The Rod and Greg Show: Dems are too Radical; Subpoena Obama; Why Men/Women Differ Politically

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Citizen Greg Hughes, or better known on Wednesdays as Goose.
I am the wingman, and this is going to be
an important show today because a lot of information came
out this morning and I have been pouring over this information.
And I know you've heard a lot of it from
probably in the morning starting with Glenn back throughout if
you're listening to Karen Ken or us during the day,

(00:21):
getting a lot of information. I'm sure this is an
ongoing story, but there is a lot to report here.
And Rod try as the veteran radio guy, is saying,
you cannot get this deep in the weeds. You have
got a bottom line it for our audience, and I will.
But there is just a lot here and none of
it is refutable, folks. I don't care what the media
regime media wants to tell you. There is some things

(00:42):
that came out today that we we thought might be
the case, but that we have here printed and is
pretty damning on the Obama President Obama himself and his administration.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
Remember during his first term in Washington, he kept on
saying fake news, fake news, fake news, Margot, what do
you mean by fake news? Well, it come to realize
all this information, the investigations, the hearings, you name it,
into his connection with Russia and the election. It was
fake news, and Barack Obama and his team created the

(01:12):
fake news.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
It's not bias, it's not living in a bubble, it's
not you know, it is true propaganda and false information
being brought to you as if it were true to
lead you to really negative conclusions about President Trump, his
relationship with Russia, and Russia's influence in the election in

(01:34):
twenty sixteen. What we've been told for years and years
is just one hunt is verifiably just not true.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
Yeah. Yeah, And you know, the Russian hacking story and
all of that is very very important. But you know,
as we've looked at this today, Greg, I think we're
learning that the Obama team, and we're talking Brennan, Comy Clapper,
even Hillary Clinton would do anything to bend or break
the rules just to remain in political power and to

(02:03):
do everything they could to knock down one Donald Trump.
And we're getting more and more evidence of that today.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
I am more convinced today, even though I was never
really I mean, I always felt this was the case,
but they were looking to impeach and remove this president
as soon as humanly possible. They had crossfire hurricane up
and running after he won. They actually were flirting with
it before, but I think they thought Hillary was going
to win the election. Everybody did, so they didn't really
get serious about it. Once he won, they ramped all
this up. And if in our past shows, we've talked

(02:32):
about how Peter Struck would tell this to Lisa Page,
the FBI attorney, that if somehow he were to win,
we've got this card, we've got this ace upper sleeve. Well,
we're learning about all of this, and really it launches
on December ninth, when the president, President Obama says, we
are going to lay out a case that Putin and

(02:52):
Russia helped Trump win this race, win this election to
the point where it was it was a collusion and impeachable,
removable from office.

Speaker 2 (03:02):
It all started Friday when Tulca Gabbert released her first
documentum Friday. It is late Friday afternoon. We had the weekend.
Do I digest it? We talked about it yesterday, but
then of course last night or early this morning, she
released even more information that really raises questions about Barack
Obama's involved in all of this she took to the

(03:25):
podium in the White House briefing Room today. Here's what
she outlined.

Speaker 4 (03:28):
The stunning revelations that we are releasing today should be
of concern to every American. This is not about Democrats Republicans.
This has to do with the integrity of our Democratic
Republic and American voters having faith that the votes cast
will count. There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President
Obama and his national security team directed the creation of

(03:51):
an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. They
knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia into
in the twenty sixteen election to help President Trump win,
selling it to the American people as though it were true.
It wasn't. The report that we released today's shows in
great detail how they carried this out. They manufactured findings

(04:15):
from shoddy sources. They suppressed evidence and credible intelligence that
disproved their false claims. They disobeyed traditional trade craft intelligence
community standards, and withheld the truth from the American people.
In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of
the American people who elected Donald Trump in that election

(04:37):
in November of twenty sixteen. They worked with their partners
in the media to promote this lie, ultimately to undermine
the legitimacy of President Trump and launching what would be
a year's long coup against him and his administration.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
Just damaging information coming out today. Of course, Barack Obama
released that statement yesterday saying, well, Centain's Intelligence Committee is
all were what he said. There was Russian hacking, the
committee went along with it. We have so many questions
about this, Greg he was in office in his first term.
Why didn't this come up during his first term in Washington?

(05:11):
Where was the failure there? Where was the failure of
the Senate Intelligence Committee on all of this? I mean,
there are some questions out there that I think we
need to answer. But we also need to answer what
Barack Obama's role in this was. And we got a
pretty good answer from Tuelsea Gabbert.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
Today and sure did. And I'm holding in my hand
at least a portion of the She put out a
tweet or a post explaining all this and with some
graphics to help digest so much information. But she also
put the link to the document of what there is
five physical copies of and they declassified today. They've redacted
some portions of it. It's oversight, investigation and referral. It's

(05:46):
dated the eighteenth of September twenty twenty, and that goes
to your question, Rod, this is during the final months
of Trump's first term. Why was this document because it
is damning in its findings. Why was this hit? Why
was this put in a at CIA headquarters? Why was
it never found? Why was it never as scrutinized Because
we now I'm now holding it in my hand and

(06:08):
it again one of five physical copies, And in this
it shows that they are using information or report putting
into an intelligence community assessment, information that the CIA veterans
and within the CIA said, this is not how we
do it. This is not reliable information, and they printed
it and reported it as if it were fact. And

(06:30):
I will tell you that, and we can get into
the verbiage from the report. I'm looking at it right now,
but and I hope we get it into I know
we have some interviews coming up, but I want to
get into this at some point. But it's really important
for the people to know that the media is so
involved in repeating and regurgitating the lies, they are never
going to tell you the truth on this CNN cut
away from Tulsa Gabbert's a report on this because they

(06:53):
have hired all the people that were involved in this
Obama administration are on their payrolls, whether it's MSNBC, CNN,
you name it, they do not They are going to
do their ultimate best to keep the American people from
understanding what really happened in December, starting in December of sixteenth,
and then moving forward throughout the president's first term.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
You know, Greg, a lot of people have raised this
questions about how, you know, can we compare this to Watergate? Okay, now,
let me tell you about Watergate because I lived through
You're just a youngster then, but I lived through a Watergate.
The Watergate break in took place on I think it
was June seventeenth, nineteen seventy two. Okay, June seventeenth, I
remember that day before my birthday. Richard Nixon did not

(07:34):
leave the White House in disgrace until August of nineteen
seventy four. It took two years to flush this out. Now,
some of his henchmen were convicted and sentenced, But to
get to Richard Nixon, remember he was never he resigned.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
He resigned, He was told if you don't.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
Resign, you're going to be impeached. So he opted to resign,
and he resigned. So the question is going to be, Greg,
how long is it going to be if it ever happens,
And I sure do hope it does. That someone is
going to be held accountable for what we're hearing about now.

Speaker 1 (08:09):
Rod, and folks, let me just say this. I know
that Richard Nixon, what he was in trouble for doing
is that the morning after the Watergate break in where
the Democrat National Committee had its headquarters at that hotel,
his people from his campaign broke into that, into their
headquarters and got caught and arrested. Okay, the next morning
he was told that this had happened. He didn't know
about it ahead of time. There's knuckleheads from g Gordon Lydia,

(08:31):
a bunch of them that broke in. He finds out
about it when it finally makes the press and they
ask President Nixon, when did you learn about this? He
said it was days or some time later. He did
not admit that he found out the morning after it happened.
That was the incriminating evidence that he had to that
he ultimately resigned over. Is that he did not disclose

(08:52):
accurately the moment he learned about the break in. If
if this information is not actionable, if this information, which
is far beyond disclosing the wrong day you found out
about the break in, true, then there we need to
go back to every biography on near Richard Nixon and
rewrite it. Yeah, because you cannot talk about that present

(09:13):
resigning to avoid impeachment for saying that I found out
about it days later or a week later, whatever it was,
instead of the morning after, and that be an impeachable
offense removing him from office. And look at what they
did after Trump won and fabricating intelligence community assessments to
make it look like Putin was trying to get Trump
elected and working to that end. That is a falsehood.

(09:35):
It's been proven. And so I'm telling you it has
to have some actionable item. It has to have something,
because it's that serious.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
We got a whole lot more to say on this
and to hear from you on this today. It is
the Wingman Wednesday edition of the Rott and Greg Show
right here on Utah's Talk Radio one O five to
nine knrs. How many democratics strategist out there? Greg, have
told that the Democrats right now, the party is in disarray.
They know absolutely nothing about what they're trying to do.
Everything they are trying to do, like swear more and

(10:05):
appear on podcasts, simply is not working.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
Yeah, they don't. I don't know that they have a
leader they want to claim yet, not yet for their party.
But they have a lot trying to be the leader.
But I think it's actually pushing them further and further
to the left. That's what I think. But I think
our next guest is going to give us some you know,
some polling that might confirm that. I confirm that that theory.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
His name is Terry Jones. He's the editor of Issues
and Insight. It's always great to have Terry on the show. Terry,
you've got a brand new poll out talking about the Democrats.
What are people saying about the Democratic Party?

Speaker 5 (10:39):
Yeah, well, it's it's not really good. We were ourselves
rather shocked at the results it showed. If you take
the American electorate as a whole, say they think the Democratic.

Speaker 6 (10:56):
Party is too radical now and what it what it espouses,
and its policies. So that's a huge buy it out
of your potential potential voting block right there, and it
shows that, you know, if they want any any sort

(11:16):
of idea of how to get back into office, they
should be looking at numbers like this that keep popping
up when polls come out that show that Americans now
believe they're way off track in what they believe and
what they push as a party.

Speaker 1 (11:33):
Hey, Terry, put it into perspective. I think our listeners
would would be shocked at the forty five percent, not
because it spells doom for Democrats, but they're probably looking
at forty five going, you mean fifty five percent. Don't
think that they're cuckoo for Coco Pops. I mean, but
that is such a significant share. But maybe put in
some some perspective about the general sentiment of the electorate

(11:54):
and why that number actually is a pretty bad sign
for Democrats.

