Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's the Hammer in Nigel Show. I'm Nigel Jason Hammer
right over there. It's hard to believe we're like nine
ten years and we're still talking about Russia, Russia, Russia,
of the Russian hoax and all that stuff. But D
and I director Tulsea Gabbert dropping some heavy documents on
us this week implicating our own intel community saying Russia
(00:21):
didn't really intervene in a meaningful way with the twenty
sixteen election, but the Obama administration overriding that, setting up
some sort of entirely different intelligent assessment so that could
perpetuate that Russian collusion narrative. Covering it all for us today,
Bright Barton News Senior Editor at Large Joel Pollock, Joel,
(00:41):
welcome back to the show. Thanks for coming on. How
big a deal is this and what are the updates?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, it's a very big deal. I think we've learned
two things that we didn't know before. The first thing
we learned is that the intelligence community actually prepared an
assessment saying that Russia had not interfered in the metiful way,
and that Obama and his deputies got together to write
a new assessment to suggest that the Russians had intervened.
(01:11):
That's number one, Number two, which Tulsea Gabbard revealed on Monday.
The first one was last Friday. Number two that the
Russians had apparently collected a bunch of dirt on Hillary Clinton,
and they had withheld it because they expected her to win,
and then they wanted to release it after her victory,
(01:32):
but before her inauguration so they could undermine her administration,
much like Obama and his deputies did with the Steel
dossier undermining Trump's administration. So the Russians had intended to
cause damage but did not really do so during the election.
And those are two new pieces of information, at least
(01:54):
as alleged by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Now I think that is significant, and I think it
will be interesting to see if all of that bears
out in the facts as they come out. The additional
element you have here is that she has accused President
Barack Obama of treasonous behavior. Now I would not have
done that because I think it's a little inflammatory. First
(02:16):
of all, treason can carry a death penalty, and that's
what the Democrats did to Trump by the way, they
charged him with crimes, including one federal Civil Rights Statute
that has death as a possible penalty. I don't like
that kind of alarming stuff. I mean, I know they
did it to him, so he could do it to them,
but I don't think that turnabout is always fair play.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Trump used the T word in the Oval Office when
talking about this exact same thing, not only Tasta Gabbert.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
I think people expect a certain amount of hyperbole from Trump.
I think when it comes from someone who has the
job of sifting through all of the intelligence, it's a
little darker. But you know, it did draw attention to
the story, and maybe that was the purpose. The other
thing is that I don't think Obama can be prosecuted anyway,
(03:05):
so it's kind of a moot point. And the reason
we know he probably can't be prosecuted is that there
was a Supreme Court case last year that Trump won
where Democrats are trying to prosecute him, and the Supreme
Court said, no, you can't prosecute a president for things
he did as official acts when he was president. And
I think that's good for the presidency. We don't want
our presidents looking over their shoulder consulting with lawyers instead
(03:27):
of doing the right thing. So I don't think Obama
is going to be prosecuted. I do think that some
of his deputies could be in some legal jeopardy if
it is found that they suppressed or falsified intelligence information.
And we'll see where that leads. But I think we
do have a right to know.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Joel Jason Hammer here, I'm a little salty. I admit
I'm a little jaded, because, yes, it seems like they're
some there there with this story. But I've seen this
movie before where the Republican will pass out subpoenas and
they will huff and puff, and we're going to get
great sound bites to play on our radio show. You'll
get things to put on articles, and at the end
(04:08):
of the day, nobody's going to be held accountable and
everybody's going to get away with it. Like, am I
the bad guy for thinking like that?
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Well, I think we just have to have a broader
view of accountability. I mean, one of the things I
wrote in my book The Agenda what Trump should do
in his first one hundred days was they should strip
the national security clearance of all fifty one people who
signed that letter saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. Yes,
and they did that. Now that is a form of accountability.
(04:37):
Those people didn't go to jail, but they can't work
in national security. Again, by the way, there are a
lot of private sector jobs that require you to have
national security clearance. They can't make money on K Street
the way they would have before. They can't make money
in think tanks. They can't make money as military contractors.
