says? Go here dot com? Fantastic check
it out, It's back to you Michael and Dragon.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
Michael great to hear the name Pat Connor.

Speaker 3 (01:16):
His dad was the last great sports columnist in the.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
History of Denver.

Speaker 3 (01:20):
Right Hey, now you do show prep because there aren't
two great newspapers going at it every day giving you
all the content you would ever need. Dot dot dot
sad to see no newspapers that are relevant.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
Great to hear Pat Connor's name.

Speaker 4 (01:36):
He was a great see Pat. Pat looked great too.
He looked really looked, look healthy and happy. He's at
a radio exactly, He's back.

Speaker 1 (01:46):
In his skin.

Speaker 5 (01:47):
He's gained a little weights.

Speaker 4 (01:48):
That's right, exactly. Doesn't look like death warmed over, dragging in,
dragging out radio, the killer of souls. I will not play,
and I will ask Dragon not to play any tackle
out of respect for it. And this is I have

(02:09):
a dear friend who is in town. He's closing on
his house. He has run away to Japan. Yes, and
I'd love to have lunch with him. But I'm just
I'm stacked up the past couple of days.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
But he.

Speaker 4 (02:29):
At six fifty two am just four simple words. Please
don't play it.

Speaker 5 (02:38):
If I have to, will look look, I will. There
are rules there as a situation with Michael Brown, Yes.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
There are rules.

Speaker 4 (02:48):
However, I think out of due out of the utmost
respect for a close friend who has traveled all the
way from Tokyo to close on a house so that
he can get the hell out of then we shouldn't
run his day. You can make that promise, but I'm
not gonna. And yes I am aware because I had

(03:10):
the TV on this morning because there was no one
in the house but me and the girls and the well,
the dogs.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
And.

Speaker 4 (03:20):
KATVR reminded me that today is Colorado Day. It's Colorado's
I found this interesting that, you know, the talking heads,
Kurt and whoever's sidekick was this morning, we're talking about
how the day is, you know, Colorado Day, it's you know,

(03:40):
our birthday. But they were more interested, I think, in
next year than they are this year. So it's kind
of like whatever. You know, you're you're turning forty nine
years old, but next year you're fifty years old, So
you really don't care about forty nine because you're already
dreading turning fifty.

Speaker 5 (03:58):
Like twenty to twenty one. I don't care about turning
twenty probably twenty one. Yeah, right, yeah, it's like that.

Speaker 4 (04:06):
Well, yesterday was an anniversary too. Do you know what
yesterday's anniversary was? It was the nine year anniversary of
the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Yes, the Obama FBI's criminal
investigation into nonexistent ties between Vladimir Putin, where they just

(04:29):
the Kremlin in general, the communists, the Russian communists, and
Donald Trump's twenty sixteen presidential campaign, and that seemed like
a long time ago. It seems like forever ago to me.
So this is probably a good time to release, you know,
another document demonstrating exactly I mean, in one way, I

(04:50):
want to say, Yon, nothing new, but we now have
yet another document that demonstrates how the Trump Russia election collusion,
that entire far was concocted by Obama officials, including the
President himself, that were inconclusion with the Clinton campaign. Senator
Charles Charles Grassley. You know, Senator Grassley, I don't know

(05:13):
how old he is.

Speaker 6 (05:14):
Is he?

Speaker 1 (05:14):
I think he may be ninety years old now. But
here's an example of.

Speaker 4 (05:18):
How somebody, you know, I suppose if you grow up
as a farmer in Iowa ninety one, holy crap, versus
Joe Biden, who spoke to I don't know, the American
Bar Association of somebody last night, and I'm it depends
on how you live your life, and of course your

(05:38):
genes too. And I do mean g E N E
s not your j E A N S's. I've seen
so many great memes about what was her name, Sweeney Sweeney,
so many great memes about her, and so many great
examples of how Calvin Klein I won't remember all the

(06:01):
different fashion houses, but different fashion houses that did very
similar ad campaigns over the past say five to ten years,
and nobody said a word. But you put a white
woman in denhim, you know, showed just enough boob that