Speaker 6 (11:59):
Well, it's it's even worse than it seems because when
you look at the numbers, you say, okay, forty five percent,
that's still a minority, right, Yeah, Well, actually it's a plurality,
which means it's the largest block of voters in overall
believe this, and more than that, eighteen percent aren't sure.

(12:22):
So when you add that to the forty five percent,
you know, you get a substantial number. Sixty three percent
either believe that the Democratic is too radical or aren't sure.
That's that's not a building block there for for major
national wins in an election. They might win, you know,

(12:44):
Minneapolis where they have a socialist African running, or they
might you know, they might win in New York even
with Mandami, but they're not going to win nationally with
with that that kind of backing. And if you look
at even within the Democratic Party, twenty two percent said

(13:07):
the party is too radical. That's just a little bit
over one in five voters. And then you add in
the fourteen percent who aren't sure. That's more than a
third of their voters either believe that they're too radical
or aren't sure. That's devastating for them. Who's going to
show up for their vote for them? They may vote
for them on every poll they take, but are they

(13:29):
going to go out in bad weather and vote for
a party they believe it's too radical?

Speaker 2 (13:33):
I rather doubt it, Yeah, probably not. Terry asked the
second question as well, about Democrats in Congress working with
the president when possible, or should they focus on resisting
his agenda. What did they say to that question.

Speaker 6 (13:45):
Well, you know, again it was a similar kind of
result in the sense that just under half said they
want the Democrats to work with Trump. Okay, now it's
been it's sort of been the i think the guiding
light of the Democratic Party that they are going to
do everything they can to obstruct Trump and to trip

(14:08):
him up and to not go along with him. And
there have been lots of votes that have been you know,
basically party line votes. But that's not what people say.
They want. They want their party, the Democratic Party, to
work with Trump. And you know, even nineteen percent of
Democrats say that. But more more importantly the resist numbers

(14:33):
where we ask them, okay, should they resist Trump? Overall,
it's only nineteen percent who want, you know, the Democratic
Party to resist Trump in some way, and most people want,
you know, they say it depends on the issue. What's
what's the issue? You know, at least at least by party,

(14:55):
you know, even even Democrats more than the third say
it depends on the issue, and independent it's about the
same thirty eight percent depends on the issue. So they
want basically, people overwhelmingly want Democrats to be working with Trump.
On his agenda. He's the only one who was elected nationally.
None of nobody in Congress was elected nationally. And they

(15:18):
want Congress to do its job and work with the
president and where they can and where they can't, and
then they oppose them.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
So here I have a question, Terry. Here, So you've
got Ram Emanuel out there, You've got kind of this
rehearsal dance I think going on where someone wants to
be the leader of the Democrat Party and they're going
to different states, getting on podcasts, trying to do different things.
So Ram Emmanuel goes on Meghan Kelly's podcast and she
asks the first question out the gate, can a man
become a woman? And he hems and haws for a

(15:47):
little for a few seconds, and it ultimately says resolutely no,
they can't. And she says that's so, why is that
such a hard question for other people to answer? And
he says, because there's probably a need. I probably will
need to go into the witness protection program now because
I just said that. So that is the premise to
this question. In your article, you you point out that

(16:09):
sixty four percent of registered Democrats do not believe that
the party has gotten too radical. So how does common
sense or a Democrat that would try to capture the
support of the general electorate operate in a Democrat primary
where even we're sixty four percent are saying we're not
radical at all. I mean, it doesn't look like anyone

(16:29):
that would be common sense is going to secure a
Democrat party nomination.

Speaker 6 (16:34):
No, it's it's it's almost impossible. And because they are
too you know, too radical in their in their policy proposals,
and then the people they put forward, they are going
to have a very tough time even with their own
even with their own members. I mean, it's just going
to be a very rough, rough go for them. And

(16:56):
when sixty four percent of your of your people, you know,
believe that you're just fine. Look at the results. I mean,
I don't you know, I don't know what they're smoking.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
But you know, Terry always great. Yeah, you just don't know,
do you, Terry, Terry great, hen me on the show.
Thanks for your time this afternoon.

Speaker 6 (17:20):
Terry, thanks a lot for having me.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
Terry Jones.

Speaker 1 (17:25):
When the poster says, in a very analytical way, I
don't know what they're smoking, okay, you know that they're
not in a very good spot.

Speaker 2 (17:31):
No, they they certainly aren't. All right, We've got a
lot more to come on the Wingman Wednesday edition of
The Rotten Gregg Show here on Utah's Talk Radio one
O five nine k NRS. All right, let's continue now
with our coverage of the document download from Telsea Gabbert
on Friday. New information coming out today pointing directly to
Barack Obama's involvement in the whole Russian Holk story. Despite

(17:55):
the fact Greg that senior intelligence officials were telling him
and Brennan and Clapper there's nothing to see here, they
insisted there was and if they had to fake it,
fake it, and they did.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
Yeah, if there's anything, Well, let's go to our interview,
because I mean, I don't even want to go right now.
I have a lot to say yet, a lot of
my mind. I have a lot to get off my chest,
but right now is not the moment.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
Yeah. Well, Kevin McCullough it has a lot to say
as well. He's a nationally syndicated host and a podcaster.
Always great to have Kevin on the show. Kevin, let's
talk about this. I mean a lot of this, of
course is about Russia and the hacking story. But there's
another story here of Barack Obama and his team willing
to bend or break the law just to satisfy their needs.

Speaker 7 (18:38):
Not only is that the story, the story also morsed
into the fact that when he thought last night he
could get by with sending some sort of deflective response
and answered basically a straw man that Tulci Gabbert and
no one else has even argued it was laughable. And
today's best part of the press conference was the fact

(18:59):
that that Tulsi stood there and took every question that
was presented.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
And then Caroline Levitt leveled.

Speaker 8 (19:06):
The press room and said, you jokers are the problem
because you haven't looked at the stuff we've declassified, and
you went out and you said whatever they told you
to say when it was when they were in office.

Speaker 7 (19:19):
You haven't even looked at what we've presented, and everything
you want to know is in those two hundred pages.

Speaker 1 (19:25):
So it begs the question if if Obama has has
committed a crime or you know, conspired to undermine a
duly elected president and the media doesn't report it, did
it happen? In other words, they CNN breaks away from
that press that presser. They are not going to read
this or report to the to their viewers. And I

(19:46):
call it all the regime media. So how does this
get traction amongst American people or at least politically so
that we see something done, because it is jaw dropping
because I am reading the documents that have been released. Yeah,
and it is well on the pale.

Speaker 7 (20:00):
The greatest disinfectant is complete transparency, which is what Tulsi
is doing here. And I thought it was so telling
that the one that was having the worst case of
indigestion this afternoon was the reporter from CNN.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
And you know, to.

Speaker 7 (20:16):
Whatever degree they did cut away from it, it was
a little too late because once you had the actual
statements being made. And it is not it is not
to be understated what Tulsi said about the conclusive proof
that it's not just that Obama led the championship to

(20:39):
have this narrative and to push this narrative. It's not
that it was just enough that some of the staffers
may have said, we don't think it's reliable.

Speaker 1 (20:47):
No, we know he was told. We know they knew
it was unreliable.

Speaker 7 (20:52):
We know that the president and then the vice president
who became the next president.

Speaker 3 (20:57):
We know that.

Speaker 7 (20:58):
Those those those dogs knew what they were looking at,
knew what they had in their hand, and said.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
Do it anyway.

Speaker 7 (21:06):
This is a This is a You compare this to Nixon,
and it makes Nixon look like kindergarten.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
This is the greatest political.

Speaker 7 (21:14):
Scandal of the modern era, and nothing else is even close. Well,
maybe the treatment of Donald Trump by the establishment media
would come close to it. But if they can drag
Donald Trump's ass into court to make him look at
papers about his supposed accounting procedures in the joke sewer
court system that the New York City court system is,

(21:35):
you can you can dog on be sure that Barack
Obama has earned a seat at a hearing in front
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And when they are done,
if the DJ says it's referred and they need to.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
Do it, let them. Let them do everything they need
to do.

Speaker 7 (21:51):
But that dude needs to be on camera in front
of the American people, asking questions without any interruptions. And
if you he pleads the fifth as he does all
the stuff that the other jokers have done in the
last few weeks about Biden's conditions, then.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
The American people will see it for themselves.

Speaker 7 (22:07):
But it is time once and for all to get
this stuff out in the open, because people like you
guys and myself, we've had this kind of hunch that
this is exactly what it was. We felt in our
bones that that's what this was. We've had little drips
and drabs of evidence that have come out, but this
two hundred page portfolio of information is the It is

(22:30):
the grand Slam of evidence. If they had to take
this to court, the jury would find in favor of
the government one hundred percent without any abstainees. This is
so conclusive and it's time for the American people to
know it. And he needs to be on camera in
front of the American people being forced to ask questions.

(22:50):
If Donald Trump has to ask questions to a paidoff
judge in New York City, the least he can do
is go to the Senate and answer a few for himself.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
Kevin, how do we get the American people to demand this?
Because I hear everything you say in the Watergates zero two?
How do we do it?

Speaker 1 (23:05):
For thirty one twenty one.

Speaker 7 (23:07):
To zero two two two four thirty one? That is
the capital switchboard. I memorized it years ago, because you
need to let the elected leaders that that serve you
know that they work for you. Two O two two
two four thirty one twenty one. And you say, I
need to speak to Senator so and so's office or
the mister representative or misrepresentative from my district, blah blah blah.

(23:30):
But two O two two two four thirty one twenty one,
it'll connect you to any office in the Senator House.
And everyone that is hearing this needs to call because
they keep track of constituent calls. When when calls come
in from the district back home, they have people in
the office. Their whole job is just to tabulate four
or against, for or against.

