The Revenge Tour

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're talking about the raid on John Boltensam on Friday
and over the weekend. Was this vengeance of the Trump
administration for openly criticizing the president? Or is this in
fact and more than just openly criticizing he was the
basis for a lot of the impeachment proceedings that happened

(00:21):
against President Trump in the first administration. But is this
in fact justifiable given the fact that it looks like
he was playing fast and loose with classified documents. Whether
he was or not is something that this investigation is
going to show us on the text line, which is
seven zero for seven zero seven eight one, says Sandy.

(00:42):
Regardless of if this is for revenge or not, it
will allow the Democrats to expose their pure protection and
hypocrisy once again. We all have eyes and ears that
have witnessed what they have done to President Trump for
the last almost decade. These things will continually make it
harder for the Democrats to hide who they really are,

(01:03):
not that they try anymore. I think you're right, there's
going to be a lot of hypocrisy that were going
to see pop up. We're we're already seeing it.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Five O.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
Let's see five O. Eight, Sandy, I have a question
for you. Did John Bolton put his wife and daughter
in jeopardy of prosecution by emailing those documents to them?
And wasn't writing a some kind of tell all book
about his time in the Trump administration involving use of
using classified documents for profit? Yeah, it would be using

(01:34):
classified documents for profit one and two. I do not
know about putting his wife and daughter in jeopardy of
prosecution by emailing. I mean, you can't control who emails
you documents. So I mean, if you receive something from
somebody that was classified, I don't think you would be
in trouble just by receiving it, But the question becomes,
what did you do with it? Did you open it,

(01:56):
did you see it? What did you do with it afterwards?
I think that there are issues that come up when
you receive something. But just by receiving it is you're
not in trouble. But what you do with it afterward could,
in fact, I think, create problems for you. I don't
know the answer straightforwardly, so I'm I'm actually going to

(02:16):
look that up after the show's over, because now you've
made me curious as to what's going on. Six one
seven six six sixty eight sixty eight is the number here.
We're talking about whether the DOJ and the FBI rating
John Bolton's home is retribution or is it the furtherance
of justice? Ginny and Buzzard's Bay. Welcome to WRKO. How

(02:39):
are you, Ginny?

Speaker 3 (02:41):
I'm fine?

Speaker 2 (02:41):
Thank you? Good morning?

Speaker 3 (02:43):
How wire you with morning?

Speaker 1 (02:44):
I am fine? So what do you think it is?
Do you think it's retribution justice or do you think
it's both?

Speaker 2 (02:50):
Well, I don't know the details as far as whether
it's you know, legitimate, but I do know that Trump,
and I hope you remember that Trump's mself was the
one that said he was going to basically go on
a revenge for He actually admitted it in I think
it was an interview with doctor Phil where he said

(03:11):
that he was, you know, going to do revenge. So
I think that if it hadn't been for that, he
probably maybe there are some things in Bolton's book that
you know, should be looked at, but I don't think
it would be happening if Trump wasn't a revenge tour.

(03:33):
The other thing is I just wanted to ask you,
do you really believe that Trump did absolutely nothing wrong
in all of the charges that were buried against him.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Well, which charges are you talking about?

Speaker 2 (03:47):
I just said all of the charges because you said
that he had done nothing wrong.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Well, I don't believe he has done anything wrong, So
I don't I want to know specifically what charge are
you talking about? Do you do you know what his
charges are?

Speaker 2 (04:04):
But he handled some of the it is questionable whether
he did have the right to take all of the
stuff that he took tomorrow Alago that has never really
been y.

Speaker 1 (04:15):
Yeah, that has been that that that was found to
be completely specious. That that mar A Lago document thing
is completely And by the way, can I point out
that President Biden also had documents his were in the
garage next to his car, and in his office and
in I mean and in the office at U Penn
and I mean he had them all over the place,
which the White House didn't realize, by the way, when

(04:37):
they sent the FBI after the mar A Lago documents,
So that all kind of went away pretty quickly because
they realized that they themselves had done the same things.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
Trump took a lot more.

Speaker 1 (04:48):
No, he didn't, He did not take a lot. Were
you getting that? Are you just making that up. He
didn't take a lot more.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
I saw pictures of all of the.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
FBI laid out documents, and he didn't do that. By
the way, the FBI laid those pictures out. And what
makes you think that President Biden didn't have as many,
if not more than that. You just assumed it was more.
You have no idea how many documents either one of
them took.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
But do you recall when Trump showed some classified documents
to I forget exactly who he was with, but he
was showing off and showing some classified documents to some friends.

