August 13, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Trump's meeting with Putin & the possible outcomes
- Sick rabbit news & zoo pets
- Adam Schiff's thin neck, leak & the investigation
- Meteor hits house & "Frankenbabies"
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and
Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
The interesting thing that we've seen on the ground here
is the Russians seemed to have come to the conclusion
that the best thing for them to do is be
as silent as possible and let President Trump do most
of the talking. And the message that they're obviously trying
to send to audiences here in Russia, but of course
also internationally into the US, is that Vladimir Putin is
going into this meeting a winner. He's going into this
meeting with momentum on the battlefield and certainly wanting to
(00:44):
push through his own agenda as far as this meeting
is concerned. And the Russians have said that they haven't
changed their stance on Ukraine, which means they don't want
an immediate ceasefire.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
That's more interesting analysis than I was expecting based on
the description on my sheet of paper. I thought it
was just going to be kind of Trump bashing Putin smart,
Trump's dumb. But Putin has been not saying much about this,
whereas Trump's talking every single day. Is that any advantage
in a negotiation standpoint where you don't really have any
(01:15):
idea what Putin's gonna walk in and say, you have
a pretty good idea what Trump's gonna walk in and say.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
You know, I don't know. It's funny. I was gonna
take almost an opposite angle in that several of Putin's
notable mouthpieces are making claims and posturing and trying to
pre spin it, preset the question and the parameters.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
So Trump, first of all, I'd like to know if
Trump is sitting down with anybody and discussing different scenarios
and hypotheticals. I'm guessing he's not based on his track record,
and he's just he's just gonna go with his gut
like he does. In his defense, he sat down for
a lot of big deals in his life, a lot,
(02:02):
so he's got more experience than the average person. But
I'm thinking I was thinking about one time Joe and
I got called to this meeting with some real radio
heavyweights and it got set up and we got there
and they looked at us and they were basically like,
so what are you here for? And we thought it
was like the other way around, Like they called us
(02:22):
in because they had something to say.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
To us, and we weren't prepared for that.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
And I just you know, Trump needs to be ready
for a scenario like that, where you know, putin.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
So what do you got to offer me? Right? I
think that's absolutely true. I mean, that's one possible tack
he takes. Here's an interesting bit of information. This is
a senior Russian lawmaker. He said, though the Ukrainian and
this paraphrasing end quoting, but he said, though the Ukrainian
(02:55):
question has been declared to be the main item of
the agenda. Quote, much more important global issues would be
raised in Alaska, including ambitious plans for economic and infrastructure
cooperation in the Arctic. And that is why. And there
are a couple other quotes that clearly indicate that the
(03:18):
Russian brain trust is thinking, Look, we make Ukraine a
part of something much much bigger and give them what
they want on a few other fronts that don't matter
nearly as much to us. But Trump will see it
as a payday, and then we get to expand into
Eastern Europe. That could be what they actually want.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Also has the added advantage of if it's a complex,
multiple items agenda.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
You get to stall even longer.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
I mean, Trump's not gonna have an answer for that
off the top of his head.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
So you could take the can.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Down easily for geez, thirty days or six months if
you're talking about you know, Antartica and all kinds of
different things. And then you know, Putin gets to continue
to prosecute the war without the sanctions on the that
that Trump was promising and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So all of that is one of the reasons the
reason Ukraine and the Europeans are probably talking to Trump
right now as we speak and saying, look, this is
about Ukraine. Don't let Putin, you know, tempt you into
some sort of arctic you know, navigation and mineral rights discussion,
because that's what he's going to do. It's about Ukraine. Well,
(04:31):
And the other thing they're trying to say is and
keep in mind, if you sign the treaty first, or
as if he signs the treaty first, while you're signing,
he'll be violating the treaty. So just remember that about
Vladimir Putin. That's a good point. What do you what's
your what's your guts? Say comes out of this this
(04:52):
meeting Friday.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Wow, my my, I don't know, but I would say
my feeling that something positive from my perspective comes out
of it is pretty low.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I see a semi vague We have reached the framework
for discussions that could definitely lead to peace, which would
be a horrible development.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
I was just reading in the Wall Street Journal about
the gains that Russia has made in the last couple
of days. They penetrated some of the defenses and have
gotten quite a ways in and might be able to
use that leverage to grab a pretty decent sized chunk
of land, like just in the next couple of days.
If it ends up being we've come up with a
framework for blah blah blah. So the sanctions are on
hold until January first to work out the details. That's
(05:46):
a one hundred percent of win for Putin. Yeah, and
I bet you a hundred roubles that's essentially what comes
out of this. And if I'm wrong, I'll gladly say so.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
But that's it. Sure feels that way to me. I
don't know. Maybe Trump comes out and says, no, that's it.
I know a bulllesser when I see one, and although
Putin is the best bullsser perhaps on the face of
the earth, he is the tiger Woods of manipulation.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Now Marco Rubio, who oddly has is the Secretary of
State and has been sidelined and all this sort of stuff.
Usually the Secretary of state's like the point person on
these things. Yeah, he'd be having a I mean, he'd
be the press conference everybody's asking questions to every single day.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
But he's not. Trump picked his own.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Negotiator, dude who's a real estate developer, a witcough guy,
or Trump himself so far does not have a great
track record, although he has been sent to, you know,
solve unsolvable problems. True, nobody would have a great track
record going into a talk to Hamas or Putin probably,
But Marco Rubio said something along the lines yesterday that, well,
(06:49):
the first thing is a ceasefire. The first thing we
say is there's got to be a ceasefire. If Trump
can get that, say, look, I'm not discussing anything until
there's a ceasefire. I don't want to hear about a
missile going into Kiev and twenty more people dying in
an apartment. If he makes that his lead I'd be
okay with that. If we do all this kick the
can down the road negotiations during a cease fire, that'd
(07:12):
be a completely different situation.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Yeah, an enforceable cease fire. And that's where the problem is.