Speaker 1 (23:49):
They need to hear you roar over this. So let me.
I couldn't agree more. And you are right. I know
for fact that they keep they keep close track of
constituent calls that come in from their district and or
their state of their senators. So thank you for sharing
that that number, and I need to memorize it myself.
You are, you're on your a game. Let me ask
you this some there's this running theory out there that

(24:11):
this document is so damning and it is such an
open and shutcase that it is maybe the origin of
why mar A Lago was rated and why his documents
that he took from the White House and had in
his possession, it was what they might have been looking for.
Do you subscribe to that? Does that make any sense
to you that that would have been looking for?

Speaker 7 (24:30):
That would make that would make some of this make
a lot more sense because you never understood why they
went after mar A Lago the way they did. You
never understood the harsh tactics and procedures. But the truth
is and and this is going to be all for
the DOJ to decide right now. Tulci has done her job.

(24:51):
She's the Director of National Intelligence. She did an investigation
in her own department. They have turned up two hundred
pages of bona fide evidence. They have made that transparent.
They have turned it to a loose The American people
can now read it for themselves. But the DOJ needs
to decide, we're laws broken here and here's what really
has to happen. After that, there has to be a

(25:12):
willingness by the people to say we're not going to
put up with a political party who gas lights and
lies to us. Just to keep power anymore. Today, Caroline
Levitt said to the people that were staring at her
in that room, and some of them, like Caitlin Collins
from the CNN, with a very big scale on their face,
but she says, to their face, you people have employed

(25:35):
all the people in this report, Brennan Clapper, McCabe, call me.
You've put them on your payroll, You've made them part
of your operations, you've advanced the lie. You have to
be held accountable, not just them. And I think that's
one of the best messages that could come out of
all of this. We have to take a stand for
a standard of excellence and integrity when it comes to

(25:57):
reporting what happens.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
You've in the administration, and largely in the.

Speaker 7 (26:01):
Obama administration, you had Networks sending teenagers to be on
the press court at the White House. That used to
be the most celebrated correspondence position a news department would have,
and we've turned it into a joke because nobody wants
to report what actually needs to be reported. And today
they got all a big servant of slat face and
they didn't know what to do with it.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
This.

Speaker 7 (26:21):
I hope that this is just the beginning of a
huge wave of reforms for not just government, but also
for journalism.

Speaker 2 (26:29):
Kevin McCullough joining us on our newsmaker line, Greg, speaking
of what's being reported today. I just looked at the
websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC.
No coverage whatsoever about this latest information today. It's all
about Jeffrey Epstein. That's where they want the American people
to focus.

Speaker 1 (26:46):
Yeah, because they're you know why, because they're guilty of
pushing all of this. They are the problem. All the
people that are listed in this in this bombshell are
their employees.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yep, It's true.

Speaker 3 (26:55):
All right.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
Mare Coming up on the Route and Greg Show in
Utah's Talk Radio one O five nine, continuing coverage of
the Russian hopes and the new information that was released
today by D and I director Kelsey Gabbert. Now, let
me tell you what, Greg. The media, we talked about
this before the break, The legacy media basically is ignoring
this story today. They are Yeah, nothing in part of

(27:17):
the story.

Speaker 3 (27:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
Check check the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC.
Not a story there. Listen to how they covered the
news conference with Tulca Gabbert today.

Speaker 4 (27:29):
Multiple intelligence community assessments released in the months leading up
to the November twenty sixteen election concluded that Russia had
neither the intent nor capability to impact the outcome of
the US election.

Speaker 1 (27:41):
On December fifth.

Speaker 9 (27:42):
We've been listening there to the Director of National Intelligence,
Tulsea Gabbert, continuing on what has now been a multi
day effort not only with public statements like this, but
release of documents to attempt to back up the quite
extreme allegation that President Obama is guilty of treason and
that he worked in some sort of conspiracy with Hillary Clinton,

(28:04):
et cetera, in the assessment by the intelligence community at
the time that Russia interfered in the twenty sixteen election.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
That's Jim Scudo, who is the one of the morning
news anchors on CNN, and come to find out, he
used to work in Arbor in the Obama administration. Is
that right?

Speaker 1 (28:21):
Yeah, but he's an Obama administration, former member of the
Obama administration, cutting out and cutting off that press conference
because he can't have it. Yeah, he's heard it.

Speaker 2 (28:30):
Not a big deal, Yeah, not a big deal. Another reporter,
we haven't got time to play this SoundBite, but basically said,
why are we repeating this? All this is history. We
don't need to repeat this and talk about this anymore.
Why are we doing that?

Speaker 1 (28:41):
The essential difference here, folks, is that they're trying to
say that Russia's involvement were trying to undermine the integrity
of the election or creating this distrust in the democratic
electric electric elected process. Is the same as saying that
Donald Trump worked with Putin and Russia to defeat Hillary
Clinton and win the presidency. These are not the same.

(29:02):
They're trying to conflate those two facts. And we have
the receipts, we have the proof that shows that's exactly
what they tried to do, and it's not true. What
they've been saying has not been true.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
Coming up more on that in the next hour. To
stay with us, you would just absolutely love and we'll
talk about.

Speaker 1 (29:22):
It, folks. You'll love it too, because I know you
and you you we all love top Gun, We love Maverick,
and this is there's a there's a topical issue.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
Yeah, very to related to Mitchell. Yeah, I saw that story, went, oh,
Hughes will love this one. So We've got to get
this on the show today.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
I can't wait. I really can't.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
Yeah, it's funny.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
I have a clip to play before we do it.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
Yes, you do. Yes, from the anytime any chance you
get a chance to play a clip from a Maverick movie,
you're going to play that are rocky.

Speaker 1 (29:52):
Yeah, I'm a grown man, and I still watch that
movie over and I know again, like I used to
do that with Star Wars when I was a kid.
I still watch Maverick. I still watch Top Gun every
time every chance, like both of them. Yes, I really
love Maverick. I've been watching that one a lot.

Speaker 2 (30:04):
Yeah, the second one.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
I went to the theater a bunch of times, went
half a dozen times in the theater to see that movie.
I paid to see That's just like I have it
on you know, man, I bought it. I mean I
went six separate times to see that movie.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Well, let's talk right now about the Top Gun as
a criminal. We're talying about Barack Obama. Yes, uh, you know,
now finds himself smack dab in the middle of the
latest information being released on the Russian hopes of course,
mainstream legacy, whatever you want to call it. Media not
covering this story today. As a matter of fact, one

(30:38):
of the CNN reporters insinuated today and the question they
were asking Tulsa Gabbard was, did she release this information
just to get on the good side of Donald Trump?
What an absolutely ridiculous question, that's CNN question, that's the statement.

Speaker 1 (30:57):
The statement, yeah, an accusation. It's too underminor credibility, and
that's they have to do that because what's been released
today undermines all of their credibility. Mike, was there not
one journalist that said, what we're being spoon fed? Is
it the case? This could be wrong?

Speaker 2 (31:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
They took everything that they were given as if it
were in whole cloth, as if it were absolute fact.
And now with this release of this information, which, by
the way, when did transparency become a bad thing? With
this being declassified, it shows that they were either duped
or they were absolute you know, conspirators or you know,

(31:34):
working with them.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yeah. Yeah, well it's a pretty amazing story if you're
just sketching up to us on your way home tonight.
A second set of documents released today by Tulsea Gabbard
embargoed until about seven o'clock this morning, and Glenn Beck
was on it right away. Today you're on talk radio
one oh five nine can arrest. But basically more information
in Greg It is pointing more and more fingers at
one Barack Obama and his role in this despite all

(31:57):
the fact that you know, everybody think, well, Russia's influencing
the election or they're attempting to change the outcome. They
don't like Donald Trump, they like Hillary Clinton. But then
they come to realize Donald Trump won the election. Now
all of a sudden, Russia was involved in this. Wait
a minute, sir, Wait a minute, sir. We don't have
any evidence to show that we don't care Russia was involved,

(32:17):
and that's what you're going to report, and that's what
it comes down to.

Speaker 1 (32:20):
Yeah, well, i mean, you've got a clip here to play,
but I'm I'm going to go to the to the
report that was access today, the one that was from
eighth September eighteenth of twenty twenty. It's the Oversight Investigation
and referral. I'm going to go to page forty four
here and show black and white exactly what happened that
they cannot talk their way out of.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
No, they cannot. Well, Jason Chaffin's Fox News contributor was
on shortly after the Telca Gabbert news conference today. And
let me tell you what. I've heard Jason get off
or go off sometimes on some people, but he really
went after him today.

Speaker 10 (32:53):
I cannot even express how stunning this is. The President
of the United States was engaged in a concertmpiracy. That's
the allegation. I'm so disappointed in Barack Obama. He puts
himself up there as a scandal free president. Now look
how great it was for eight years that guy run
the screen.

Speaker 1 (33:11):
He was lying to us, and.

Speaker 10 (33:13):
He was part of concocting a conspiracy to deceive the
American people.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
It doesn't get any worse than that. And how many
times did.

Speaker 10 (33:21):
I get a lecture from the Democrats about nobody's above
the law, nobody's above the law. They all said it.
They drove it home every time. And we'll see where
they are now. They're going to run for the hills.
And Jonathan Turley is right, he is absolutely right. Where
is the intellectual curiosity? Where are they going to be
in terms of returning their Pulitzer prizes and all the

(33:41):
awards that they wanted, patting themselves on the back on
how great they were on the truck on getting Donald Trump.
They were all lying to us and they got snookered
and they should be held accountable. And I want to
see some people in handcuffs. They have to be held
accountable or it'll happen again.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Yeah, and I agree with Joyce. I mean, they have
to be held accountable, Greg. But will they And that's
the big question I think tonight for more information coming out,
will they be held accountable?