Speaker 1 (05:29):
I don't remember that because one President Trump, the president
has the right to classify and declassified documents. He may
point to documents and say those are classified. That doesn't
mean that those people read it too. And President Biden
took documents specifically to give to his ghostwriter. He handed
classified documents over to a ghostwriter specifically against the law

(05:51):
that was And I don't recall were you up in
arms about that?

Speaker 2 (05:58):
Well, I don't think either one of them so taking
classified documents. But I just get the feeling that that
you feel that President Trump has never done anything wrong,
And I just think that that is so untrue.

Speaker 3 (06:12):
I mean, can there's a problem.

Speaker 1 (06:13):
I don't see that. You when I ask you what
you're talking about, you don't give me specifics, like what
is it that you think you do this generic? He's
done all these things wrong? Well, what you just talked
about the documents, which turns out that's not true, that
the mar a Lago document thing was all was all
about nothing really and it was he it was specifically

(06:37):
meant to try to affect the November election. So put
that one aside. That one's done. What else has he
done that that you think he is done wrong? What
else is there? Can you name? It's not something?

Speaker 2 (06:50):
Yes? Okay, January sixth?

Speaker 1 (06:53):
What did he do on January sixth? That was criminal?

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Well? I don't know how it whether we call criminal.
But do you feel that he encouraged them to.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
Do you remember hearing let's walk patriotically and peacefully down
to the Capitol. Did you remember hearing him that, how
is that doing? Instigating something?

Speaker 2 (07:15):
I do remember that. So you don't believe that he
instigated it.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
I don't believe he instigated that. No, I don't believe
he did. I think it was a horrible confluence of events.
I think that security that he asked for, the National
Guard that he asked for, was in fact stopped by
Nancy Pelosi. This is Santa Shack sitting in for Jeff
Cooner on the Cooner Report. We were speaking with Ginny
from Buzzard to Bay before the break, but she has

(07:41):
dropped off the phone. She does not buy that the
Bolton raid is justifiable. She says it's vengeance for a
couple of reasons. And I was in the middle of
responding to her when we had to when we had
the hard break. First of all, she said that Trump
announced when he did an interview with doctor phil or somebody,

(08:02):
that he said he was going to go on a
revenge tour, and just I looked that up because I wasn't.
I had no memory of that, Ginny. So I made
an effort to find out what you're talking about. And
there was an interview, the one that you were speaking of,
where President Bunch said President Trump said he was entitled
to go on a revenge tour, but that's not what

(08:24):
he was going to do. What he said he was
going to do, he said the best revenge would be
to enact successful policy, So that's what he said. He
never said he was going to go on a revenge tour.
Then you know, we discussed the fact she was trying
to point out things that he had done wrong, because
I guess she's offended by the fact that I think

(08:44):
that he was persecuted during his the past four years.
And she brought up mar A Lago, which I think
we've all been able to dismiss given the fact that
Joe Biden had just as many documents as as President
Trump did, and that President had rights to have the
documents that he did. But she brought up January six

(09:05):
And when I asked what criminal thing President Trump was
guilty of from January sixth, she did, well, nothing criminal.
But you know, didn't he instigate this? And I don't
believe he instigated the riot. I believe he tried to
make sure there wasn't a riot. He told people to
peacefully and patriotically walk to the Capitol. He specifically tried

(09:26):
to get more National Guard for the capital for that
day because there was going to be a huge, you know,
rally on the Ellipse and that there's usually spin off
issues from that no matter who's doing the rally, and
both Muriel Bowser, the mayor of Washington, d C turned
down the National Guard, and Nancy Pelosi, who was Speaker
of the House at the time and in charge of
security for Capitol Hill, didn't want it either. In fact,

(09:50):
she later admitted that in a video that her daughter
was taking for a documentary, and we have the physical
papers that they both signed saying no, no National Guard
the Pentagon. More than that, you know, a lot of
those rioters were caused by some bad actors. Absolutely. I
think there were some bad actors who were Conservatives, but

(10:11):
there are other bad actors who were Antifa and implants
there who wanted to gin up the crowd. President Trump
also tweeted for people to go home, and Twitter took
down that tweet almost immediately because people say, well, he
didn't come out four hours later. He did tweet originally
trying to get people to go home. Then they did
a video that he put out afterwards. But he did
try immediately. He didn't just hang around for several hours