I could see, speaking of Putin and his nature, he
would agree to that declared total sees fire. And then
when there's some fighting, sporadic fighting continuing in the critical
Fayotex region of blankety blank. Yeah, either yeah, they fired
on us first, or you know what, we're reaching out
(07:36):
to the commander right now. The communication is not great
right now with all the jamming that's going on stuff,
But don't worry, we'll take care of that. And while
he's on the phone, another attack takes place and they
grab a couple of square miles of a you know,
a key river crossing or something.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
It's possible that Trump has actually met his limit. I mean,
he's said some pretty strong things in the last couple
of weeks about Putin. He's just a liar. He just
he says one thing, does another. I can't trust him.
So if Putin, if Trump has actually come to the
conclusion that he can't trust this guy at all, and
he goes in there and says, okay, step one, ceasefire.
He's got to be a ceasefire. If there's one missile,
(08:10):
there's one dead. Ukrainian sanctions immediately, and we send Ukraine
blah blah blah, you know, armaments. If he does something
like that, there's a chance.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Yeah, I would agree, that's what it would take. If
he meets Putin and gets.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Smoothed by the power of smiling Putin and likes a
picture of them shaking hands and smiling and falls for
I don't know, God's gonna be damn disappointing. I'll say,
I think Trump's got a chance to like make his
legacy over this, change his legacy for all time if.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
He doesn't get punked by Putin. Is their leverage sufficient
to knock a guy off of his goal of re
establishing the Russian Empire? Oh, I can't re establish empire
because they're you know, hammer in our oil customers. So
oh well, we'll just keep the empire we've got. I
(09:06):
just I think put maybe too much of a megalomaniac.
How about well, I'll see, how about if Europe's talking
about one hundred thousand troops. Yeah, now, that's that's a threat. Wow.
Uh so speaking of disappointments, Uh, this is a bummer.
Let's see what. Yeah, we got a minute. At the
beginning of the conflict, I remember learning a fair amount
(09:29):
about the fact that the Ukrainians have been training with
the United States in Britain for a long time and
had adapted adopted really American style command and control structures
in that and and this ought to be the envy
of the world. Our military empowers our junior officers with
(09:51):
decision making, you know, discretion in the field. And so
whereas you have the Chinese military, for instance, where you
don't dare to do anything unless you go way up
the chain of command, because if they perceive that you've
done the wrong thing, they'll just they'll put the goat's
horns on you and sacrifice you. That's the way it
operates in totalitarian regimes. Whereas our guys down to the
(10:14):
squad level practically can say, Nope, that objective can't be made.
Let's find a different way to do it anyway. The
headline is Ukraine's once nimble army is mired in Soviet
decision making, and evidently the guys on the front line
are getting more and more unhappy about the increasingly centralized
command culture that often punishes initiative and wastes men's lives.
(10:37):
Oh that's horrifying. And whose idea was that? I just
think it evolved. It's just with bureaucracies.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
That's the way all every bureaucracy I've ever been a
part of in my life.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Turned distortionally. Well, yeah, that's true, that's one hundred percent true.
And then then drench that with the unholy sauce of
trying to you know, shake off the effects of being
a Soviet republic for eight generations or whatever. True, it's
in their genes, well right, exactly. So they were being
dragged kicking and well actually fairly enthusiastically, but you know,
(11:14):
psychologically kicking and screaming into a much more Western style
of command and control. And evidently some of that is
is eroding. Evidently the bitter joke among the Ukrainian service
people is where is it? It's essentially it's the big
Soviet army versus the little Soviet army. Now, wow, that's
(11:38):
they're bigger. We need to be better and we're not
doing it anymore. That is the last kind of news
we needed. Yeah, that's not good. No, it's not coming up.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Chuck Todd, if you'll remember him from Meet the Press,
he explains Washington, America and America to Washington. Chuck Todd
warns America's headed toward a cold civil war based on
that stuff you brought yesterday about becoming even more red
and blue states and divided.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
I don't know what a cold civil war looks like
Antietam in Parks. I don't know what that is. But
that and other stuff on the way stay here.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
There's a recently called to a California Chuck e Cheese
after an adult woman got her arms stuck in one.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Of the arcade games.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Even more embarrassing, she was there without kids. She just
likes their pizza. The firefighter who successfully got her out
got to choose any item from the bottom three shelves.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Were you a mom actually trying to steal one of
the worthless little pieces of crap.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Out of one of those machines. That's embarrassing. That's an
odd story. Sometime tells me there's like a novel length
explanation to that.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Although some of those have like a PlayStation in them
or whatever, they always have some incredible prize in there
that there is not even a one in a gazillion
chance you could ever grasp or win. But it's in there,
so she might have been reaching in there for something
like that. Yeah, she was there. She was there without.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Kids, though, got her arms stuck. She'd seen it while
our kid was operating the claw and thought, I'm gonna
go get me that thing.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Never mind that stinking claw. The fix is in, So
we got to get to this story. Katy brought us
the headline. I don't know what publication you had the
headline from. I'm reading from the New York Post, Katie Frankenstein.