Speaker 1 (34:07):
Well, I'll tell you this, it's going to be difficult
to get this on the radar screen. As much as
people say they don't trust the g media, they do
get to set the tone. They get to set and
there right now they are one hundred percent ignoring this.
Like they did the Hunter Biden laptop. They they wouldn't
acknowledge its existence. They're doing the same thing to this.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (34:28):
These released documents, these declassified documents, and we'll see if
they get away with it. If they do, maybe nothing
does happen. But I don't know how you can read
these documents and not and not conclude that there was
some illegal, not just unethical, but illegal behavior that's going on.
Let me just do we have time, Can I just
share this one? And I promised you, I promised, folks,
I promised Rod I wouldn't get too deep into this one.

(34:51):
So there is there is a report where they had
to go inside the CIA in a protected area to
do the investigation to look into this. It was during
the last months of the at least it was finished
in the last months of Trump's first term. So the
September eighteenth, twenty twenty. On page forty four of this
document that has been hidden from the public and only
made it was only declassified this morning. Okay, it says

(35:14):
this on page forty four. Acting on President Obama's orders,
the Director of the CIA CIA, which is Brennan. Okay,
Brennan directed a full review on publication of raw human
intelligence information that had been collected before the election. The
CIA officers said that some information had been held back
by Brennan and others had been judged by experienced CIA

(35:38):
officers to not meet the long standing publication standards. Some
of that some of those standards are that they were
it was from. It was unclear what was found. It
was unknown sub sources, but nevertheless it was published after
the election over the objections of veteran officers, on orders
from the Director of the CIA and in their intelligence

(36:02):
community assessment, to support claims that Putin aspired to help
Trump win. They took information that they have never accepted
as verifiable, and they printed it as fact, and then
they gave it okay. And that was on December ninth.
They put it on their website okay as unclassified on

(36:24):
January sixth. And so what I'm trying to say is
that they took they took information that was not that
was fragmented, that wasn't that was an email with no name,
no one. They don't don't know where it came from.
Some sources were from Hillary's campaign people that were anti Trump,
and they knew that they were anti Trump and would

(36:45):
have a bias, which puts a question. They they omitted
all those details, but laid it out as if it
were fact to the American people that Putin and Russia
were on the side of Trump trying to help him
win the election that he ultimately won. The only thing
that was ever found that was true was that they
were trying to undermine our election integrity. Generally, yes, and
they actually didn't think Hillary c They actually thought Hillary

(37:08):
Clinton was going to win. There later in this document dump,
they have information on how bad her ill health, very
bad it was, and they were so convinced that she
was going to win that they held that back.

Speaker 3 (37:19):
They did.

Speaker 1 (37:19):
They weren't putting that out because they were going to
use this to undermine what they thought was going to
be Hillary Clinton president Clinton later in her term. That's
not a group that's trying to help Trump win. If
they thought he was trying to win, they would release
that back then. All the information points otherwise. But the
media was telling us back then that Russia wanted Trump

(37:40):
to win. They were working to that end, and successfully
we saw Trump win. That's what they were telling us.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
Yeah, and here's the media echoing what Obama was saying.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
Russia hacking the election to elect Trump.

Speaker 11 (37:51):
What is the end of Our votes were definitely affected,
But Russia hacked the election to tilted to mister Trump.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
The Russians definitively hacked the election.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
Russia did hack the election, no doubt.

Speaker 6 (38:03):
The Russians hacked the election.

Speaker 1 (38:05):
Yes, Russia hacked the election.

Speaker 4 (38:07):
Backed Russia hacked the election.

Speaker 1 (38:08):
President elect Donald Trump still not sounding convinced that Russia
hacked the election.

Speaker 7 (38:13):
The President does not want to come to terms with
the fact that the Russians hacked the election.

Speaker 11 (38:17):
President Trump says he still wonders if if the Russians
hacked the election, if.

Speaker 10 (38:23):
You can get them to accept that Russia hacked the election,
see if you can get them to accept who won
the Civil War?

Speaker 12 (38:28):
If he admits it, it casts a shadow on his
victory over Hillary Clinton.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
Russia hacked the election. Russia hacked the election. Russia hacked
the election. So there's two parts to that. Okay, I
know we got to go to a break, but there's
two parts to it. Hacked means that they successfully got
inside the election and altered its outcomes. But the only
way that hacked means anything detrimental to Trump is if

(38:53):
they can make they prefer to lie that Russia wanted
Trump to win. If you find out the truth that
they did think he'd win, they weren't trying to help
him win. They were just trying to put you know,
make it all uncertain and undermine its integrity. Then they
they it doesn't Hacked doesn't mean the same thing as
they wanted him to win, and they successfully hacked the election.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
They manipulated.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
That is that is them saying that Putin and Russia
helped him win that election. There's nothing out there that
says that Russia thought he would win or tried to
help him win in any way. And Brennan hid the information.
They have intel that said that very thing, that they
didn't have the ability to get into the election infrastructure,
they had no way to influence its outcome. He withheld

(39:35):
that information, and he took unreliable information and said by
way of a fact that Putin and Russia wanted Trump
to win, which is false.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
Now, when we come back Putin and the Russians actually
thought Hillary was going to win. Wait till you hear
the information they had on Hillary. Yeah, it's pretty amazing.
We'll share that with you. Coming up on the Rod
and Greg Show and Utah's Talk Radio one zero five
Dyeing can Arrest.

Speaker 1 (39:59):
It's the Rod and Greg Show on This Wingman Wednesday.
On Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine, canter s
everywhere on that iHeartRadio app. We got that talkback button microphone,
red circle on the right corner. You have a thirty
second take. Just hit it and let us know what
you're thinking. I there's just I think that that Obama

(40:19):
his administration. Those that tried to frame Trump undermine his presidency,
they actually did believe they could impeach him and remove
him from office. This was the goal they're relying today.
All these people that were involved in this are hoping
and praying that the American people's attention span and ability
to absorb the amount of information that's that's been made

(40:42):
public is impossible. That if they can just keep either
ignoring it or demeaning it or saying it's a conspiracy
and scoffing at it, that it will they will survive
the news cycle and nothing. There will be no consequences
to what they've done. And I'm gonna I'm here to
say we better be. We have got to take inventory
of what has been released today and it needs to

(41:04):
be actionable.

Speaker 3 (41:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (41:05):
I mean what they did to Trump over nothing and
mugshots and mar A Lago raids, none of that had
any merit. Look at this, the volume of evidence that's
been brought forward today. There has to be actionable items here.

Speaker 2 (41:18):
Well, I think great. The challenge of this, Like you
pointed out, this happened what eight years ago, now six
years ago now, so it's it's even more than that.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
To be really honest.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
Sixteen. You know so, I think I agree with you somehow,
And I hope the public will engage in this and
pay attention to this. I worry they won't. One of
the more interesting things that came out in the revelation
today was that Putin and their Russians actually thought that
Hillary was going to win. Yes, and a lot of

(41:48):
people did, a lot of people did, right, And they
had dirt on her like you wouldn't believe. Let me
read again from the document what they say about Hillary Clinton.
The SVR, that's the Russian Soviet spy group. The SVR
possessed d NC communications that Clinton was suffering from an
intensified cycle emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression,

(42:16):
and cheerfulness. Is that anger, aggression, uns yeah, that combine.
It went on to say that Clinton was placed on
a daily regiment of heavy tranquilizers and was afraid of losing.
She remained obsessed with a thirst for power. The FBI

(42:36):
all or the SVR also had information that Clinton suffered
from type two diabetes, heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and
chronic obstructive PUY pulmonary disease. This the information that they
that they had on Hillary and were ready to use
this against her if in fact she'd been elected, because

(42:59):
they thought she was going to be elected.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
That's exactly right. They held that back. It wasn't call
this back. If you accept the lies that they put
in that intelligence assessment that putin wanted Trump to win,
then you would have had that information we're reading eight years,
nine years later. You would have had that as part
of the discussion in the twenty sixteen election. But you
didn't because Russia believed and go back in time, everyone

(43:22):
believed she was going to win. The Polsters there wasn't
upholster they could be found that thought that Trump was
going to win. It was a foregone conclusion. She had
won this race five thirty eight and eight Silver had
it at like ninety seven ninety eight percent likelihood that
she was going to win. This caught everyone flat footed
to the point where they were coming after Trump with
this Russian collusion stuff early, but they thought they had

(43:45):
won the race, and so they didn't really pursue it
as strong or as aggressively. It is actor he wins
that they ramp it up. And I am telling you
it wasn't just a distract and to diminish his effectiveness
in four years. They wanted to remove him from office.
That's what their goal was. They wanted him impeached and
they wanted him removed from office. That's that was the goal.

(44:05):
And boy, what they put him through was just it's
unspeakable and and I just don't I cannot believe if
you just read that. That in the documents release today,
Acting on President Obama's orders, the Director of the CIA Brennan,
directed a full review of the of the of the

(44:26):
public and publication of the raw human intelligence information, including
now I'm paraphrasey, including the information that they typically do
not include because it's not reliable as a factual basis.
When you know that, you know that, and then the
media they give it to the media and they just
say it forever. It's it was. It's diabolical.

Speaker 3 (44:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (44:47):
I remember during the campaign when Hillary was coming I
think she was in New York coming out of some
center and walking to the cart. The car was that
nine to eleven, and she stumbled or almost and we're
all going, what's wrong with Hillary? Well, maybe the Russians new.

Speaker 1 (45:02):
Yeah, she's on a horse. Tranquilizer sold and beat someone
up or worse.