(06:22):
you know, guys are like all talking about the ad
campaign and then the what little woke part of society
that still exists goes backcrap crazy, absolutely insane. Well, anyway,
yesterday Senator Grassley released newly declassified documents. It was an
annex to the report that was produced by Special Counsel

(06:44):
John Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General William
barr All to investigate the origins of Crossfire Hurricane. Remember
the report that Durham released has now been bought a
couple of years ago, twenty twenty twenty three. I think
based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and
this is the bird the bookstards a bull Durham. This

(07:08):
is the Durham report quote. Based on the evidence gathered
in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters,
including the instant investigation meaning his own investigation, neither US
law enforcement nor the intelligence community appears to have possessed

(07:29):
any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the
commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That was Durham's conclusion.
But let's think about what we learned yesterday. There was
a compositive emails by a top Soirols Fund official written

(07:55):
in July twenty sixteen that appears to confirm that Hillary
Clinton herself approved of the Trump Russia election hacking narrative
the DNC, and in particular, Hillary Clinton approved. That's the
first takeaway. The second would be that top Obama administration

(08:16):
officials actually were aware of intelligence reports related to the
Clinton campaign's plan to kind of taint the Trump campaign
with this manufactured narrative, manufactured scandal, but instead decided to
pursue an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign the shiny

(08:40):
object rule. Oh look, we actually know that the Clinton
campaign is going to do this, So instead of investigating
the Clinton campaign. Let's go investigate the Trump campaign to
show that there's ties. Let's use what Hillary's doing to
investigate the Trump campaign. The other thing we learned was

(09:05):
this seems there were a lot of people that were
actually truly alarmed at Loretta Lynch, remember her former attorney general.
They were alarmed at her unfazed reaction to information that
she had actually acted as a conduit between the Department
of Justice and the Clinton campaign staff. Clinton, John Podesta,

(09:34):
Jennifer Pellamary, Jake Sullivan remember him from the Biden administration.
He goes all the way back to the Obama administration.
They were all interviewed by Durham back in twenty one
and twenty twenty two within the perjury statue limitations still
and denied knowledge of the soil's officials email and any

(09:54):
Trump Russia plan. So Clinton, Podesta, Paul Mary, and Sullivan
are still within the statute limitations with regard to perjuring
themselves in front of Congress. The exculpatory evidence that shows
that Trump didn't have anything to do with this, or

(10:15):
that there was any collusion be Trump between Trump and
the Kremlin that was withheld or excluded in the FBI's
application before the phis A Court to spy on Carter page.
Another example. This is a new this is a new takeaway.

(10:36):
That another example of where they actually lied to the
phis A Court. And do you remember who the chief
I think he was the chief judge at the time.
Who the chief judge at the PHISI Court was, Judge Bobert. Yeah,
the same one that's ruling against Trump on the National injunctions.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
M H.

Speaker 4 (11:01):
Grashley said this in a press release based on the
Durham Annex. The Obama FBI failed to adequately review and
investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been
ginning up the fake Trump russianarity for Clinton's political gain,
which was ultimately done through the Steele dossier and other means.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
Should we be shocked by any of this?

Speaker 3 (11:30):
No?

Speaker 1 (11:31):
Is it new information? Yes? Does it mean that we're
gonna see handcuffs?

Speaker 3 (11:41):
No?

Speaker 1 (11:41):
Probably not.

Speaker 4 (11:43):
I think we could, but in many instances, don't shoot
the messenger. But for some of these people, the statue
limitations has told any criminal investigation. Now, that doesn't mean
they can go unpunished, but throwing somebody in jail doesn't
necessarily have to be the only punishment there still could be.

(12:05):
And I know this contradicts, you know, my bemoaning how
worthless congressional hearings are.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
But there are.