Rabbits with horrifying spikes growing from their heads are invading
the US.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Experts warn, oh no, no, no, poor little guys, did
you read this at all? Yeah, it's horrifying. You don't
think the headline's good. The unbelievable headline headline, the first
line of the story then ruined it for me. Oh yeah,
there's a virus spreading through the cottontail rabbit community. That's
(13:58):
not doing any favors to the little rabbits.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
But if you saw one of these coming at you,
you'd think, what the hell is this?
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Oh, you'd fill your pants. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Yeah, it's horrifying, though some people should be aware if
you see a well an fr Frankenstein rabbit come in
your way, it's it's some sort of virus that's got
It's not from another planet or nuclear answer or something,
or a demon sent from hell to eat our souls
clear right out of our chests now, or he's.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Not lost your mind.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
I love that the local authorities had to let people
know please don't try to catch them, because I see
a diseased rabbit and I'm like, come here, little fella.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Yeah, he's sort of animal. Oh aren't you cute with
your disease. I'm to take you home. It's a viral
illness related to the human papilloma virus, which is nasty. Anyway,
did somebody sex up a rabbit? Is that how it happened? Sure, yeah,
that's what happened, all right. In other sick rabbit news, Wait,
(14:59):
we have no more, thank god?
Speaker 6 (15:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Uh, pictures aren't pleasing now.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
So did we get any emails or texts about our
conversation yesterday about this trend toward feeding your deceased pets
to animals at the zoo?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Yeah? I wonder if people waited in on it.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It's the idea that, like, your dog is old and
you think it's part of the circle of life for
it to be devoured by a lion.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
I took a personal survey at my gym and all
six of the ladies were horrified.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
And yes, your doggar cat is euthanized first.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
You're not.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
You handed over to them alive and they euthanize it.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Or we're so consumed by the lion.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Or so they or so they tell you, they run
out of their euthanizing juice and they just let your
pet run around in the lion cage.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
And how dare you impu in America's zoologists, I'm sure
it's all on the up and up. Actually in Denmark,
I think about it.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
But what's interesting is the number of people that seem
to be horrified by it, even if your pet is
euthanized first, and like, it doesn't bother me.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
But what if you know this is sad, This is
as sad as the rabbit. My question was, you're not
in charge of the content for this segment or any
other this is too sad.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
We did that yesterday and I just wonder how people react.
If more people were like us, like, it doesn't matter
on once they're gone, they've lived a good life, circle life,
or if more people were just horrified.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
At the idea. Yeah, maybe it's because I have an
old dog that I'm having trouble with this. But so
if if you were to say goodbye to your pet
in the manner you see fit, whatever that might be,
and then the helpful folks at the vet brought it
to the zoo to be eaten by a lion, that
I think that yes or no, that's the dividing line.
(16:54):
It all is exactly as you would have it. And
then when when your pet's soul is in pet Hevan,
it's feeding time with the zoo, I think most people
would say, no, thank you, I can't do that.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
I just got my pet cremated and she's in a
beautiful erna and I'm not giving her to the zoo.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
I'm not sure it would haunt my dreams to donate
my dog to your zoo. But it might be armstrong
and getty, treasonous and illegal.
Speaker 6 (17:23):
That's how a Democratic whistleblower characterized Adam Schiff, accusing him
of green lighting the leak of classified information. To undercut
President Trump during the twenty seventeen Russia Gate investigation.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
The President has already said he wants to see Adam
Shiff held accountable for the countless lies he told the
American people in relation to the Russia Gate scandal.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
So I've been reading up on this. This is a
damn interesting story. I'm incredibly biased on this. Like, while
I don't know if I believe Barack Obama did the
things he's being accused of, or Brennan Clapper or whatever,
Brennan's and less confidence, but I absolutely freaking believe Adam
(18:08):
Shiff is guilty of everything he's ever been accused of.
I think he's the worst person in government. I can't
believe he's a US senator, and I hope this is
he pays some penalty for all this.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I think it's practically self evident he leaked classified info,
but or on that to come, God, what a scumbag.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Anyway, let's hear the rest of this report and then
we'll get into some more of the details.
Speaker 6 (18:29):
The whistleblower was a veteran House Intelligence Committee staffer. The
FBI summary obtained by Fox says Schiff told Aids he
would quote leak classified information which was derogatory to the
president in hopes of scoring an indictment for the commander
in chief.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
It's beyond unseemly.
Speaker 6 (18:46):
This was just an egregious breach and really a reprehensible
act on the part of Adam. Schiff's office calls this
baseless smears, saying the whistleblower was quote not rely, not
credible and was fired.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Nothing as a Democrat staffer worth reiterating there, Yeah, if
you didn't catch a Democrat staffer for twelve years on
the Intelligence Committee. So and a little more on this,
and then we'll fill in more of the details. Schiff,
who led.
Speaker 6 (19:18):
The democrats first impeachment of President Trump, now faces an
unrelated criminal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Now it looks like Adam Schiff really did a bad thing.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
They have them.
Speaker 6 (19:31):
Democrats say the GOP is trying to shift the narrative.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Look, this is a nonsense.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
This is an effort to change the subject away from
the Epstein files.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
The problem with that is sometimes when these stories come
out of an administration, it is to change the subject.
But everybody from Nixon to Clinton to Trump and Obama
and everybody whenever the heat is on, they claim over
something they actually they claim this was just a distraction
(20:02):
from the American people. Well, we did not bug any
for it. They're just trying to you know.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
So that's the oldest dodge in the world. So yeah,
and even you know, great example of it, just to
flip the partisan script is when Clinton went after al
Qaeda way back in the day and Republicans talked about
Monica missiles for ah, excuse me a couple of weeks.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
You have allergies an explosive sneeze there, covid.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yeah, Oh my god, Yeah, I have allergy whooping cough.