(10:34):
and not respond. Then let's not forget that he was
impeached for January six, so they tried to impeach him.
They had impeachment proceedings, but a lot of the testimony
against him was discredited and he was not impeached. He
was acquitted of those impeachment charges. So no, I don't
think you can point to January sixth either, So it's

(10:55):
you know, this is this is. I think Ginny is
one of those people who is a victim of mainstream
media and of the DNC memos that went out to
tell people to make Trump the big bad orange man.
I think that's what she is. She's a she's a
victim of the Democratic playbook. And when you sit down

(11:17):
and actually go through things that have happened, specific things
that have happened, and you look at them more closely,
things are not exactly as they were portrayed at the time. Also,
people's memories can be a little fuzzy, as was Ginny's
in regard to the revenge Tour interview that Donald Trump took.

(11:38):
But what what it comes down to is for today's
show's purpose is do you think that the raid against
John Bolton his house and his home looking for evidence
of misuse of classified documents is motivated by justice or
do you think it's motivated motivated by vengeance, retribution? And

(11:59):
not everybody buys that it's justice. Besides Ginny in Buzzard's bay.
There's also a former Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, who on
Friday was on CNN saying that there was some targeting
going on there with the FBI raid at the home
of John Bolton, and Aaron Burnett, who is the host,

(12:22):
basically cut to the bottom line and said, do you
believe that the raids are political payback? And this was
Panetta's response, cut twenty two.

Speaker 4 (12:31):
Please, Mike, I guess let's just cut the bottom line
on what's happened here. Do you believe that the raids
on John Bolton's home and his office are political payback?

Speaker 5 (12:43):
Well, you know, look, we don't know all the facts
here because we don't know what the Justice Department said
to a magistrate judge in order to get a warrant.
But when you stand back and you look at the
criticism that John Bolton has made, and you look at

(13:04):
the president and how sensitive he is about having those criticisms,
particularly from somebody who is in his administration, it's it's
pretty hard not to come to the conclusion that there's
some targeting here going on.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
Some targeting going on. Does he have a point? Is
this sound like targeting to you? What's happening or do
you think that's just more CNN anti Trump, you know
crepola that's going out there? Are they just orange me in?

Speaker 6 (13:36):
Bad?

Speaker 1 (13:37):
Everything that this administration does is bad and it has
to be going against the Democrats. What do you think
is it justifiable or is it retribution? Let's talk to
David in Brookline. David, Welcome to w RKO.

Speaker 3 (13:50):
How are you, sir, Good morning, Sandy, how are you?

Speaker 1 (13:54):
I am fine? So what do you think is this
vengeance or justice?

Speaker 3 (13:58):
Well? I think it's justice, but I think we deserve vengeance.
I don't think that's a bad thing because if you
don't go after these people who apparently or obviously did
all these things for years, then it'll just happen again eventually.
It's kind of like you have weeds in the garden.

(14:20):
If you pull them out, but you don't pull them
out by the roots, they grow back. Sandy, I was
calling if I could to address Jinny in Buzzard's Bay,
and about a minute ago you summed it up really well,
kind of what I was going to say, but I
would just add this, in my opinion or from what
we heard, the FBI staged it like a production laying

(14:44):
those documents out in such a way to almost create
an image and a narrative that they had been doing
for years, so just to perpetuate that that President Trump
was somehow, you know, doing something dishonest with those documents
or a national security threat everything that they had tried
to do. And if I'm not mistaken, Joe Biden the

(15:09):
documents he took, he had no right to them. He
wasn't the president. I believe he was a senator at
the time. So if we're gonna, you know, bring up documents,
one person was president had the right to declassify essentially anything,
And as you pointed out, he could say, hey, I
have these without somebody really reading them. Another guy had

(15:33):
them next to his corvette with his coke addict son
in and out of the garage, documents that he was
never entitled to have. So that was my first point,
and if I could, my second point, she mentioned January sixth. Cindy,
I said this a long time ago to Jeff on
the air. Why did January sixth? In reality? Why were

(15:56):
we there? And I wasn't there, But it's funny, I
almost went, I guess I'm glad I didn't because in
a nutshell for four years. Let's let's be frank about this.
If it wasn't a coup, for four years, it was
the closest thing to it. The person that was duly elected,
that we voted for, was under such unfair, if not illegal, attacks,

(16:24):
anything and everything to undermine his presidency from within. And
then finally, even if we didn't have all the evidence
at the time, you know, right up to when COVID
took place, and they're changing voting laws, and you just
could tell and feel that something wasn't right. So people
went to Washington to protest, and the rest is history.