Speaker 2 (45:06):
All Right, we want to open up the phones to
you to I think get your your thoughts on this.
I mean, you've had a lot of information that came
down on Friday, new information coming down today, more and
more pointing toward Barack Obama. But as Jason chaff had said,
and we played that sound by just a few miles
on US ago, he wants people held accountable. My question,
I think your question is as well, Greg, Will they

(45:27):
ever be? We can only hope, but we don't know.
Eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on
your cell phone dial pound two fifty or on the
talkback line. Just leave us a message, your calls, your
comments coming up on the Rotten Greg Show, documents involving
Barack Obama, his team of they'll do anything he tells
them to do, and the Russian hopes. I'm Rod Arkutt,

(45:47):
Great to be with you this afternoon.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
I'm citizen your crack reporter, investigative journalist Greig Hughes Cennizon.
Hughes reading this document that was dumped today, that was
released declassified here to.

Speaker 2 (46:00):
Report eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero
cell phone dial pound two fifty and say hey Rod,
or on our talk bag line, you can leave us
a message as well. Let's go to the phones.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
Let's go to Ron. Ron, Welcome to the Rod and
Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
Hi, Greg, Hi, Rod, enjoy your show.

Speaker 13 (46:18):
Called in a couple of times he's had a real
quick comment about this whole you know, thing with the Russian.

Speaker 3 (46:23):
Collusion and everything.

Speaker 13 (46:25):
I just wonder, and maybe you could do this if
you ever get a Democrat politician on the air to
talk to. I wonder why nobody has ever asked a
Democrat why the Russians would want to have President Trump
elected over Hillary Clinton. Trump is a hawk. Hillary Clinton
is a lamb. She's been in the pocket of the Russians,

(46:47):
you know, way back in twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen. And
I don't know why anybody would think that, you know,
the Russians would win President Trump in there. I mean,
as soon as he got in office, he put you know,
restrictions on their ranking and you know, cut them financially
economically very badly. You know, So why would anybody think

(47:08):
that Putin would win President Trump to be the president?

Speaker 1 (47:11):
You know, you're exactly right, Ron, And I got to
tell you I love that you've asked this question, because
no one has asked it doesn't make sense. But it
turns out on page ten of the report that was
released today and declassified, they attempt to explain the logic
behind that. So what it says is that the intelligence
assessment misquotes the report to indicate that Putin and his

(47:33):
inner circle strongly preferred Republicans. The phrase strongly preferred Republicans
does not appear in the raw intelligence report anywhere. The
unknown source said that historically the Kremlin, and this goes
to your answer, Ron, this is what they're trying to pedal. Historically,
the Kremlin had found it easier to reach agreements with
the US presidents from the Republican party. That was it

(47:57):
was because Republicans were less concerned with issues that were
unpleasant for Russia, such as democracy and human rights. So,
but they go on to say that none of that
actually is. It says if the assessment had done any
basic analytic step, it would have compared the plausibility of

(48:19):
that unknown source with the documented policies of the past
three Republican presidents, all of whom featured democracy and human
rights as the cornerstones of their foreign policy. It says
that this document obscured the reporting, that it was an
unknown source. They don't know how anyone who would have
had access to the Kremlin or to Putin to know

(48:39):
what their inner thoughts were about Republican presidents that was unknown,
and that the information at the end of the day
did not make any sense. That is in print. I'm
reading that, and Ron, that's the hit. So what they're
trying to say is why the Putin and the Kremlin
preferred Trump. The report says none of it has any
basis in truth, none of it.

Speaker 13 (49:01):
Like everything else that they purport. A Democrat opens his
mouth and that just a lie comes out.

Speaker 2 (49:07):
It can't help they can all right, Ron, thank you
for your phone call. Back to the phones we go.
We had to Oakley and talk to Jerry tonight here
on the Rowden Greg Show. Hi Jerry, how are you?

Speaker 3 (49:18):
Hey?

Speaker 14 (49:18):
Guys, I'm not tired of winning and this is what
I voted for.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
God, Yeah, Jerry.

Speaker 2 (49:25):
This around.

Speaker 14 (49:26):
They're gonna spin this, They're gonna say this is an
example of Trump's authoritarianism. You try to lock up his enemies.
This is the tip of the iceberg. And I was
listening to my Bible in your podcast, and it was
Proverbs eleven twenty nine, the wicked shall not go unpunished
here here.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
Yeah, that, and I hope they do go. I hope,
I hope there's some accountability. I'm not hopeful that'll happen.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
I think there can be.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
I hope it. I hope it does.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
Look will it be Obama himself? You know it's hard,
but look, they said that they made the roadmap, They
went and raded his home, they went and made him
stand in front, may have a mugshot. They attempted to
put that man in jail. So all the standards are
precedents on how former presidents are treated. It's the Democrats
and this very party and Barack Obama himself who blew

(50:13):
the doors off of those. Those standards are those precedents. Okay,
let's go to Darlene and Tuila. Darlene, welcome to the
Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 15 (50:22):
Thank you. My first thought was I want to hear
Mitt Romney apologized publicly to President Trump.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
Amen.

Speaker 15 (50:34):
Yes, amen, because we knew that all that was a hope.
Anybody that understands Hillary Clinton and her way of life,
that's right. I want Mitt Romney apologize.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
And and you know what I want to add to that.
He called Mitt Romney, called Tulcy Gabbert a trader, is
a trader?

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Yes he did.

Speaker 1 (51:01):
I think he owes her in an age apologe.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Yeah, he sure does. Back to the phones we go.
Let's hear from Richard in Mill Creek tonight on the
Roden Greg Show. Hi, Richard, how are you hey?

Speaker 3 (51:11):
Guys? How you doing good?

Speaker 2 (51:13):
Good?

Speaker 16 (51:14):
Big fan of the show. Listen, Nothing's gonna happen, nothing
has changed. We all knew this for years and years
and years and years, and these clowns are never going
to serve a day in jail. They should have all
been in jail six seven, eight years ago. Nothing will happen.
And that's what frustrates the heck out of me. We

(51:34):
do have a two tiered judicial system.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
Will there be any public shaming? Do you think? Do
you think this story gets legs where at least their
their legacy will be besmerched. No?

Speaker 2 (51:45):
I don't think No, I don't think that. I agree
with Richard. I don't think they'll be public shaming because
they have the legacy media on their side. They're all
saying this is revisionist history. What are they going back
nine years ago? Why are they doing this? That's the
message you're starting to hear.

Speaker 3 (51:58):
Greg.

Speaker 2 (51:59):
They're going to public shame them. They're going to defend them.
They already are.

Speaker 1 (52:03):
It just means that, you know, you can be Barack
Obama and have a ski mask on and a gun
in your hand, and it can be smoking. You're not
gonna get in trouble.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
No.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
Everyone used to make fun of Trump because he said
I could probably shoot and kill somebody on Madison Avenue
and no one would arrest me. I think Barack Obama
thinks the same thing, and I guess it's all his
cohorts too. Comy needs to go.

Speaker 1 (52:21):
He is such a pathological Brennan, Brennan, Brennan, all of them.

Speaker 2 (52:24):
Clapper, all right, more of your calls and comments coming
up eight eight eight five seven eight zero one zero
on your cell phone dial pound two fifty here. Leave
us a comment or talk back line. We'll get to
all those comments coming up on The Rotten Gregg Show.
Ready to be with you coming up following our news
update at the top of the hour. Why are men
and women so different when it comes to politics? Yes,

(52:48):
there is a bit of a difference out there.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
I'll give you a hint. Just watch Mutual of Omaha's
Wow Kingdom. You'll you'll get it all. You'll understand it all.

Speaker 2 (52:57):
That's the tail sign.

Speaker 1 (52:58):
Right, that's it right there.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
All right, we're taking our phone calls, your talk back
comments concerning the new information being released by Telsea Gabbert today,
Director of National Intelligence, talking about a stronger connection between
Barack Obama and the Russian hoax. Getting your reaction to that.
Let's go back to the phones.

Speaker 1 (53:16):
Let's go to Jim in Salt Lake City, who's been
patiently waiting. Jim, Welcome to the Rod and Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
Yeah, thanks for taking my call. Well, we all know
that Barack Obama is probably well is the lionist president
that we'd ever had. I could listen to him talk
for just ten or fifteen minutes and just during the
talk say and no, that's not true, that's not true.

(53:42):
That is not true. Because I studied this, all this
you know, government stuff. I've studied it so much that
I know when somebody is not telling the truth. And
Barack Obama was terrible that way. He is. He is very,
very vindictive, and he tries to get what he wants.

(54:06):
And Barack Obama's main goal is to get socialism.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
Yes, I like that guy.

Speaker 3 (54:15):
It's just like that guy from New York. His main
goal is to socialize or make America a communist country.
So what did they do? They do anything possible to
get whatever it is that they want. And so they'll
say whatever it is that they want. And what you know,

(54:37):
do you know the number one thing that they hate
about Donald Trump? What is the number one thing do
you think that they hate about Donald Trump? Or the
thing that he does to them that they just hate
the absolute most? What do you think?

Speaker 1 (54:55):
I think he's untouchable. I think there's nothing about him
in his life they can intimidate or compel him to
behave like they have any president or any person of
any party prior to him, would be my answer, you know.

Speaker 3 (55:10):
But the number one thing, the number one thing is
they knew that he could take away their money.

Speaker 2 (55:18):
Yeah, in their power is the reason for everything.

Speaker 3 (55:22):
And and they he has taken away their money by
reducing all of like NPR, He's taken away them, He's
taken away this this usaid. He's taken away all these
programs that the Democrat Party got kickbacks from when they

(55:42):
were giving out the money.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Yeah, you're right, Jim, good point. We need to get
you off there. I need to get to another comment.
But you're right, he's taking away their money. Let's go
to our talkback line and see what this listener had
to say.