I don't think so. No. So.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
During an FBI interview in June of twenty twenty three,
the whistleblower, this dozen year Democrat, recalled being part of
an all staff meeting as you just heard, in which
Shiff said the Democrats the quote is stated the group
would leak classified information which was derogatory to the President
(20:57):
of the United States, and it would be used to
in President Trump. Schiff believed, for one thing, he had
told other people he thought when Hillary won, When Hillary won,
he was sure Hillary's going to win, Like everybody in
the world was sure Hillary is going to win. He
believed he was going to become the CIA director for
one thing. Schiff believed that, so he was very excited
(21:18):
about that. When Hillary lost, he was quite upset about it,
but he was convinced. Again this is in quotes, Schiff
believed Russia hijacked the election and the United States was
in the middle of a constitutional crisis. So he is
driven by the fact that he believed Russia had actually
changed the result somehow of a US election, and it
(21:40):
was a constitutional crisis. Obviously, if you believe that, you'd
be pretty damn concerned. Classified information began leaking to the media.
The Democratic Minority leadership of the Intelligence Committee was aware
of the leaks, but was under the impression that leaking
the information was one way to topple the administration and
fix the constitutional crisis. It's the same thing as comy
(22:01):
and so many of these people or journalists, same as
the journalists ignoring Biden having dementia. They believe Trump is
such a threat to American democracy, let's blow up all
norms and violate laws and ethics of every kind to
make sure the new Hitler doesn't end up being president.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
That's how they said, good night, exactly, it nightmarish. Is
it to have the picture of Adam Schiff having the
levers of the CIA at his disposal? Wow, he is
not a long ball hitter. The whole short hitter issue. Yeah,
I'm reading a book right now, recommended by a good
friend by Michael Waller. It's big intel how the CIA
(22:43):
and FBI went from Cold War heroes to deep state villains.
And it is so far, really compelling, and it illustrates
something that I think, if you're you're reasonably smart, you
can figure out yourself. But if you have the level
(23:03):
of secrecy that the intelligence services have, people's own views
of what the priorities of the country ought to be,
no matter what the guy in the Oval office says,
or you know, no matter what Congress just passed as
a law, runs wild, gets off track. Like usually the
(23:29):
idea that the CIA went rogue momentarily, I mean, no, no,
the CIA going rogue is like the whole question. It's
the challenge of having that sort of agency. They woke
up rogue, Yeah, exactly, they went to work rogue, they
went home to their wives, rogue. It's keeping intelligence services
not rogue. That is the never ending challenge of democracies
(23:53):
anyway back to you.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
The unidentified male source who worked as a Democratic staffer
on the House Intelligence Committee for twelve years after more
than two decades in the intelligence community.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
No, no, no, discredited, disgruntled former employee. He was fired
for cause, just to real jackass nobody liked him.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Told FBI agents in December twenty seventeen that the mood
among the panel became indescribable after Trump's upset win the
year before, and ranking membership was particularly upset as he
had believed he would have been appointed as the director
of the CIA if Hillary had won, jumping down this
(24:32):
so when Schiff floated the idea of leaking that information
out because we have a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Going on right now and we need to topple this.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
President, the whistleblower said he objected to Shift's idea, only
to be told by other participants that they would not
be caught leaking classified information, so don't worry about it.
Sometime later, the whistleblower said he was approached again about
leaking against Trump and responded that he believed this activity
to be unethical and treasonous. The whistleblower reached out to
(25:04):
the FBI, and was even invented to attend a mock
grand jury hearing. So they were going through the motions
of having him testify and see what that would look like,
only to be later told that the Justice Department would
not investigate further.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Why did that happen?
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Because investigators believed Schiff was protected by the Constitution's speech
or debate Clause, which bars the apprehension of legislators for
their professional activities except in the event of felony, treason,
or breach of peace. And apparently the Justice Department, and
again this is in twenty well, so he first went
(25:45):
in twenty seventeen, I guess this would have been in
twenty twenty three. So I was about to say it
was a Trump Justice Department, but as a Biden Justice Department.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
So the Biden Justice Department.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Whether you believe this is you know, on the oven
up or not, didn't think that Schiff had run a
foul of the felony treason and breach of priests, breach
of peace to the extent that they could get a
win there. The whistle Bowler claimed during his June twenty
twenty three interview that he did not believe ship's actions
were covered by the speech or debate clause, but apparently
(26:13):
the Justice Department did. But it's the Biden Justice Department, So.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Right, yeah, this is something.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
So do you think this will go far enough that
we actually see this guy testify before a panel or Congress?
Like it'll go that far? You'd need somebody else to
come forward.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
So if he actually said not really not to testify
in front of a committee, I mean that you don't
need much pretext at all for that.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
No, no, no, no, not to have the committee. For
people to believe it, you'd need more than one person.