They can't make money as researchers for think tanks. They
(04:58):
are paying a price for what they do did at
least in that way, they're not sitting behind bars, but
they are being held accountable for their misuse of their
reputation and access to classified information. So I think we
have to just understand that accountability comes in many different ways,
and some of it is correcting the historical record. I mean,
sometimes accountability means the public knowing what these people did,
(05:21):
whether they can be punished for it or not. And
sometimes the statute of limitations might run on somebody's things.
But at least you get the information out there. And again, yes,
that's a softer form of accountability than many of us
would like. I do think that the lawyer who falsified
an email as part of the effort to get Trump
(05:42):
only got to flap on the wrist. He should have
had prison time.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
In my view, was that the PISA was that he
doctored the EA to get the phony warrants to spy
on the campaign.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, he was the only person John Durham successfully convicted,
and he didn't even get any jail time. But if
you or I faltify the information a federal court, we
go to jail for ten or fifteen years. So I
think there is a justified sense of outrage, But it's
not just their fault of Republicans. Keep in mind that
you have judges in jurisdictions like DC where they have
(06:13):
to bring some of these cases, who are very anti
Trump and a very friendly to the national security establishment.
You have all kinds of obstacles to getting us done.
And that judge in Delaware would have let the whole
Hunter Biden thing. God, had she not asked questions. She
was a Trump appointee, But you know, the Department of
Justice would have been satisfied with a plea bargain. And
(06:36):
because the judge was prompted to ask a couple of questions,
I guess we came up with it on our own
and said, well, I don't like this plea bargain. The
whole thing blew wide open. So it's not always you know,
Republicans rolling over, you know, once they've gotten the Fox
News headline and the fundraising email. It's also just that
it is extremely difficult to do this kind of thing,
and also, frankly, for Republicans and Trump supporters, you have
(06:59):
to away the cost of spending time on past issues
against whatever benefit they're going to provide. Trump is doing
so much for the country right now. Maybe it's best
not to be bogged down in things from the past
and to keep moving forward into the future. You can
argue you can walk into your gum at the same time,
but the fact is you have to divert some resources
(07:20):
into these past cases. Maybe it's better to have a
comprehensive report, let's say, from the opposite Director of National
Intelligence or from a House committee, and let the Department
of Justice go after the cartel and go after the
other criminals who are causing all kinds of mayhem. I
think you have to look at where you deploy your resources,
(07:41):
and at some point, I think voters expect their government
to produce a better tomorrow, not a better yesterday.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Joel Pollock from Breitbart, you said something in the beginning
of the segment, mentioning that the Russians had dirt and
intel on Hillary Clinton but didn't use it. What was
that dirt.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Well, the reports are that they had information about her
medical condition and her psychological condition, that she was prone
to outbursts, and she was heavily tranquilized, and that would
seem to conform to some of what we saw from
her public behavior that infamous episode where she couldn't stand
up on her own after the nine to eleven memorial.
(08:16):
But you know, as with the Steel DOSSI yeah, we
don't know how much of this is true, so I
would just take it all with the grain of salt.
I do, however, think that the most serious allegation was
the Friday allegation by Telsea Gabbertt, in which she said
they had an intelligence community assessment that Russia did not
have an impact. They then forced a rewrite and they
rushed it through to get it out there that Russia
(08:39):
had had an impact so they could then frame Trump
as having colluded Russia. I think I think that I
think that's very likely to have.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Happened Bright bar New Senior Editor at Large, Jill Pollock.
One of the last times we talked to you, Joey,
you were going through you and your family, We're going
through the aftermath of the Palisades fire. How are you
and your family doing right now? Where are you located
right now? Are you going to be able to move
back in into your home anytime soon? And I know
that you did write an article about some of the
(09:06):
charity money for the fire victims and where it all
went right.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, let's start with the last question. The money for
fire victims was raised by Fire Aid big concert at
the end of January, and the controversy is really over
the model that they used. The allegation is not so
much that the money was stolen or corruptly taken or whatever,
but basically it turns out that one hundred million dollars
(09:32):
they raised is going to organizations that say that they're
helping fire victims. It's not going directly to fire victims.