Speaker 4 (12:11):
Always exceptions, and the most prominent, I shouldn't say the
most prominent, but a prominent exception that you might be
able to relate to would be the Watergate hearings. Regardless
of whether or not you ever saw, watched, or even
read anything about the Watergate hearings, you generally know that
the Watergate hearings ultimately resulted in the discovery of the

(12:34):
cover up by the Nixon White House and ultimately led
to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Now we can't get
the resignation of Barack Obama because he's one and done.
He's out of here. Now could he be criminally indicted?
That's a really tough legal question because of the Supreme
Courts ruling on immunity. I could, at a very high levels,

(13:00):
superficial level, say that, you know, when you're engaged in collusion,
which is not really a crime, but when you're engaged
in a conspiracy, let's call it a conspiracy. When you're
involved in a conspiracy that involves, you know, even tangentially,
the lying to affise a court to get a search

(13:22):
warrant or a wire tap, and you're a part of
that conspiracy. Yeah, that's probably beyond your presidential immunity. I
don't think the Supreme Court intended to grant immunity for
acts that other than being president might be criminal in nature.
That's not necessarily a part of your presidential duties. But

(13:48):
who knows that. That's a question that is certainly not
It is too in depth to to really talk about
right now. You know, there there there are a lot
of publication available written by authors who have spent a
lot more time than I have on this subject. Sleuth
News written by a big Russia hoax examiner entitled Undead Foya.

(14:12):
That guy's been ahead of the pack and a lot
of the most recent disclosures by the current CIA director
at Ratcliffe and the d and I Tilca Gabbard, mainly
because he's been examining these issues for years by doing
something that you would think that journalists would be clamoring
to do. But the cabal's not because they're part of well,

(14:35):
they're part of the kabal. But I repeat myself, this guy,
undead Foya over at Sleuth News has been examining these
these issues for years, because he's been issuing literally dozens
of Foyer requests for relevant documents. So while I might

(14:57):
try to deconstruct a very dense and detailed document, the
Durham Report, and then trying to figure out if important
information might have been purposely omitted, a really good approach
to making such that kind of educated guesses is to
look at exactly how the author framed and phrased the
subject matter that he was indeed authorized to investigate.

Speaker 1 (15:17):
And then when you do that, the conclusion.

Speaker 4 (15:19):
That one can draw is that anything that might seem
obvious in terms of being a noteworthy omission was probably
omitted on purpose. So let's think about exactly how John
Durham in that report described the scope of his investigation
that was authorized by Attorney General Barr and Merrick Garland,

(15:39):
because remember it carried over. Was there adequate predication? Was there
an adequate predicate for the FBI to even open the
Crossfire Hurricane investigation from its inception in twenty sixteen as
a full counterintelligence and foreign agent registration FARAH investigation given

(16:04):
the requirements of the Attorney General's and DOJ's guidelines for
FBI domestic operations and FBI policies relating to the use
of the least intrusive investigative tools? Was that really necessary
when you think about it in those terms entries, Well, no,

(16:24):
actually not, because you had emails. You don't need a
FAISA warrant. You have emails that you can get from
a foyer request. Last night at that party, we were
laughing about emails between me and some of the employees here,

(16:49):
and I was explaining to these people that I had
a congressman from Louisiana that did a fuller request for
a tranch of my emails for like a ninety day
period and immediately just took those and hand them over
to the New York Times. And then New York Times
took those emails and wrote up a bunch of bull
crap stories about me based on emails, emails in which

(17:11):
to this day haven't I haven't changed my ways. I
joke with people in email all the time, sometimes probably
a little inappropriately if you take it out of context.
But if you take it in the context of the
actual personal relationship between me and the recipient of my email,
or me being the recipient of their email, you would

(17:33):
think if if if you knew, if you knew our
relationship and how we're always joking with each other, you'd be, oh, yeah,
that just sounds exactly like Michael and Dragon, or that
sounds exactly like Michael and Edie or whoever it might be.
But you take it out of context and oh my god,
it's an HR violation. Oh my god, where's the QR
code to you know, reach out to HR or whatever
the one to eight hundred HR is. So I don't

(17:58):
think that the Durham investigation one was warranted, but two
had to go through all these hoops that he went through.
It was all right there before him, which indicates to
me that John Durham, for all of his reputation as
being a bulldog and he doesn't give a rod to
us about who he steps on, really was kind of

(18:19):
tiptoeing around all of this. There's another context to think about,
was the opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation
back in twenty sixteen. Was that consistent with how the
FBI handled other intelligence that it had received prior to
twenty sixteen concerning any attempts by any foreign interest to

(18:40):
influence the Clinton or any other campaign.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
No, it wasn't consistent at all.