(16:49):
You've laid it out how they got into the building
and the fact that the National Guard that President Trump
requested wasn't there. I mean, Ginny as you so well,
so it put so well, is a walking, talking example
of somebody who was, in my opinion, somewhat brainwashed.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
Yeah, it's kind of sad because you know, it's there
but for the grace of God for a lot of people.
If but I think more and more people are starting
to look things up themselves and take a look themselves
for what the truth of the matter is and not
just become you know, parrots of what they see on
mainstream media or legacy media X one seven two six

(17:29):
six eight six eight. The text number is seven zero
four seven zero. Is the Trump administration on a revenge
tour starting with the FBI raid on John Bolton's home
and office on Friday? Or is Justice taking its natural
course and picking up on an investigation into Bolton's possible

(17:50):
misuse of classified docs, an investigation that was put on
the back burner during the Biden administration and the Department
of Justice has turn off the gas again to see
what's going on. Which do you think is happening. Let's
go to Eddie in Charlestown. Eddie, Welcome to WRKO.

Speaker 7 (18:09):
How are you, sir, Sandy? How are you this morning?

Speaker 1 (18:14):
I'm fine. Do you think this is part of revenge tours?
This justice or is it both?

Speaker 7 (18:19):
I believe it's tecified. And I'll tell you the reason why.
I believe that. I was in the military, and I
was in the Navy, just because any if a person
has a security clearance, it doesn't give them a right
to look at anything that doesn't concern them. When I

(18:40):
was back in there, I always heard the phrase need
to know basis if you don't have the need to know.
Your eyes shouldn't be looking at that document.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yeah, no, I've heard the same thing, Eddie.

Speaker 7 (18:58):
I think they have something going on where he sent
it out to his wife and his daughter, because most
likely they don't have a security clearance. Yeah, and definitely
they don't have the need to know.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
Yeah, that's yes, absolutely, I would. I don't disagree with
either of those things. I think it's pretty obvious that
if he sent those documents to his wife and daughter,
it wasn't, you know, to prepare for a dinner time conversation,
you know, over the kitchen table. Let's let's review these
so we can have a nice conversation tonight at dinner.
It's obviously he was sending If those are the documents

(19:33):
that he's sending, he's sending them to people that he
trusted to put them someplace safe, that he had access
to them. And and like I said before, it's not
unusual they wouldn't be strange emails to send, meaning that
my guess is he emailed his wife and his child,
you know, multiple times a day, or at least multiple

(19:54):
times a week, so nobody would think anything of it.
Without they wouldn'essly go in and open and read it,
you know what I mean? So I think that they
were shills. I guess is the word, Eddie, What do
you think?

Speaker 7 (20:08):
Well, I don't know what all the facts are, but
one thing that the thing that comes back to me
is I don't know if they're getting away from it.
But when I was in the Navy, and after so
much for a period of time, these documents, no matter
how they were classified confidential, secret, top secret, they had

(20:32):
to be shredded. And you go into this room and
you're the only person in this room, and you shred them,
and you make sure everything that you shreded in that
machine and shredded, and that way no one has access
to it. They're getting away from that.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
No, they're not getting away from that, Eddie. They still
have skiffs, That's what those are, those rooms where you
can that's a room where you need to go to
review a top secret document or if you need to,
as you said, destroy a secret or if you need
to have a meeting regarding a top secret document, you
go into a skiff, which is a highly secured room.

(21:16):
When I was I clerked for what at the time
was called the Federal Claims Court, it's called something different now.
But and in order to and that court's jurisdiction where
lawsuits against the United States, and a lot of that
happened in regard to the Pentagon, So you had to
get top secret clearance to review documents as one of
the judges clerks. In order to view it, you had

(21:38):
to go into a skiff. Some of the documents in
some of the suits involve skiffs, so I know exactly
what you're talking about. No, they're not getting away from them.
They still have them, and there's usually a skiff that
just about every you know, a military base, as well
as all over Capitol Hill, all over the Pentagon, and
I believe there's a few at the White House as well.
So I think I think they they're still in use.