So there are arguments about whether that's appropriate, and I
think you can make the case on both sides. There
are some groups that are getting money that I don't
understand why they're getting money. One is called the California
Native Vote Project. I don't think anything with Vote in
(09:53):
the title should be getting money from a fire aid fight.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
It's bizarre, But.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
There are groups that are doing good work, that I
personally know are doing good work. So it's a bit
murkier than might seem from some of the coverage you've
seen out there in perhaps, but as far as my
family and I, we're all over the place. At the moment.
We moved around from one rental to another. We can't
live in our house yet. It's not fixed up yet.
(10:18):
There's a whole fight with the insurance company, and our
neighborhood is still being repared. They managed to clear the
debris from the burnt homes, about seventy five percent of
the homes of my neighborhood burnt down. The Army Corps engineers,
the EPA. They did a fantastic job. Actually, pretty much
anything that Trump administration has touched on this fire has
been done very very well. But the local government is
taking a long time to come up with permits, and
(10:41):
some of my neighbors are struggling to get the money
they need because their insurance doesn't cover the cost of
rebuilding it's a state problem that Governor Gaven Newsom hasn't
addressed yet. So we're all trying to figure this out.
And everybody's got their own little individual struggles. But right
now it looks like my family and I will be
in DC for a couple of years. My wife got
an incredible job with the Trump administration, not because of me,
(11:02):
but because she's a genius when it comes to labor economics.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Okay, so wow, congratulations there.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, she's doing incredible things you might hear about one day.
And I'm doing my job for Breitbart there and going
back and forth. As I speak to you today, I'm
in Chicago with the older kids, visiting the grandparents working
out of here, Okay, And you know, we're just we're
just grateful for supportive family and the great community that
(11:30):
we have. Everybody's trying to help everybody else rebuild.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, we are grateful for you, Joel and the analysis
you provide. That's bride Bart News Editor Senior editor at Large,
Joel Pollock, Welcome back on the show anytime. Man. You're
one of the best. Have a great weekend and we'll
talk to you soon.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Talk to you later.
It's the Hammer in Nigel Show. I'm Nigel Jason Hammer
right over there. It's hard to believe we're like nine
ten years and we're still talking about Russia, Russia, Russia,
of the Russian hoax and all that stuff. But D
and I director Tulsea Gabbert dropping some heavy documents on
us this week implicating our own intel community saying Russia
(00:21):
didn't really intervene in a meaningful way with the twenty
sixteen election, but the Obama administration overriding that, setting up
some sort of entirely different intelligent assessment so that could
perpetuate that Russian collusion narrative. Covering it all for us today,
Bright Barton News Senior Editor at Large Joel Pollock, Joel,
(00:41):
welcome back to the show. Thanks for coming on. How
big a deal is this and what are the updates?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, it's a very big deal. I think we've learned
two things that we didn't know before. The first thing
we learned is that the intelligence community actually prepared an
assessment saying that Russia had not interfered in the metiful way,
and that Obama and his deputies got together to write
a new assessment to suggest that the Russians had intervened.
(01:11):
That's number one, Number two, which Tulsea Gabbard revealed on Monday.
The first one was last Friday. Number two that the
Russians had apparently collected a bunch of dirt on Hillary Clinton,
and they had withheld it because they expected her to win,
and then they wanted to release it after her victory,
(01:32):
but before her inauguration so they could undermine her administration,
much like Obama and his deputies did with the Steel
dossier undermining Trump's administration. So the Russians had intended to
cause damage but did not really do so during the election.
And those are two new pieces of information, at least
(01:54):
as alleged by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Now I think that is significant, and I think it
will be interesting to see if all of that bears
out in the facts as they come out. The additional
element you have here is that she has accused President
Barack Obama of treasonous behavior. Now I would not have
done that because I think it's a little inflammatory. First
(02:16):
of all, treason can carry a death penalty, and that's
what the Democrats did to Trump by the way, they
charged him with crimes, including one federal Civil Rights Statute
that has death as a possible penalty. I don't like
that kind of alarming stuff. I mean, I know they
did it to him, so he could do it to them,
but I don't think that turnabout is always fair play.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Trump used the T word in the Oval Office when
talking about this exact same thing, not only Tasta Gabbert.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
I think people expect a certain amount of hyperbole from Trump.