And I mean if he was saying to this whole committee,
I think this is treasonous, which has just got a
little bit too much. I'm the good guy standing up
against evil is just a tad.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
It might be one hundred percent true, but I don't know.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
You know, the whole on the hero of the story
thing always considers me a little bit.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
There'd be a lot of people on the committee. I mean,
you got the people in the committee.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
He's a staffer, so if he was there for the conversation,
how many people were involved fifty? I mean, if you
got all the committee members and staffers, Okay, minimum twenty
people and nobody else has come forward. Well and well,
how specific have we gotten in describing the situation where
(27:38):
Schiff was advocating this. I mean, because if it was
while Republicans were in the room, you'd think one of
that would said something. By now, that's a good point,
that's a decent point. Ranking membership was particularly upset that
the mood on the panel was indescribable. Indescribable, But the
House Intelligence Committee doesn't include just Democrats obviously.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Right now, there may be some contexts. Were just the
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee get together, right, maybe
the nefarious plot was hatched then, I don't know, it's
just a question. Almost has to be the case for
this story to work. So just to give you a
little overarching feeling of the fast and looseness, I was
(28:24):
trying to describe this book I'm reading, and I've done
some preliminary looking into how credible it is. It seems
to be. The more I read, the more I think,
all right, I got to make sure this is credible
because it's really quite extraordinary. It's descriptions of how Intel
actually works and when it goes wrong, how it you know,
doesn't serve the people of the United States. But one
(28:45):
of the early accounts in the book is the fellow
who wrote it, who is a young like arch conservative
activist type and also a college journalist in DC, and
how he got on the radar of various people who
are high up in the intel community because he was
(29:07):
very enthusiastic about going to Central America in particular, which
is where there was a real divide between Reagan and
his people, including William Casey, the director of the CIA,
what they thought ought to be happening, and Congress, because
Congress at the time was heavily Democrat. I don't remember
the specifics of it, but the Democrats were in general
(29:31):
very supportive of Daniel Ortegan. The Sandinistas. Look it up someday.
It's a fascinating story. And he turned out to be
a communist dictator, I'll be damned anyway, not a brave
you know, a communist liberator of his people. Anyway. So
this guy who had come to the attention of these
heavyweights in ways I could describe, but we don't really
(29:51):
have time. He was told to go to church and
sit in a back pew and stay there till he
was contacted, and he sat there and at the very
very very very end, when the organ was playing, the
director of the CIA himself, William Casey Wow, came up
(30:12):
to him and they had a very brief conversation, and
then an assistant in Casey gave him a name, said
remember this name. Do not forget this name. It's all
you need to know. And then they left. And as
the guy explains in the book, because Congress had either
not authorized or specifically forbidden certain acts or certain you know,
(30:36):
avenues for the intelligence agencies to do their work, Casey
and supporters of Reagan's policies were going entirely outside the
intelligence apparatus and finding private citizens who were similarly dedicated
to do intelligence work for them. And because it was
in church, nobody could compel Casey to testify Wow for
(30:58):
various legal countries too reasons. And so he went to
church on a practically daily basis and had brief conversations
with people Wow and all these people.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
The problem is all these people think they are they
are patriots, and they they can be trusted with working outside.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Of the constitution.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Like James Coley, he believes, you know, I'm a good
guy who cares about America, so it's okay. If I
go around the rules. It doesn't always work out.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And I wholeheartedly agreed at the time and agree now
with Reagan and his people what they were thinking about
Central America. But it's a great illustration of No. No,
I actually believe this stuff and it is really really important.
So I'm just going to go outside the bounds. Insurrection,
(31:49):
that's right. Sometimes it incites erections and insurrections. I just
hope at the end of the day, Adam Schiff ends
up in leg irons in Likechapolic square men where I
can throw very fruit products at his head. That's what
I hope happens.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
More on the way, Times is.
Speaker 7 (32:07):
Now confirming it was a meteorite that smashed through the
roof of a home in mcdona, Georgia, and that it
was twenty million years older than Earth itself. Nicknamed the
McDonough meteorite, it was seen streaking across the sky in June.
Researchers say it's more than four and a half billion
years old, twenty million.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Years older than Earth itself. They can't measure that. I
don't think it's possible.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
No, I don't think so we kind of round how
old the Earth is, not within I mean, it's like
roughly four and a half billion years old, but it's
kind of rounding. You can't round within twenty million on
that anyway. Won't get distracted by that.
Speaker 5 (32:44):
Do you know?
Speaker 3 (32:44):
There are endless meteorites on the Moon. I just learned
this the other day. That's a problem for like a
moon base or anything like that because there's no atmosphere.
You're constantly being pelted by little rocks coming at you
at the speed of bullets, right.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
With no atmosphere to burn them up.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
You know, the Earth has them coming too, but our
atmosphere burns all the little ones up.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Yeah. Fascinating stuff, isn't it. So I guess there's a
big debate between astronomers, not astronomers, just space scientists, rocket
scientists literally over whether we ought to have a moon
base on the Moon or an orbiting base that that
has essentially the same function.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
And I wasn't aware of this, but that's yeah, that's interesting.
And maybe the whole moon base on the Moon that
we've all been picturing is not feasible, right, So a
couple of things we're going to get into next hour,
and I'm really looking forward to although they're both a
little troubling. UH some stories about mental health, one that
(33:39):
has to do with smartphones and and one having to
do with Uh. There's a rash of people becoming therapists
now as other fields disappear, partly because of AI.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Wow, and I think I may have really bad news
for those people.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Yeah, I've gotten the best therapy I've ever gotten in
my life. When I'm a whole bunch of different topics,
the raising kids or whatever from chat GPT.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
And then the other thing I want to get into,
also troubling Franken babies featuring the Chinese Frankenstein as he's
known the whole Well, if we allow gene editing to
get babies to blah blah blah, boid this disease, how
long until we have you know, designer babies being met
(34:27):
Now now is when that's when it's gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Now.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
I want to hear this. Some of the greatest minds
of our time are as enthusiastic as they are about AI.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
I can't wait to hear this. There is not a oh,
we're playing God here, No, there's a let's do it.