Speaker 4 (18:49):
There is people are trying to I guess the point
I'm trying to make is this, people are trying to
downplay the release of this declassified annex. The way you
can downplay it is no, it may not mean that
people go to jail, but it shows how corrupt things were.

Speaker 6 (19:06):
With all the additional information coming out about the complete
bs rushigate with Trump, it is interesting to see old
clips of Hillary Obama Alphabet agency leaders going on interviews
and knowing they're absolutely lying through their teeth and they

(19:30):
knew this was one percent false.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Sick. It is sick.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
And I think that the release of the classified annex.
Let me make sure everybody understands that we're all talking
from the same song sheet.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
Here.

Speaker 4 (19:51):
We had the Durham Report, but attached to the Durham
Report was a classified annex. The point that I'm trying
to make about the classified an X is that no
one has seen that Congress asked for it. You can
you can hear I mean, Grassley has been bitching about it.

(20:12):
Ran Paul's been bitching about it, Mike Lee has been
bitching about it. Any number of US senators have been
bitching about that the dj and the FBI and CIA,
all of these agencies have been refusing to release this
classifying NX to them, even though that is part of

(20:34):
the Senate's oversight responsibilities. But then comes along Tulci Gabbard
and John Radcliffe at the CIA, and they start declassifying
these documents and turning them over to the Senate. And
that's where the kerfuffle is starting because now we know,

(20:55):
based on the classified information that there was and again
I use the word collusion, but I use that in
a strictly layman's terms, because there is not a crime
of collusion. There's a crime of conspiracy, but not collusion.
So this shows unequivocally that there was collusion between the

(21:17):
White House all the way up to Obama, Clapper Brennan,
Jake Sullivan.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
Oh, I came with the when Monica is something, I
forget what her last name is.

Speaker 4 (21:30):
But there are all of these people involved in that
cabal during the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, the DNC,
all of those people.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
They were all.

Speaker 4 (21:41):
In this collusive collusion activity to create this narrative of
Trump is a Russian asset, or alternatively, that Russia is
supporting the Trump campaign, when in fact everything the opposite
is actually true. They really want Clinton to win because well,

(22:06):
she'll be a pushover, and they know about her health issues.
And they also know that now based on this declassified
annex that people outside like the Soros guy, I forget
his name's Immateial, all of these yahoos are all cooking

(22:29):
all of this up, and it's designed to prevent Trump
from governing, hopefully leading to and did lead to impeachment,
although there was no conviction, so in essence, they pretty
much shut down. If Trump could have accomplished a thousand
things during his first term, he was only able to

(22:51):
accomplish you know, five hundred things, or four hundred things,
or you know any number you want to pick. He
wasn't able to accomplish everything that he was trying to
accomplish because he was too busy fighting off all of
these investigations and the impeachments and everything.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
I mean, three times, for pe'd's sake. Come on. But
now that this is out, I think.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
It's explosive, but it's politically explosive, and so now the
cabal is in full cya mode. Play it down. It's
no big deal. And the one thing that I do
agree with the cabal about is that in many instances,

(23:33):
not all, let me emphasize not all, but in many instances,
the statute limitations with regard to conspiracy is probably going
to toll any criminal investigation or prosecution of some or
all of these people. I think the exceptions are going

(23:54):
to be for example, no, not the exception, but I
think a good example is going to be perjuring yourselves
before Congress. So committing that perjury the statute limitation. I'd
have to go look it up. But the statue limitations
is not like, you know, twenty years for perjury before Congress.
It's more like, you know, five years or ten, maybe

(24:15):
even ten years. Well, look at the calendar, folks. We're
talking about stuff that was occurring in twenty sixteen. That's
nine years ago. So we're getting either close or have
surpassed the statute limitations. So for those who are clamoring
to see Barack Obama and then all of the underlings