I think when it comes from someone who has the
job of sifting through all of the intelligence, it's a
little darker. But you know, it did draw attention to
the story, and maybe that was the purpose. The other
thing is that I don't think Obama can be prosecuted anyway,
(03:05):
so it's kind of a moot point. And the reason
we know he probably can't be prosecuted is that there
was a Supreme Court case last year that Trump won
where Democrats are trying to prosecute him, and the Supreme
Court said, no, you can't prosecute a president for things
he did as official acts when he was president. And
I think that's good for the presidency. We don't want
our presidents looking over their shoulder consulting with lawyers instead
(03:27):
of doing the right thing. So I don't think Obama
is going to be prosecuted. I do think that some
of his deputies could be in some legal jeopardy if
it is found that they suppressed or falsified intelligence information.
And we'll see where that leads. But I think we
do have a right to know.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Joel Jason Hammer here, I'm a little salty. I admit
I'm a little jaded, because, yes, it seems like they're
some there there with this story. But I've seen this
movie before where the Republican will pass out subpoenas and
they will huff and puff, and we're going to get
great sound bites to play on our radio show. You'll
get things to put on articles, and at the end
(04:08):
of the day, nobody's going to be held accountable and
everybody's going to get away with it. Like, am I
the bad guy for thinking like that?
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Well, I think we just have to have a broader
view of accountability. I mean, one of the things I
wrote in my book The Agenda what Trump should do
in his first one hundred days was they should strip
the national security clearance of all fifty one people who
signed that letter saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. Yes,
and they did that. Now that is a form of accountability.
(04:37):
Those people didn't go to jail, but they can't work
in national security. Again, by the way, there are a
lot of private sector jobs that require you to have
national security clearance. They can't make money on K Street
the way they would have before. They can't make money
in think tanks. They can't make money as military contractors.
They can't make money as researchers for think tanks. They
(04:58):
are paying a price for what they do did at
least in that way, they're not sitting behind bars, but
they are being held accountable for their misuse of their
reputation and access to classified information. So I think we
have to just understand that accountability comes in many different ways,
and some of it is correcting the historical record. I mean,
sometimes accountability means the public knowing what these people did,
(05:21):
whether they can be punished for it or not. And
sometimes the statute of limitations might run on somebody's things.
But at least you get the information out there. And again, yes,
that's a softer form of accountability than many of us
would like. I do think that the lawyer who falsified
an email as part of the effort to get Trump
(05:42):
only got to flap on the wrist. He should have
had prison time.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
In my view, was that the PISA was that he
doctored the EA to get the phony warrants to spy
on the campaign.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, he was the only person John Durham successfully convicted,
and he didn't even get any jail time. But if
you or I faltify the information a federal court, we
go to jail for ten or fifteen years. So I
think there is a justified sense of outrage, But it's
not just their fault of Republicans. Keep in mind that
you have judges in jurisdictions like DC where they have
(06:13):
to bring some of these cases, who are very anti
Trump and a very friendly to the national security establishment.
You have all kinds of obstacles to getting us done.
And that judge in Delaware would have let the whole
Hunter Biden thing. God, had she not asked questions. She
was a Trump appointee, But you know, the Department of
Justice would have been satisfied with a plea bargain. And
(06:36):
because the judge was prompted to ask a couple of questions,
I guess we came up with it on our own
and said, well, I don't like this plea bargain. The
whole thing blew wide open. So it's not always you know,
Republicans rolling over, you know, once they've gotten the Fox
News headline and the fundraising email. It's also just that
it is extremely difficult to do this kind of thing,
and also, frankly, for Republicans and Trump supporters, you have
(06:59):
to away the cost of spending time on past issues
against whatever benefit they're going to provide. Trump is doing
so much for the country right now. Maybe it's best
not to be bogged down in things from the past
and to keep moving forward into the future. You can
argue you can walk into your gum at the same time,
but the fact is you have to divert some resources
(07:20):
into these past cases. Maybe it's better to have a
comprehensive report, let's say, from the opposite Director of National
Intelligence or from a House committee, and let the Department
of Justice go after the cartel and go after the
other criminals who are causing all kinds of mayhem. I
think you have to look at where you deploy your resources,
(07:41):
and at some point, I think voters expect their government
to produce a better tomorrow, not a better yesterday.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Joel Pollock from Breitbart, you said something in the beginning
of the segment, mentioning that the Russians had dirt and
intel on Hillary Clinton but didn't use it. What was
that dirt.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Well, the reports are that they had information about her
medical condition and her psychological condition, that she was prone
to outbursts, and she was heavily tranquilized, and that would
seem to conform to some of what we saw from
her public behavior that infamous episode where she couldn't stand
up on her own after the nine to eleven memorial.