Speaker 17 (55:57):
Yes, Obama's being implicated in all of this. Obama is teflon. Sorry,
presidential immunity. But the people I think Trump is going
to go after are the media. Maybe Clapper and Brenner,
but the media. He can take them down with this
because they are complicit.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
I don't know how he goes after the media could
sue him. He seemed to be winning every lawsuit cuffs.
I say, yeah, you know.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
Here's the thing though, that you know, when the Supreme
Court ruled on immunity for Donald Trump, they were very
specific about in his capacity as president. They did give
They said, this isn't a blanket immunity if he commits
a crime, if you were to do if you were
to order an assassination of somebody, that wouldn't be covered
by this. And so they gave some examples. I don't

(56:46):
know if it fits in the outside of your duty
as president, example, where he could be tried, but I
really really do believe that there has to be when
you there's Once we know what we know, let's go
back and revisit. There was a Brettbear interview with Komy
twenty eighteen earlier. So when you know and you've read
what we've read and you listen to his answers, now
with what we know, the way he lies it is unbelievable.

(57:09):
And by the way, to the last caller's point about
how much Obama lies, he wasn't keeping up with things.
Remember how he said that he went during this last election,
he thought that the white supremacists were perfectly good people
that had been debunked by everyone, including Democrats, and he
just threw that lie out there like it was nothing.

Speaker 2 (57:26):
Always does that, he does, always pause. Yeah, all right,
we've got a lot more to get to. We've got
another full hour coming your way. Coming up. We'll be
talking about why men and women different when it comes
to politics and mister Hughes's favorite topic. Do we still
need more.

Speaker 1 (57:41):
Mavericks Maverick, Yeah, Matt, keep Maverick, Mitchell, keep Maverick going.

Speaker 2 (57:46):
We'll talk about that coming up. Nice to be with
you on this Wednesday afternoon here on Utah's Talk radio
one oh five nine an rs from a former member
the Air Force. Served in the Air Force, I think
still in the National Guard, but wrote about the fact
that we need to keep Maverick in the cockpit.

Speaker 1 (58:07):
Yes, you gotta keep you gotta keep the you gotta
keep the pilots.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
Yeah, I gotta keep the pilots in there and don't
let robots do that. And we'll talk about this. Mister
Hughes will have fun with this interview coming up. How
are you everybody, I'm rod.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
Arquet, I'm citizen Greg Hughes.

Speaker 2 (58:20):
All right. You know one thing, there were so many
investigations going on during Trump's time. They were trying to
get this guy every which way but loose right. What
about the Miller investigator, the Mueller investigation, whatever happened to that?
I mean, didn't it come to the conclusion there was
no interference? What was that all about?

Speaker 3 (58:37):
Now?

Speaker 2 (58:37):
Why did they miss all of this?

Speaker 3 (58:39):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (58:40):
No, they Well they didn't miss it. I think they.
I think they purposely stayed away from it. I mean,
I really do. But Mueller was only point and his
only purpose was to try and find something on Trump.
He could not as hard as he looked two years worth,
he had to say that there was nothing there. And
then Brennan's answered this or someone's like, oh maybe this

(59:01):
sort maybe the information I had wasn't very reliable, and
most like blew it off, like oh okay. Next they
knew this was all all fabricated, but they hope that
getting a guy like Miller who would just pull, you know,
turn up every single rock, they could find something. It
just felt like and there has to be something there.

Speaker 2 (59:20):
They found nothing. Pretty amazing, all right, Well, let's move on.
Interesting article the other day about you know men and
women were different, right? Men are from Mars, women are
from Venus. Yes, you've been married to one long enough
you know there is a difference, as as have I.

Speaker 1 (59:36):
Yep, thirty one years.

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Good for you. Yeah, I'm at forty seven. Wow, yeah,
long time you're old.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
She just kidding you.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
Just love to you do you do? But why are
men and women more politically divided today than maybe in
previous years? Well, joining us on our news make your
line to talk all about that is Rob Henderson, Senior
Fellow at the Vnhattan Institute. Rob, thanks for joining us.
We are different, but are we that different when it
comes to politics.

Speaker 11 (01:00:04):
Yeah, well, you know, it's funny. I appreciate you having
me on. And one of the things that I wanted
to point out here is that there was this, this
commonly held belief that as men and women reach parity
in things like education and in income so it's economic status,
that we would become more alike in other ways. So
I'm sure many of your listeners are familiar with the

(01:00:24):
fact that women are outpacing men in education. For example,
they earn the majority of bachelor's masters and now PhDs.
And in certain cities like New York and Boston, women
under thirty are actually matching or out earning their male peers.
And so, you know, as they converge, as men and
women converge in their income and education, the idea was that, oh,

(01:00:46):
maybe they're their outlook on the world would converge as
well instead, But you know, instead, what we're seeing is
the opposite. We're seeing the largest political divide between the
sexes since these these statistics have been record did so
now we see that a roughly half of young women
identify as liberal, compared with only about a quarter of

(01:01:07):
young men. And so this article I wrote attempts to
explore this disconnect. And what I review in the City
Journal article is decades of research showing that there are
these deep biological and psychological sex differences, especially in personality
traits like agreeableness, levels of anxiety, and risk tolerance. And

(01:01:29):
all of these differences exist even in sort of our modern, egalitarian,
economically advanced societies. And what's interesting is that there's this
paradox here where the freer and more wealthier a country becomes,
the larger the sex differences are between men and women
in terms of career choices, psychological traits, personality values. And

(01:01:52):
now we're seeing it in politics, and so I wanted
people to recognize that that these realities still exist, that
as we become more more progressive and wealthy as a society,
these differences between men and women aren't going away, and
in some cases they're even being magnified.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
I love the article. I love that men, well maybe
I don't love that men take more risk, but the
way you put it, where guys are just we can't
even walk across a street without being hit more likely
than a woman because we just walk and we'll just
try to race the car. I guess you don't see
a lot of female ice truck drivers that drive over
frozen bodies of water, you know, as a job like

(01:02:27):
you'll see with guys. And so I felt like this
article really was intuitive to me. I was reading a
lot of things that I could relate to, or I
could see why there'd be a difference. You know what
it all looks like to me, and I just would
love your take on it, given that you've done so
much research. It looks like mutual of Omaha's wild kingdom.
I feel like it's Marlon Perkins showing us just species,

(01:02:49):
whether they're humans or whether they're animals. The difference is
that just the fundamental differences between the nurture and the
protector and all of those things. Would you say that
there's maybe a common denominal here about species on our
planet and how the male and female species interact with
each other.

Speaker 11 (01:03:07):
Yeah, this is this is a commonly observed pattern. I'm
among non human animals where you see that because in
biological terms, females are are typically more valuable in quotes,
and that there are far more sperm than there are eggs,
and so the carriers of the sperm often have to
take more risks and exhibit more tolerance for danger in

(01:03:30):
order to impress the female and overcome other.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
Males and so on.

Speaker 11 (01:03:35):
And this is why, you know, if you see this
in humans as well, as you mentioned that men are
twice as likely as women to be killed simply crossing
the streets, you know, men are more likely to end
up in jail, more likely to become injured or killed
in violent conflict. And you see this repeatedly that even

(01:03:56):
things like verbal altercations in the streets, there are witnesses
to that verbal altercation between two men arguing on the street.
A witness that is observing it increases the likelihood that
will escalate into physical violence. Witnesses increase the likelihood by
three times. So there's something interesting here where if it's
just a man and another man alone arguing with one another,

(01:04:17):
no no onlookers whatsoever, relatively low risk that it'll escalate
into a fistfight. But once there are witnesses, there's something
in the back of our minds that recognizes that our
reputations are on the line, that we have, you know,
people to impress, and that there's all of these biological
forces that are backs that are making us want to
look tough, to look strong, and that that propels us
to take these these outside risks.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
So we're basically showing off.

Speaker 3 (01:04:42):
Off to show off.

Speaker 11 (01:04:45):
But I wouldn't, you know, I I just want to
make clear that this isn't even necessarily conscious. You know,
if you if you sit someone down and say, you know, like,
why why were you, you know, not not wearing a
seatbelt when you're driving, why are you, you know, getting
into fights and these kinds of things. I think a
lot of guys they wouldn't say, well, I'm trying to
show off.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
I'm trying to look cool.

Speaker 3 (01:05:04):
I want to look tough.

Speaker 11 (01:05:05):
These things are operating sort of at the unconscious, implicita
level that because we you know, the results of millions
of years of evolutionary processes that you know, we behave
this way without even having any conscious awareness of this
anymore than you know, something like like a spider weaving
a web has any sort of internal representation of, well,
I'm weaving this web because I need to catch insects,

(01:05:26):
because I need to eat in order to survive. That's
not all going on. We're just sort of going off
of our impulses in natural instincts and you know. As
a results, fortunately we've able to sustain ourselves. And usually
these these traits win allies and impress people and hopefully
get a woman somewhere out there might like us if
they see us taking some of these risks.

Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
Rob, that's such a great article. I have one one
question for you. You may have seen articles over the
past several months following the election the Democrats are trying
to figure out how they can attract men. How do
they get more men to vote for Democrats. Knowing the
research and the research that you've done and looked at,
what would you have to hear a message to the Democrats, Hey,
if you'll want to get guides to come on your side,

(01:06:05):
you need to do this.

Speaker 11 (01:06:08):
Yes, it's a good question. And I've seen a lot
of those articles and a lot of this discussion on
the political left, and I think for a long time
there's been this denial of biological sex differences between men
and women, and there's this fear that if you were
to recognize that men and women are different, that this
would somehow roll back decades of progress in politics and

(01:06:29):
in terms of women's rights and those kinds of things.
But you know, I don't think recognizing real sex differences.
That doesn't mean rolling back progress, you know. I think
if they want to have any hope of winning young
men over, they should think about improving institutions and designing
norms that better support both men and women instead of
pretending that the sexes are interchangeable or that we're locked

(01:06:50):
in the zero sum game, where if women are succeeding,
then if we start to help men, and this will
necessarily sort of roll back progress for women. And I
think we can help both men and women succeed, and
this will make both sectives happier. If men are doing well,
women have higher quality male partners that they could choose from. Instead,
what we're seeing now is men sort of falling further

(01:07:12):
and further behind, as they point out in that article So.