How quick, can we do it? Spirit about designing babies, well.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
You people are crazy, but there's always going to be
people like that, so there's no stopping it.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
Yeah, no kidding. So anyway, that's stuff to come next hour.
Among other fair will they be green with bolts in
their neck optional, that's the point. You just check the
Frankenstein box. I mean, it's a little on the nose
to me. Look, we were planning to have a Franken baby,
and so we thought square head, bolts in the neck,
(35:17):
greenish skin, big stitch scar across the forehead. We're kind
of thinking now, maybe that was a little much, but anyway,
we love him. Little kids are making fun of him
at school. We should have thought this through. We've got
more on the way. Armstrong and getdy
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and
Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
The interesting thing that we've seen on the ground here
is the Russians seemed to have come to the conclusion
that the best thing for them to do is be
as silent as possible and let President Trump do most
of the talking. And the message that they're obviously trying
to send to audiences here in Russia, but of course
also internationally into the US, is that Vladimir Putin is
going into this meeting a winner. He's going into this
meeting with momentum on the battlefield and certainly wanting to
(00:44):
push through his own agenda as far as this meeting
is concerned. And the Russians have said that they haven't
changed their stance on Ukraine, which means they don't want
an immediate ceasefire.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
That's more interesting analysis than I was expecting based on
the description on my sheet of paper. I thought it
was just going to be kind of Trump bashing Putin smart,
Trump's dumb. But Putin has been not saying much about this,
whereas Trump's talking every single day. Is that any advantage
in a negotiation standpoint where you don't really have any
(01:15):
idea what Putin's gonna walk in and say, you have
a pretty good idea what Trump's gonna walk in and say.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
You know, I don't know. It's funny. I was gonna
take almost an opposite angle in that several of Putin's
notable mouthpieces are making claims and posturing and trying to
pre spin it, preset the question and the parameters.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
So Trump, first of all, I'd like to know if
Trump is sitting down with anybody and discussing different scenarios
and hypotheticals. I'm guessing he's not based on his track record,
and he's just he's just gonna go with his gut
like he does. In his defense, he sat down for
a lot of big deals in his life, a lot,
(02:02):
so he's got more experience than the average person. But
I'm thinking I was thinking about one time Joe and
I got called to this meeting with some real radio
heavyweights and it got set up and we got there
and they looked at us and they were basically like,
so what are you here for? And we thought it
was like the other way around, Like they called us
(02:22):
in because they had something to say.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
To us, and we weren't prepared for that.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
And I just you know, Trump needs to be ready
for a scenario like that, where you know, putin.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
So what do you got to offer me? Right? I
think that's absolutely true. I mean, that's one possible tack
he takes. Here's an interesting bit of information. This is
a senior Russian lawmaker. He said, though the Ukrainian and
this paraphrasing end quoting, but he said, though the Ukrainian
(02:55):
question has been declared to be the main item of
the agenda. Quote, much more important global issues would be
raised in Alaska, including ambitious plans for economic and infrastructure
cooperation in the Arctic. And that is why. And there
are a couple other quotes that clearly indicate that the
(03:18):
Russian brain trust is thinking, Look, we make Ukraine a
part of something much much bigger and give them what
they want on a few other fronts that don't matter
nearly as much to us. But Trump will see it
as a payday, and then we get to expand into
Eastern Europe. That could be what they actually want.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Also has the added advantage of if it's a complex,
multiple items agenda.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
You get to stall even longer.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
I mean, Trump's not gonna have an answer for that
off the top of his head.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
So you could take the can.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
Down easily for geez, thirty days or six months if
you're talking about you know, Antartica and all kinds of
different things. And then you know, Putin gets to continue
to prosecute the war without the sanctions on the that
that Trump was promising and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So all of that is one of the reasons the
reason Ukraine and the Europeans are probably talking to Trump
right now as we speak and saying, look, this is
about Ukraine. Don't let Putin, you know, tempt you into
some sort of arctic you know, navigation and mineral rights discussion,
because that's what he's going to do. It's about Ukraine. Well,
(04:31):
And the other thing they're trying to say is and
keep in mind, if you sign the treaty first, or
as if he signs the treaty first, while you're signing,
he'll be violating the treaty. So just remember that about
Vladimir Putin. That's a good point. What do you what's
your what's your guts? Say comes out of this this
(04:52):
meeting Friday.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Wow, my my, I don't know, but I would say
my feeling that something positive from my perspective comes out
of it is pretty low.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I see a semi vague We have reached the framework
for discussions that could definitely lead to peace, which would
be a horrible development.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
I was just reading in the Wall Street Journal about
the gains that Russia has made in the last couple
of days. They penetrated some of the defenses and have
gotten quite a ways in and might be able to
use that leverage to grab a pretty decent sized chunk
of land, like just in the next couple of days.
If it ends up being we've come up with a
framework for blah blah blah. So the sanctions are on
hold until January first to work out the details. That's
(05:46):
a one hundred percent of win for Putin. Yeah, and
I bet you a hundred roubles that's essentially what comes
out of this. And if I'm wrong, I'll gladly say so.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
But that's it. Sure feels that way to me. I
don't know. Maybe Trump comes out and says, no, that's it.
I know a bulllesser when I see one, and although
Putin is the best bullsser perhaps on the face of
the earth, he is the tiger Woods of manipulation.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Now Marco Rubio, who oddly has is the Secretary of
State and has been sidelined and all this sort of stuff.