(08:16):
But you know, as with the Steel DOSSI yeah, we
don't know how much of this is true, so I
would just take it all with the grain of salt.
I do, however, think that the most serious allegation was
the Friday allegation by Telsea Gabbertt, in which she said
they had an intelligence community assessment that Russia did not
have an impact. They then forced a rewrite and they
rushed it through to get it out there that Russia
(08:39):
had had an impact so they could then frame Trump
as having colluded Russia. I think I think that I
think that's very likely to have.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Happened Bright bar New Senior Editor at Large, Jill Pollock.
One of the last times we talked to you, Joey,
you were going through you and your family, We're going
through the aftermath of the Palisades fire. How are you
and your family doing right now? Where are you located
right now? Are you going to be able to move
back in into your home anytime soon? And I know
that you did write an article about some of the
(09:06):
charity money for the fire victims and where it all
went right.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, let's start with the last question. The money for
fire victims was raised by Fire Aid big concert at
the end of January, and the controversy is really over
the model that they used. The allegation is not so
much that the money was stolen or corruptly taken or whatever,
but basically it turns out that one hundred million dollars
(09:32):
they raised is going to organizations that say that they're
helping fire victims. It's not going directly to fire victims.
So there are arguments about whether that's appropriate, and I
think you can make the case on both sides. There
are some groups that are getting money that I don't
understand why they're getting money. One is called the California
Native Vote Project. I don't think anything with Vote in
(09:53):
the title should be getting money from a fire aid fight.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
It's bizarre, But.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
There are groups that are doing good work, that I
personally know are doing good work. So it's a bit
murkier than might seem from some of the coverage you've
seen out there in perhaps, but as far as my
family and I, we're all over the place. At the moment.
We moved around from one rental to another. We can't
live in our house yet. It's not fixed up yet.
(10:18):
There's a whole fight with the insurance company, and our
neighborhood is still being repared. They managed to clear the
debris from the burnt homes, about seventy five percent of
the homes of my neighborhood burnt down. The Army Corps engineers,
the EPA. They did a fantastic job. Actually, pretty much
anything that Trump administration has touched on this fire has
been done very very well. But the local government is
taking a long time to come up with permits, and
(10:41):
some of my neighbors are struggling to get the money
they need because their insurance doesn't cover the cost of
rebuilding it's a state problem that Governor Gaven Newsom hasn't
addressed yet. So we're all trying to figure this out.
And everybody's got their own little individual struggles. But right
now it looks like my family and I will be
in DC for a couple of years. My wife got
an incredible job with the Trump administration, not because of me,
(11:02):
but because she's a genius when it comes to labor economics.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Okay, so wow, congratulations there.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, she's doing incredible things you might hear about one day.
And I'm doing my job for Breitbart there and going
back and forth. As I speak to you today, I'm
in Chicago with the older kids, visiting the grandparents working
out of here, Okay, And you know, we're just we're
just grateful for supportive family and the great community that
(11:30):
we have. Everybody's trying to help everybody else rebuild.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, we are grateful for you, Joel and the analysis
you provide. That's bride Bart News Editor Senior editor at Large,
Joel Pollock, Welcome back on the show anytime. Man. You're
one of the best. Have a great weekend and we'll
talk to you soon.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Talk to you later.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.