(22:02):
And if these documents belonged rightly in a skiff, then
I think that John Bolton has a lot to answer for.
Thank you for the call, Eddy, I appreciate it very much.
The number six one six six sixty eight sixty eight.
When a caller drops off, that means the line has
opened up for you. Let's go to Tim in South Carolina. Tim,

(22:23):
Welcome to WRKO.

Speaker 8 (22:24):
How are you sir, Hi Sandy, good morning. Uh, thanks
for having me again. I just wanted to point out that,
you know, you get a caller like that who is
just completely out of touch and really quite ignorant.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
You're talking about Jenny from Buzzards Ferry.

Speaker 8 (22:45):
Yes, yes, she doesn't know that there are videos, there
are a lot of them out there of people dressed
up as Maga getting out of truck. Okay, she doesn't
know that the Capitol police were spraying, the shooting the
smoke this. I don't know what the technical term is. Yes,
you know, to steer the crowd into a frenzy, because

(23:10):
when you do that to a crowd of people, it
creates a panic. It creates a really stressful situation for
a large group of people. And then the media while
that's going on, they have the cameras right on these,
if you will, panicking group, and it makes it look
like to the viewer on the television, which is another
which is a whole other thing here. But the point

(23:33):
is is you have you have people like her. They
they they saw it on their television, so it happened.
He's guilty, Okay. You have you have the mainstream media
telling people that he raped this Egen Carrol lady, when
you know, like I pointed out, with this faux insurrection, Uh,

(23:55):
I mean, there were a million points about Egen Carol.
The media has so much power, Sandy, too much power.
They they you know, we're waiting for these arrests, for
the criminality, for the John Boltons to go down, et cetera,
while the media is completely fire hosing everything President Trump

(24:19):
is trying to do. Legally, you can't just shut down
the media, right because it's First Amendment and you know,
you're taking away the media's rights. But what they're committing here,
they have brainwashed millions of people in this country, and
this is what we're fighting. You're right, and.

Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yeah, I agree, Yeah, I think that's I think that's
that's very true. The media has a lot to answer for,
but I think that they are starting to be held
accountable for that, for for misrepresenting things. You're seeing some
of the media starting to admit their culpability, you know,
like Jake Tapper admitting that, you know, he hid President

(25:03):
Biden's decline and vicariously went after Lara Trump when she
tried to point it out, and he said he's apologized
to her since then she disagrees, but that's what he says.
And you have other people too saying, wait a minute,
this is wrong, this is wrong, We're not doing it wrong.
You even had Joe Scarborough saying that President Trump's federalizing

(25:25):
law enforcement in DC was actually a good thing. He
did I wont ady on that. So you have people
and one of the reasons why I think that we
have this coming around is is well, actually multiple reasons,
but one of the reasons is because people like you,
Tim and other people and other listeners of this show,

(25:45):
and people like Jeff, because they've called out the hypocrisy
of the media and the credibility issues with the media,
people started to look at the stories. Not not everybody,
Ginny's not an example of this, but people start to
look at stories that they heard on saw on the

(26:06):
air and go wait a minute, and then do their
own research into them and see what the truth of
the matter was. And when they found it wasn't true,
they stopped watching. And you saw that in advertiser drops,
and you saw that in brand degradation. So, for instance,
MSNBC is now trying to rebrand themselves as ms Now,

(26:29):
this is not going to help them. I think I
think that MS NOW is just as bad a name
as MSNBC, and it didn't get far enough away. But
you see them trying to fix things. They're not going
to be able to reconstitute their brands, I think until
they changed their editorial policies to be more center of
the road instead of far left. But you see a

(26:52):
difference happening, You see things starting to change, and that
makes me a little bit hopeful. How about you, Yeah, well.

Speaker 8 (26:58):
I'm just a little frustrated. Did you know, not to
go off on a tangent. We're waiting for these arrests
again and then you have you know, the media is
just it just seems constant to me. And you know,
it's regional too. I think I've pointed this out before
on pass calls. In certain areas of the country, it

(27:23):
seems to be a group think. You know, New York,
New Jersey, New England, California, maybe that Chicago Michigan area.
But you go to other parts of the country, it
just seems that that people really know what's going on,
and they're just not repeating the local newspaper or whatever