Speaker 1 (01:07:15):
Real quickly one of a couple of plays. I think
this manifests itself is like a sports platform like Barstool Sports.
I don't think they started out political, but certainly they've
They've become political in terms of not wanting to be
canceled some of the politics that seep into sports. There's
a commentary there, and I think it lends itself right
of center, at least in twenty twenty five. You also
see comedians that have been canceled that I think guys

(01:07:37):
will think we're funny, And so you see this difference
there for Democrats. Back to Rodd's question, is it to
how they package, because I hear if we just swear more,
we're going to actually appeal to more guys. Okay, if
we just swear a lot. Is it really how they
present themselves or really the issues that they're confronting and
how they confront them that's going to draw maybe more

(01:07:58):
men to one party over another. I think it's a
bit of both.

Speaker 11 (01:08:03):
You know, there is this kind of aesthetic element here
where if you exhibit toughness, if you do that kind
of strength that you know, maybe that might appeal to
a certain segment of young men. I don't think swearing
alone will do it. You know, you see like late
night comedy show hosts, you know, like Colbert the other
day saying the F word and it bleeps it out
and his audience is sharing and he's very much on

(01:08:24):
the political left. And so I don't know if swearing
alone will will you know, win over young men, or
or or if it automatically codes as being on the
on the right or something. But I think, yeah, the issues, uh,
you know, standing up to the political accesses of wokeness
and identity politics and those kinds of things. I mean,
even if even if you if you just don't feed

(01:08:47):
ground to that, you know, people will will appreciate that.
I think young men in particular are set up with a.

Speaker 2 (01:08:52):
Lot of this stuff.

Speaker 11 (01:08:53):
And yeah, I think a lot of these young guys
probably would have been, you know, still work democrats a
decade or more. But you know, if you can only
sort of mock and make fun of of a demographic
before they start to turn on you.

Speaker 2 (01:09:05):
Politically, yeah, I tell you what. More, more and more people,
you know, these young men, they've been browbeaten like you
wouldn't believe, Greg, I don't. I don't blame them. They say,
we've had enough. We want to be respected as well.
You're here, Yeah, yeah, it is all right. More coming
up on the Rod and Greg show in Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five Dye Cannaets, we're talking about top
Gun and Maverick. Well, we came across an article the

(01:09:26):
other day where the author said, we need to keep
Maverick in the cockpit because there you know, a lot
of people think the future is going to be in
robotic warfare.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
That's right, that's right, well, drones, drones, it's just nice robot.
Humans aren't gonna be around.

Speaker 2 (01:09:42):
Paying stuff like that. So, uh, but we we're gonna
be talking with a with an expert. She'd been in
the military, has a lot of knowledge about the military
as to why we need to keep people like Pete,
Pete Mitchell, Pete Mitchell, Pete, Maverick Mitchell, Yeah, Maverick in
the cockpit.

Speaker 1 (01:09:59):
Yes, and Goose. Yeah, he doesn't, you know, eject and
have his head hit by the canopy, which was tragic.

Speaker 2 (01:10:07):
Yeah, it was. Yes, you're still you're still mourning.

Speaker 1 (01:10:09):
Now, it's a very sad moment.

Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
Remember a gosh, that's what's two or three weeks ago.

Speaker 3 (01:10:14):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:15):
We did a segment on bike lanes.

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
Yes, I've had you know, I've had great listeners send
me pictures of the of the people of yeah fly
hogging over in the lane or in Salt Lake City
saying bikes can travel anywhere they went like cones that
let them go everywhere, while cars can't. I've seen a lot,
there's a lot of good response from our audience.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
Issue do you know where I live up in Cageville, Yes, right,
And there's a road that I go, you know, it
leads from Caysville up to US Highway eighty nine, a
road that I travel every day. The entire lane is
marked as the bike lane. Yeah, of course it is.
Of course it is. This is oppressing it and it's
used a lot. I mean, there are there are a
lot of healthy people in Davis County where I live.

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
Yeah, I'm yeah whatever, and it's it's these are child's
children's toys. People adults are getting on and riding around.

Speaker 2 (01:11:06):
I wanted to bring this story up because I know
you're so interested in bike safety. This was an article
Salt Lake County's car dependence leaves walkers and bikers behind.

Speaker 1 (01:11:20):
Good. We're smart, we know what we're doing.

Speaker 2 (01:11:22):
Walking and biking, of course, can be healthier.

Speaker 1 (01:11:24):
Would you agree on a treadmill? I do, Actually, I
do support walking on a treadmill. I do think that's good.

Speaker 2 (01:11:34):
The vast majority of trips that take place in Salt
Lake County are done in a car, yeah, okay, compared
with nine percent on foot and only one percent on bikes.
Yet you go after the cyclist.

Speaker 1 (01:11:50):
Yeah, because I one that one percent gets in our
way more they their negative impact is more than one
percent of my life. It's it's a disport. It's a
disproportionate negative impact. Yeah yeah, So look and again, if
you're a biker, if you just want to stay in
your own lane and not like get more laws that
we can't get anywhere near your lane, or your lane
is somehow in front of my house and I can't

(01:12:11):
park in front of my house.

Speaker 2 (01:12:12):
Well that there there's a problem there. I would agree.

Speaker 1 (01:12:15):
Let let bikers be bikers and don't drive cars that
they are in my way. That's fine, go do it.
But I'm not I'm not into it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
Well. Wait, you know the thing about here that people
don't compared to back eats back eats, people are jammed
into cities and you know stuff like that. Yeah, in
New York, Abby worked in New York for a long
long time, never owned a car, didn't need to You
could walk and get anywhere you need to go. You
can't quite do that out West. We're kind of spread out,
which I like.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
Well we've been spread out. We're getting a little crowded lately,
a little bite, a little cramped, a little bit at
least in four counties of or twenty nine counties. So
but no, it's look, there's probably a roll for bikes
somewhere in all this. But you know, I just think
sometimes the emphasis is not proportionate to the number of people,

(01:13:03):
as you just pointed out. Only yeah, so why do
we get lose so much of the lane to uh
to the that's.

Speaker 2 (01:13:12):
True, all right, when we come back. Why we need
to keep Maverick in the cockpit. I tell you what,
mister who's looking forward to this conversation that's coming up
on the Roddy and Gregg Show in Utah's Talk Radio
one O five nine. Okay, nrs, we're working, We're working.

Speaker 1 (01:13:26):
I'm you know, I'm new on the job. I will.
I must not have been here Pioneer Day last year,
because probably not. I didn't know this was a monk day. Now,
I had a big elaborate plan.

Speaker 2 (01:13:35):
I didn't. You were you were so full of blown
bad time.

Speaker 1 (01:13:40):
I didn't. I'm here with you. Listeners were together, and
tomorrow Pioneer.

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
Day, we'll be here tomorrow. Yes, we will keeping you
up to day as to what's going on.

Speaker 1 (01:13:48):
Yes, and we'll have to hear from listeners how the
parade went.

Speaker 2 (01:13:52):
Now do they okay, do you think they care?

Speaker 1 (01:13:55):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:13:55):
I mean, who's going to come out and say the
parade was awful.

Speaker 1 (01:13:59):
I want to know who sees it still. I want
to see if anyone goes.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
Do they still sleep on the street there?

Speaker 15 (01:14:05):
Ye?

Speaker 1 (01:14:05):
Yeah, no I used to. I yeah, I used to.

Speaker 2 (01:14:07):
Did you do that?

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
Yes? Really well I had I had a property that
was on the parade route and it would be torn
down with the mayhem that goes on all night if
there wasn't. So I did two things. I was reserving
a nice piece of lawn for my family in the morning,
but I was also protecting my property.

Speaker 2 (01:14:26):
But they've changed the rue to I'm been to that parade.

Speaker 1 (01:14:28):
Goes down the second East. Let me tell you something.
It was like remember that movie, uh, Escape from New York,
Remember that with like snake pluskin. That's what I was
fighting on that night. It was it was mayhem and
I was protecting my property. Yeah, everybody's gone crazy at night.

Speaker 2 (01:14:45):
I was, well, they used to light off fireworks. You
can't do that anymore.

Speaker 11 (01:14:49):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
Yeah, it was just it was just I had to
you had to protect your Yes, I did all night.
I stay up all night and then wow, I stay up. Yeah,
I'd stay up all night because they don't go to sleep.
Everyone was just wanting to cause trouble.

Speaker 2 (01:15:01):
Yeah, so you know they love to brag like this
is the second biggest parade in the country.

Speaker 1 (01:15:06):
Yeah, I'd be asleep by the time it started.

Speaker 2 (01:15:10):
I did sleep during a parade.

Speaker 1 (01:15:13):
Man, I was up all night.

Speaker 2 (01:15:14):
I was just getting chairs sirens going off.

Speaker 1 (01:15:17):
I was kind of there, kind of not. But then
my family, like I used to be proud that I
could get this nice piece of real estate for them,
and then they stopped coming.

Speaker 2 (01:15:25):
Well, they get older.

Speaker 1 (01:15:26):
Yeah, I have ne and I get security for the place.
But actually it's calmed down in the I haven't done that, not.

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
As crazy used to.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
I haven't done that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:37):
Good time. All right, let's talk about Maverick, your favorite topic,
top gun. You know, it's amazing what our b two
pilots did in the attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities, right, tremendous.
But there's there's a move in the military. I think
some people that were going to more of a war

(01:15:58):
by robot or throne. Right, But you know, our next
guest says, you gotta you gotta keep Maverick in the
in the mix.

Speaker 1 (01:16:06):
So let's draw some parallels. The bombing of the Iranian
nuclear facility is very similar, even though they don't use
the fighter jets. They use bombers to do it. But
there is that challenge of getting those pinpoint you know,
places where they're going to go down, those bunker busters
or whatever they are that down and do. So there's
that that Well, one of the antagonists in the movie
Maverick is this general and he's telling Maverick, Maverick Pete

(01:16:28):
Mitchell that pilots and his kind are on the way out. Yeah,
as we hear let's hear it. The end is inevitable, Maverick.
They've kind of headed for extinction.