Usually the Secretary of state's like the point person on
these things. Yeah, he'd be having a I mean, he'd
be the press conference everybody's asking questions to every single day.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
But he's not. Trump picked his own.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Negotiator, dude who's a real estate developer, a witcough guy,
or Trump himself so far does not have a great
track record, although he has been sent to, you know,
solve unsolvable problems. True, nobody would have a great track
record going into a talk to Hamas or Putin probably,
But Marco Rubio said something along the lines yesterday that, well,
(06:49):
the first thing is a ceasefire. The first thing we
say is there's got to be a ceasefire. If Trump
can get that, say, look, I'm not discussing anything until
there's a ceasefire. I don't want to hear about a
missile going into Kiev and twenty more people dying in
an apartment. If he makes that his lead I'd be
okay with that. If we do all this kick the
can down the road negotiations during a cease fire, that'd
(07:12):
be a completely different situation.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Yeah, an enforceable cease fire. And that's where the problem is.
I could see, speaking of Putin and his nature, he
would agree to that declared total sees fire. And then
when there's some fighting, sporadic fighting continuing in the critical
Fayotex region of blankety blank. Yeah, either yeah, they fired
on us first, or you know what, we're reaching out
(07:36):
to the commander right now. The communication is not great
right now with all the jamming that's going on stuff,
But don't worry, we'll take care of that. And while
he's on the phone, another attack takes place and they
grab a couple of square miles of a you know,
a key river crossing or something.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
It's possible that Trump has actually met his limit. I mean,
he's said some pretty strong things in the last couple
of weeks about Putin. He's just a liar. He just
he says one thing, does another. I can't trust him.
So if Putin, if Trump has actually come to the
conclusion that he can't trust this guy at all, and
he goes in there and says, okay, step one, ceasefire.
He's got to be a ceasefire. If there's one missile,
(08:10):
there's one dead. Ukrainian sanctions immediately, and we send Ukraine
blah blah blah, you know, armaments. If he does something
like that, there's a chance.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Yeah, I would agree, that's what it would take. If
he meets Putin and gets.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Smoothed by the power of smiling Putin and likes a
picture of them shaking hands and smiling and falls for
I don't know, God's gonna be damn disappointing. I'll say,
I think Trump's got a chance to like make his
legacy over this, change his legacy for all time if.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
He doesn't get punked by Putin. Is their leverage sufficient
to knock a guy off of his goal of re
establishing the Russian Empire? Oh, I can't re establish empire
because they're you know, hammer in our oil customers. So
oh well, we'll just keep the empire we've got. I
(09:06):
just I think put maybe too much of a megalomaniac.
How about well, I'll see, how about if Europe's talking
about one hundred thousand troops. Yeah, now, that's that's a threat. Wow.
Uh so speaking of disappointments, Uh, this is a bummer.
Let's see what. Yeah, we got a minute. At the
beginning of the conflict, I remember learning a fair amount
(09:29):
about the fact that the Ukrainians have been training with
the United States in Britain for a long time and
had adapted adopted really American style command and control structures
in that and and this ought to be the envy
of the world. Our military empowers our junior officers with
(09:51):
decision making, you know, discretion in the field. And so
whereas you have the Chinese military, for instance, where you
don't dare to do anything unless you go way up
the chain of command, because if they perceive that you've
done the wrong thing, they'll just they'll put the goat's
horns on you and sacrifice you. That's the way it
operates in totalitarian regimes. Whereas our guys down to the
(10:14):
squad level practically can say, Nope, that objective can't be made.
Let's find a different way to do it anyway. The
headline is Ukraine's once nimble army is mired in Soviet
decision making, and evidently the guys on the front line
are getting more and more unhappy about the increasingly centralized
command culture that often punishes initiative and wastes men's lives.
(10:37):
Oh that's horrifying. And whose idea was that? I just
think it evolved. It's just with bureaucracies.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
That's the way all every bureaucracy I've ever been a
part of in my life.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Turned distortionally. Well, yeah, that's true, that's one hundred percent true.
And then then drench that with the unholy sauce of
trying to you know, shake off the effects of being
a Soviet republic for eight generations or whatever. True, it's
in their genes, well right, exactly. So they were being
dragged kicking and well actually fairly enthusiastically, but you know,
(11:14):
psychologically kicking and screaming into a much more Western style
of command and control. And evidently some of that is
is eroding. Evidently the bitter joke among the Ukrainian service
people is where is it? It's essentially it's the big
Soviet army versus the little Soviet army. Now, wow, that's
(11:38):
they're bigger. We need to be better and we're not
doing it anymore. That is the last kind of news
we needed. Yeah, that's not good. No, it's not coming up.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Chuck Todd, if you'll remember him from Meet the Press,
he explains Washington, America and America to Washington. Chuck Todd
warns America's headed toward a cold civil war based on
that stuff you brought yesterday about becoming even more red
and blue states and divided.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
I don't know what a cold civil war looks like
Antietam in Parks. I don't know what that is. But
that and other stuff on the way stay here.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
There's a recently called to a California Chuck e Cheese
after an adult woman got her arms stuck in one.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Of the arcade games.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
Even more embarrassing, she was there without kids. She just
likes their pizza. The firefighter who successfully got her out
got to choose any item from the bottom three shelves.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Were you a mom actually trying to steal one of
the worthless little pieces of crap.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Out of one of those machines. That's embarrassing. That's an
odd story. Sometime tells me there's like a novel length
explanation to that.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
Although some of those have like a PlayStation in them
or whatever, they always have some incredible prize in there
that there is not even a one in a gazillion
chance you could ever grasp or win. But it's in there,
so she might have been reaching in there for something
like that. Yeah, she was there. She was there without.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Kids, though, got her arms stuck. She'd seen it while
our kid was operating the claw and thought, I'm gonna
go get me that thing.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Never mind that stinking claw. The fix is in, So
we got to get to this story. Katy brought us
the headline. I don't know what publication you had the
headline from. I'm reading from the New York Post, Katie Frankenstein.