(27:43):
their Google search was or television. I always found that
to be an interesting sort of the subject. Where areas
of the country the group think is similar. Anyway, that's
all I have.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
Well, I appreciate it, Tim, thank you very much. I
understand what you're saying about the group think. But I
think that also has to do with shrinking ownership of
the press. Basically, so you have, you know, the same
owner has the TV, radio and newspaper. You know, they

(28:22):
try to set up non monopoly situations, but I don't
think they've been very successful at it. Plus, you have
more and more people relying upon what they see in
social media, and social media will pick up a lie
put out by CNN or MSNBC and it goes around
the world before, as they say, the truth puts his
pants on. So and a lot of people in more

(28:46):
recent generations get their news from social media. Mike is
an example of that. Mike many times, if he does
not see it on Twitter, does not know that something happened,
although he does say that now that he works he
with us, he's much more good tuned to news than
he was when he first started here. Although he's having
an issue today with Twitter because or with X because

(29:10):
apparently they've decided that he is a persona on Grada
and he doesn't know why. So Mike has been locked
off of X and is and is spending any any
downtime he has in the control. I'm trying to figure
out what the hell of they have against him. My
guess is it just because you work for Jeff Cooner.
I'm pretty sure that's what it is. But we'll find out.
We'll let everybody know. Thank you for the call, Tim,

(29:31):
I appreciate it. Six one seven sixty eight sixty eight
is the is the number here? So the question is
and you said an interesting thing, Tim, You said, we're
waiting for the arrests. I am okay, waiting for arrests
because for me, I want to make sure that any
investigation into whatever is happening is utterly thorough. I don't

(29:57):
want there to be any surprises. I want to know.
I want them to have all the information, all their
ducks in a row that takes time, that doesn't happen overnight.
And you know, you need warrants, you need to go
through documents, you need to go through a lot of things.
And I want them to have air tight cases before
they go after anybody who somebody can make the claim

(30:20):
that this is retribution for I think you need to
make sure it is air tight before you go after
those people, so that you can absolutely avoid the claim
of retribution revenge. And I think that's what has to
happen here. So far, it looks like from the little
we know that John Bolton is in real trouble. And

(30:42):
I thought so when I first saw the raid and
started to look into it, and then I was listening
to GW law professor Jonathan Turley. He's a constitutional scholar,
and he thinks that Bolton could face years in prison
for this, depending on what was found during that raid.

(31:04):
He said, you know, the possession of classified materials carries
a very stiff penalty, and John Bolton could be in
real trouble. Cut number twenty one, please, Mike.

Speaker 6 (31:20):
Is intriguing here because these are long standing allegations that
the book indicated or reference classified material that he may
have acquired when he was in the administration. We're not
clear as to what that is, but it would suggest
that it could be national defense information. The reason that's
important is that creates a heightened potential penalty, so you

(31:43):
can have penalties that range from five to twenty years.
Twenty years tends to be the senses for concealing information
obstructing justice. Simply having classified information can weigh in at
about ten years, and there are often multiple counts because
each of those documents can be charged separately.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
Yeah, that's that's pretty scary information. If you're in John Bolton,
or you worked in John Bolton's office, or you worked
with John Bolton, I mean you would be wow. Uh oh,
let me see what's in What did I take from
the office? I hope nothing in particular. I mean, think
about that twenty years if this had anything to do
with national defense, this is this is serious stuff. This

(32:31):
is very serious stuff. Now interestingly, truly believes that there
might be a fresh reason to investigate Bolton which the
public hasn't seen yet. You know, he says, we really
don't know if something that has occurred more recently, whether
they've uncovered something that they believe is you know, an

(32:51):
evergreen that it's still a viable criminal case. So that's
that's pretty interesting. We need to see if there's something
that we don't know about. Is this just a misuse
of classified documents case? We don't know yet. We don't
know yet. But so but Turley's weighing in saying, yeah,

(33:13):
this looks pretty serious. Jim Jordan reped. Jim Jordan says
that this is not political retribution. He agrees with Turley
and with others that this looks like a pretty serious issue.
Cut number twenty three. Please.