Speaker 3 (01:16:46):
Thank you so sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:16:49):
But not today.

Speaker 1 (01:16:52):
Yes, let the band play today, Not today, not ever.
According to our next guest, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:17:01):
Her name is Margot andersonsh so, sedior advisor at the
American main Street Institute, a contributor to Chronicle magazine. She writes,
so we need to keep Maverick in the cockpit. Why
do you say that, Margot.

Speaker 12 (01:17:13):
Well, I just keep seeing news about how humans are
leaving this teer of aviation, and I don't think we're
thinking through what the ramifications will be for warfare. We
feel a little short sighted in our view of safety
and protecting our troops, but I think it could have
very bad consequences in the long term.

Speaker 1 (01:17:35):
So again, Roder just described it. But the reason I
love it is there's a great scene in Maverick the
you know, top Gun Too, where his commanding officer says,
your your kind is extinct. You're you're walking towards extinction.
He says, maybe so, but not today. I'd love to
see that extinction go, you know, be far far away.
What does the human element with these pilots, like the

(01:17:57):
B fifty two, was it to be fifty one or
fifty two bombers that left the United States made bombers?

Speaker 3 (01:18:03):
Rather?

Speaker 1 (01:18:04):
What does that human element bring to our American readiness
and the strength of our defense? What's that human element like?
I mean, why do we keep.

Speaker 12 (01:18:12):
That well when we have skin in the game. I
think our decision making is different, both in terms of
deciding to go to war and impose use force abroad.
I think that pushing risk off to robots, to AI,
to automated processes, I think we are we're more likely

(01:18:37):
to get ourselves in a situation where we're protecting our troops,
but we're not protecting our civilians, Because how are you
going to make war painful for the enemy if you're
only fighting robots? Who cares if if you win a
robot battle. So ultimately humans will have to suffer at

(01:18:59):
some point, and I think having humans there who are
willing to sacrifice, it gives us, it actually makes something
good come from more in a way. To have that
moral element where people are willing to sacrifice for a
noble cause, have an opportunity to act bravely, and it's
I think it's really hard for decision makers, for people

(01:19:24):
at the top ranks of the military, who have never
who will never have been in combat, to weigh decisions
about taking life.

Speaker 1 (01:19:32):
So that that leads me to this question, is that
why you bring up moral cause and acting bravely? If
you have pilots that are operating drones, say they're in
Las Vegas and they're just in an air conditioned room
and they're looking from the eyes or camera of a drone,
are we losing that that human element as if it
were if it were a fighter pilot? Is there is

(01:19:52):
there a lack of bravery or moral cause gets a
little blurry when you're operating a machine around the world
versus flying it overhead.

Speaker 12 (01:20:02):
Yeah, there is. Pilots are really bothered by it. And
I'm not a pilot, just to be clear, I've been
active duty here for US and I'm a reservist, but
by pilots don't want to be put on their own
duty because ultimately humans like doing things in the world,

(01:20:22):
and it does. There's a discomfort with it. I think
they recognize that it's somewhat shameful or unjust to strike
something or someone from Afar from such comfort and safety.

Speaker 2 (01:20:39):
Margot, what about these pilots who did fly these fish,
these B two's on this mission into Iran. It's pretty
amazing what they have to endure, first of all, to
get there, to be ready to drop whatever they're about
to drop, and to get back home safely. It's pretty
amazing when you read what they had to go through,
isn't it?

Speaker 3 (01:20:58):
Oh?

Speaker 12 (01:20:58):
Absolutely? I mean the hours in the air, having to synchronize,
synchronize and refuel multiple times. It's not like Iran has
no air defenses. I mean, we've had stealth airplanes shot
down before in Serbia and so it's not like there's
no risk just because they're in a stealth bomber. It's
it's a great risk. There's a reason why we waited

(01:21:21):
to take on an operation like this obviously, and and
just yeah, it's it's thirty seven hours in the air
like pretty much around the world to to do the
mission and return home.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
Wow, is there? I think that the human spirit, the grit,
the strength of will that you lose that. I think
you accurately describe how you lose that when it's all
when it's separated and you're in a room and not
and not actually on the scene. But do we lose
any of our air superiority or our defense to countries
that might may prefer to do it with robots or

(01:21:55):
drones from Afar? Can our can our service members compete
in a world where other countries might not want that
human element and the variables that brings. Does that make
us stronger? Does that make us put us at a disadvantage?

Speaker 3 (01:22:10):
Yeah?

Speaker 12 (01:22:11):
I mean that's a really hard question that I've been
grappling with myself. I think that anymore it would be
foolish to think we should just send our troops in
unprotected our pilots into you know, drones and a purely
mechanical enemy that would not be fair to our troops.

(01:22:33):
And it seems like the uneasy piece we've made right
now is this human machine teaming where our fighters will
essentially team with drones using advanced AI technology and machine
learning to help to coordinate within the airspace. And so

(01:22:54):
that's I think that's the solution right now where we
can still keep human the human element, which I think
is so crucial, while not sacrificing our forces unfairly. I
think in my piece I quote all right, I mentioned
the charge of the Lake Brigade by Tennyson. You know,
we don't want to send our forces into the machine

(01:23:16):
gun on horses and sabers. That would be unjust, and
so we need to find a way to meet that challenge,
such as China, who is becoming, you know, more and
more reliant on similar advanced technology and hopefully shaped norms
to where they will have to keep humans in the

(01:23:37):
battle as well.

Speaker 2 (01:23:38):
Margo, thanks for joining us tonight. Margot Anderson sharing her
thoughts about keeping Maverick in the cockpit. She is a
senior advisor at the American Main Street Initiative also a
contributor to Chronicles magazine. I will turn your microphone on wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:23:54):
Button, not today, not today, No, that's for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
All right. Final coming up with Rod and Greg on
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five, Dyeing Canterests.

Speaker 1 (01:24:04):
Spells on as they say, yeah, we're working tomorrow. That's right. Yeah,
we don't slow down.

Speaker 2 (01:24:09):
All right. Well, it's been a heck of a day
as new revelations were unveiled about a bombshell really from
Telsea Gabbert about Barack Obama's connections to the Russian hopes
and what dogged the Trump administration during its first term
in office. And it really comes down, Greg, I think
to four issues. These are the These are the issues

(01:24:30):
that I think we're now learning more and more about.

Speaker 1 (01:24:32):
Yes, if you take anything away from the program today
or the discussion of what documents were declassified, these are
the four takeaways that you need to know that we
know factually today that we suspected before but didn't know
for sure. Number One, Russia wanted Trump to win the race.
That's a lie that there is no intelligence that ever shows,
or ever ever indicates that that Putin and Russia wanted

(01:24:55):
Trump to win that was that was a fabrication.

Speaker 2 (01:24:57):
And if they wanted Trump to win, they had very
damaging information on a Hillary Clinton, her health and her
health and some wild accusations. Why didn't that they released
or leaked that information out before the election.

Speaker 1 (01:25:10):
They didn't, that's right. So that's the first thing. That's
first thing, that Russia wanted Trump to win, total lie.
There is no intelligence that ever supported that premise. Second one,
that Russia helped Slash hacked the election for Trump. They
took action Putin and Russia took action for and on
behalf of Trump to help him win the election. That
is a lie.

Speaker 2 (01:25:29):
Senior officials in the intelligence community kept on telling a
Clapper and Brennan, No, it does not meet the standards. No,
there is no information saying that they are trying to
hack this election.

Speaker 1 (01:25:42):
The direct quote, we don't have direct information that Putin
wanted to get Trump elected. They took no action. They
didn't want it, and they took no action. That's a lie.
The third one they had blackmail on Trump. Russia had
blackmail on Trump. That's why they wanted the wings. They
had blackmail that stems from the Steele dossier Golden Showers,
which is a complete lie. That dossier, that Steele dossier is.

(01:26:05):
It was. It was so quickly dismissed that Brennan lied
to Congress just six months later. We just saw this
on the on the on the news where he said, no,
we never considered the dossier and ours our intelligence assessment.
It's it's all they did. Okay, that's number three.

Speaker 2 (01:26:21):
I was well and going back, that was part of
their case going to the Vice Court. They included the dossier.
That was one of the arguments, the salacious accusations that
were contained in the dossier, which, by the way, remember
coy and uh Brett Baar on Fox Noon short time
ago aired an interview he did with Comy several years ago, right,

(01:26:44):
and Kobe said, Nope, never part of it. We didn't
we know that was as a ball stage line. Well,
and this was a democratic piece of information. Well, the
Republicans started it and then they turned it over the
Democrats alonely not that.

Speaker 1 (01:26:58):
Way never happened, and they and they never cited the
source of where all this dossier covered from. It was
the Hillary Clinton opposition campaign research that they did to
try and inoculate themselves from their hacked email. Anyway, that's
the Third is that the Russia had blackmail on Trump.
That was all from the Stele dossier. Steele dossier is
not true. That's lie. Fourth, Russians tried colluding with the

(01:27:20):
Trump campaign to help him win, complete lie. No intelligence
they ever established that suggested it, They had nothing. That
was never the case.

Speaker 2 (01:27:30):
So fake news.

Speaker 1 (01:27:31):
So some Trump that Russia wanted Trump to win. Lie Trump,
that Russia helped took action to help Trump win. Lie Trump,
The Russia had blackmail on Trump, lie, and Trump tried.
Russia tried to collude with the Trump campaign, specifically a lie.

Speaker 2 (01:27:47):
Late breaking news tonight, Pam Bondi says she's forming a
strike force to take a look at all of this
and that will develop in the coming days. Been great
to be with you today. As we say each and
every day, head up, the shoulders back. May God bless
you and your family in this great country of ours.
Happy pioneer date. Everybody will be here tomorrow. Atfore, have
a good evening.