(24:37):
under him, Clapper and Brennan and Lisa Monica I think
was her name, but there's another Monica, somebody, Jake Sullivan.
All of these people are involved in this, including the
Soleros guy to see them frog marched in front of
a federal judge somewhere, you know, in an orange jumpsuit
and in chains, is probably not going to happen. Some

(24:59):
cases it m but the big sweep that everybody wants,
I don't think it is going to occur. But that
doesn't mean that we can't have the equivalent of something
like a Watergate hearing to expose the corruption. I'm not
above saying what I'm about to say. If we could

(25:22):
have Watergate hearings that expose the corruption of Barack Obama,
that would destroy his reputation, that would pretty much nullify
the eight years of him being in office to the
degree that historically he will be another Richard Nixon. Then
go for it. Go for it, because I believe what

(25:45):
they did is in the long term going to be
good for the country if it gets exposed and if
it gets the kind of airtime, television rate, newspapers, print,
new media, interwebs wherever it is, so that we understand

(26:06):
exactly the game that they were playing. For example, in
looking at the Durham Report, in light of this declassified annex,
an obvious question is was there evidence that the actions
of any FBI personnel or third parties that were related

(26:28):
to the Crossfire hurricane investigation. Were they violating any federal
criminal statues, including including the prohibition against making false statements
to federal officials, not just Congress, but to the pies,
a court, or to anybody else, even within their own

(26:53):
agencies making false statements? Did underlings you know this works
two ways. Did staffers lie to their directors? For example?
Did CIA analysts or FBI investigators lie to the Director
of the CIA or to the director of the FBI. Likewise,

(27:15):
did the director of the FBI or the director of
the CIA lie to their staff in order to cover
up what they were doing with say, for example, the
Presidential Daily Brief, where they were doing the Intelligence Community
assessment reporting that to Obama, and Obama and Susan Rice
and all the rest of them said oh no, no, no, no, no,
we don't want that assessment. We want the assessment to

(27:37):
say this. So they quickly pulled it, went back and
redid it. Did they lie to their staff? Did they
mandate that their staff knowingly and willfully take that Intelligence
Community assessment and redo it such that it was false?

(28:01):
I want if that's true, and I do believe that
it is. If that's true, then I want that evidence exposed.
I want whether James Clapper or John Brennan ever end
up in change or in federal prison, I don't care.
I want the truth out about what they did. I
want the deep state exposed. Was there, you know, a

(28:24):
follow on question, was there evidence that the actions of
the FBI or department personnel within the FBI or Department
of Justice, any evidence of them providing false or incomplete
information to the phies a court? I mean, that's you know,
Dragon's got all these bugaboos. I've got a bugaboo about
lying to a court. I've got a real bugaboo about that.

(28:48):
I can't fathom running the risk or even contemplating lying
to a federal judge, much less a phi as a judge,
a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judge that has the ability
to order wire taps on civilians, including someone like Donald Trump,

(29:09):
who just oh happens to be a candidate to be
president of the United States of America. If the FBI
director and his underlings knowingly, which I believe they did,
went to a federal judge, because now I wonder, now
I'm putting my tinfoil hat on. Now I'm wondering if

(29:31):
there wasn't in that application for I mean, I'm talking
about physically where they physically go to the judge's chambers
and they present their application for a warrant, If there
wasn't kind of a wink and a nod to the judge,
and the judge gave a wink and a nod back
that said, yeah, I know what you're doing, and I'm

(29:52):
going to approve your warrant knowing what you're doing. Because
that's how distrustful I am of the entire system, And
with the disclosure of this declassified anex it really does
make me put my tenfoil hat on. And now question, hmmm,

(30:13):
because EFFISA judge appointed by the Chief Justice to oversee
this kind of level of spying on Americans for terrorism purposes,
foreign influenced purposes, for kind of treasonous purposes, are they

(30:37):
in on the gig?

Speaker 1 (30:39):
I want to know.