Speaker 9 (33:30):
Now, we learned today that John Bolton mishandled classified information.
So you got Comy Schiff Clapper, Brennan Bolton all out
to undermine the president. That's the story here. The deep
You mentioned the deep state a few minutes ago. That's
the deep state in action, trying to sabotage the guy
we the people put into the Oval office. That's what

(33:51):
they tried to do. And now you've got good people
running these federal agencies who are looking at the facts
and you and just going on the facts and bringing
that forward. This is not political retribution. This is accountability.
And it's exactly what the American people voted on when
they put President Trump in the White House on November fifth.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
Is Jordan Wright, is this accountability or is it retribution?
I think it's got to be more than retribution. Maybe
it's both. Because in order to get the warrant for
the raid, the FBI the DOJ had to persuade a
judge that there was cause to believe that John Bolton

(34:29):
had in his possession classified documents that he had no
right to. You know, the raid could be both justified
and retribution. You know, there's no doubt that the Obama
Biden crowd broke every norm when they pursued Trump, his
aides and colleagues, and that, as President Trump said in

(34:54):
that Doctor Phil interview, they are entitled to retribution. To
whether they go for it or not is something else.
But I do think it's possible for it to be
both retribution and justice, because you know, it makes you
feel a little good. I guess when you have reason

(35:15):
for retribution and somebody does something wrong and you can
pursue it, you would pursue it anyway. But I guess
that would be the indisha could you pursue it anyway
if it's specious, If you couldn't pursue it anyway, then
it's purely vengeful, and that is really, really, really really bad.

(35:39):
If in fact, there is some reason beyond vengeance, if
there really is a law breaking going on, then it's justifiable.
And then just because it's also retribution, does that make
it a bad thing? Can it be both? Is it
okay to be both? Six months? Having two? Six sixty

(36:01):
eight sixty eight. Let's go to Pat in New Hampshire. Pat,
Welcome to w RKO. How are you Pat?

Speaker 7 (36:07):
Oh good? How are you? Sandy?

Speaker 1 (36:09):
Thank you?

Speaker 7 (36:11):
Great show. I don't think it's retribution.

Speaker 10 (36:16):
My only question is that I don't understand why they're
going after after him when they have people like Comy
that lied to Congress. So, I mean, you know, Bolton's
the big sleeves, He's not actually the big cheese. And
I understand, I understand you don't have to you do

(36:37):
have to have lots of research and documentation. But I
think the frustration for me and like most conservatives, is
it just takes so long. I mean, it's it's not retribution,
it's just following the law and the facts. And I
mean there is there is enough as far as I'm concerned.

(37:00):
For Komy, I don't understand why Congress can't do something
because he lied to Congress. Yeah, I think the frustration, really,
the frustration is we we're just so people are patient,
but after you know so many years, you just come on.
I mean, you either got to change the laws, and
make them more efficient or you know, I mean, just

(37:23):
just speed it up because you know, trouble be out
of office and we'll still be talking about Bolton.

Speaker 1 (37:30):
Well hopefully please that's not going to happen. But picture
this is what I'm thinking when you say why why Bolton?
Why not somebody else for it? And this is just
guesswork on my part. But if I were going into
the DJ, Trump's sworn in your you know, cash matel
comes in as head of the FBI with Bungino and
bonding everybody's and the first thing I think you would
probably do is take a look at the existing investigations

(37:54):
on the book on the books at the DJ, and
just I see where are they, what needs to go forward,
what needs help, What's what's happening with them? You want
to take stock of what you've already got going on.
This investigation was already going on, This had started during
the bid administration, and then they put it aside. If

(38:16):
it were just me and my opinion, I have no
idea why they put it aside, none whatsoever I had,
But I had to make a guess just from my
own personal observations, it would be that they put it
aside because Bolton was attacking Chrump and that suited their purpose,
so they weren't going to go after Bolton, so they
put it aside. So when Bondi and Cash Betel and
Bongino get into the DOJ, they stop. They say, okay,

(38:40):
there's this investigation against Bolton. Why did it stop? Why
didn't go forward? And then they take a look. I said,
there is no good reason, so okay, let's finish it.
And that's why you see movement on that investigation because
it had already begun and they were trying to finish
out what was happening. So I think that's that they
want to get that stuff done first, while they then
open investtigations on other people. As to why Congress is

(39:03):
not responding to Comy, I do not know. My guess
is that, again, this is Capitol Hill. Things work slowly.
My guess is there are things in the works that
we just don't know about yet. But I'm I'm thinking
that that's why Bolton came up first. What do you think, Pat,
does that make.

Speaker 10 (39:21):
Sense to you?

Speaker 3 (39:22):
Well?

Speaker 10 (39:23):
No, not really?

Speaker 1 (39:24):
Okay, all right, I just thought I would help and
say why why Bolton? And you never know They could
have a whistleblower we don't know about.