Speaker 4 (30:41):
So all these specific references to Crossfire Hurricane, in my opinion,
are meant to communicate the conduct that was taking place
before July twenty sixteen, except as expressly noted otherwise, was
not within the scope of the Durham investigation. If the
Russian collusion hoax was in fact the downstream result of

(31:02):
a prefabricated campaign dirty tricks that was set in motion
weeks or months prior to July twenty sixteen, then Durham's
order did not extend to that activity. And given his
focus on the FBI, Durham might have also considered CIA
involvement with the Clinton campaign to also be beyond the
scope of his inquiry, particularly if it did not involve

(31:25):
covert and overt criminal activity, and so he put his
blinders on and didn't look at it, and that raises questions.

Speaker 6 (31:32):
Too interesting to see that Las Vegas's tourism revenue has
dropped eleven percent, many people are saying different things. The
information I gathered from looking at it was people are
sick of all the resort fees and high price drenths.
Vegas used to be a place you could go to

(31:53):
the eighties and nineties on the cheap, but not so anymore,
so they've priced themselves out.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
I hate talking backs.

Speaker 4 (32:08):
I've been following the whole Vegas thing fairly closely. I
haven't talked about it on air because I'm think anybody
it is interested in it, But there is two diametric
deposed theories about what's going on in Vegas. I fall
on the side of they have again post COVID with
Formula one, the baseball team, the football team, everything that

(32:32):
they're doing. The sphere itself has been an excuse to
attract They've attracted a different level of tourists that can
spend forty five dollars for a martini, that can you know,
spend you know, several thousand dollars for a seat to
watch Formula one or to go to a baseball or

(32:54):
football game, if and when they all get completed, and
then they've started nickel and diming everything. The resort to
your point, the resort fees, you know, no longer free drinks,
although I hear that some places you can, some places
you can't. And because I used to like to go
to Vegas, not to gamble, but you know, occasionally you
go see a show, either a concert or you know,

(33:15):
a you know, a circuit to silet or something, and Tama,
I just haven't done it in years because it has
become ridiculously expensive. But I'm fascinated by the economic reasons
why if you're a gambler, there's really no reason to
go to Vegas anymore.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Hell's bells.

Speaker 4 (33:35):
There's Indian casinos every fifteen feet, So why go to
Vegas when you can go to an Indian casino that
quite frankly, may not be as glitzy as you know,
the Blagio, but you can afford the entertainment if that's
your entertainment. I Tamra kind of wanted to see Rod

(33:56):
Stewart in concert. Sometimes she's never seen Rod Stewart, and
I found tickets for him at a concert in a
casino down on the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. Now,
her response to that was, I don't want to go
into the middle of nowhere to watch Rod Stewart. And
when I explained to her that that's kind of what's

(34:17):
going on now, that yeah, Rod Stewart may show up
in Vegas at some point, and I can take his
when he shows up in Vegas, but we're not going
to spend the kind of you know, we're gonna spend
ten times more money than if we go to some
Indian casino. I forget whether it was on the Oklahoma
or Texas side. I'm guessing on the Oklahoma side, but no,

(34:38):
it's it's a fascinating study in economics, the concept is
their nickel and dining people to death real quickly. So
Tolcy Gabbert's declassification of these documents does support the view
that the intelligence community engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to
target the incoming president Donald Trump with all these faults

(35:02):
and dubious claims, and that is truly explosive in and
of itself.

Speaker 1 (35:07):
That's explosive. So if you're.

Speaker 4 (35:09):
One who is focused on but I want to see
people purp walked, step away from the edge and instead,
let's just pray that you know a Chuck Grassley or
a Rand Paul or a Mike Lee, or for that matter,
John Thune, the Senate Majority leader, actually sit down and
put together some sort of I don't care whether it's

(35:31):
a special committee or they use the Senate Intelligence Committee,
but somehow bring to light force the cabal to cover this,
force the cabal, and in fact expose the cabal's complicity
in this cover up, in this conspiracy to destroy an
individual that was.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
Duly elected president. That's earth shattering.

Speaker 4 (35:57):
But I think we're so inundated with so so much
earth shattering news. That is that meeting you're coming any closer?
Dragon Earth shadowing every day, Oh your Lord, where is
it today?