Rabbits with horrifying spikes growing from their heads are invading
the US.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Experts warn, oh no, no, no, poor little guys, did
you read this at all? Yeah, it's horrifying. You don't
think the headline's good. The unbelievable headline headline, the first
line of the story then ruined it for me. Oh yeah,
there's a virus spreading through the cottontail rabbit community. That's
(13:58):
not doing any favors to the little rabbits.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
But if you saw one of these coming at you,
you'd think, what the hell is this?
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Oh, you'd fill your pants. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Yeah, it's horrifying, though some people should be aware if
you see a well an fr Frankenstein rabbit come in
your way, it's it's some sort of virus that's got
It's not from another planet or nuclear answer or something,
or a demon sent from hell to eat our souls
clear right out of our chests now, or he's.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Not lost your mind.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
I love that the local authorities had to let people
know please don't try to catch them, because I see
a diseased rabbit and I'm like, come here, little fella.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
Yeah, he's sort of animal. Oh aren't you cute with
your disease. I'm to take you home. It's a viral
illness related to the human papilloma virus, which is nasty. Anyway,
did somebody sex up a rabbit? Is that how it happened? Sure, yeah,
that's what happened, all right. In other sick rabbit news, Wait,
(14:59):
we have no more, thank god?
Speaker 6 (15:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Uh, pictures aren't pleasing now.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
So did we get any emails or texts about our
conversation yesterday about this trend toward feeding your deceased pets
to animals at the zoo?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Yeah? I wonder if people waited in on it.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
It's the idea that, like, your dog is old and
you think it's part of the circle of life for
it to be devoured by a lion.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
I took a personal survey at my gym and all
six of the ladies were horrified.
Speaker 3 (15:33):
And yes, your doggar cat is euthanized first.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
You're not.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
You handed over to them alive and they euthanize it.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Or we're so consumed by the lion.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Or so they or so they tell you, they run
out of their euthanizing juice and they just let your
pet run around in the lion cage.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
And how dare you impu in America's zoologists, I'm sure
it's all on the up and up. Actually in Denmark,
I think about it.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
But what's interesting is the number of people that seem
to be horrified by it, even if your pet is
euthanized first, and like, it doesn't bother me.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
But what if you know this is sad, This is
as sad as the rabbit. My question was, you're not
in charge of the content for this segment or any
other this is too sad.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
We did that yesterday and I just wonder how people react.
If more people were like us, like, it doesn't matter
on once they're gone, they've lived a good life, circle life,
or if more people were just horrified.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
At the idea. Yeah, maybe it's because I have an
old dog that I'm having trouble with this. But so
if if you were to say goodbye to your pet
in the manner you see fit, whatever that might be,
and then the helpful folks at the vet brought it
to the zoo to be eaten by a lion, that
I think that yes or no, that's the dividing line.
(16:54):
It all is exactly as you would have it. And
then when when your pet's soul is in pet Hevan,
it's feeding time with the zoo, I think most people
would say, no, thank you, I can't do that.
Speaker 5 (17:08):
I just got my pet cremated and she's in a
beautiful erna and I'm not giving her to the zoo.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
I'm not sure it would haunt my dreams to donate
my dog to your zoo. But it might be armstrong
and getty, treasonous and illegal.
Speaker 6 (17:23):
That's how a Democratic whistleblower characterized Adam Schiff, accusing him
of green lighting the leak of classified information. To undercut
President Trump during the twenty seventeen Russia Gate investigation.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
The President has already said he wants to see Adam
Shiff held accountable for the countless lies he told the
American people in relation to the Russia Gate scandal.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
So I've been reading up on this. This is a
damn interesting story. I'm incredibly biased on this. Like, while
I don't know if I believe Barack Obama did the
things he's being accused of, or Brennan Clapper or whatever,
Brennan's and less confidence, but I absolutely freaking believe Adam
(18:08):
Shiff is guilty of everything he's ever been accused of.
I think he's the worst person in government. I can't
believe he's a US senator, and I hope this is
he pays some penalty for all this.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I think it's practically self evident he leaked classified info,
but or on that to come, God, what a scumbag.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
Anyway, let's hear the rest of this report and then
we'll get into some more of the details.
Speaker 6 (18:29):
The whistleblower was a veteran House Intelligence Committee staffer. The
FBI summary obtained by Fox says Schiff told Aids he
would quote leak classified information which was derogatory to the
president in hopes of scoring an indictment for the commander
in chief.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
It's beyond unseemly.
Speaker 6 (18:46):
This was just an egregious breach and really a reprehensible
act on the part of Adam. Schiff's office calls this
baseless smears, saying the whistleblower was quote not rely, not
credible and was fired.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
Nothing as a Democrat staffer worth reiterating there, Yeah, if
you didn't catch a Democrat staffer for twelve years on
the Intelligence Committee. So and a little more on this,
and then we'll fill in more of the details. Schiff,
who led.
Speaker 6 (19:18):
The democrats first impeachment of President Trump, now faces an
unrelated criminal investigation for alleged mortgage fraud.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Now it looks like Adam Schiff really did a bad thing.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
They have them.
Speaker 6 (19:31):
Democrats say the GOP is trying to shift the narrative.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Look, this is a nonsense.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
This is an effort to change the subject away from
the Epstein files.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
The problem with that is sometimes when these stories come
out of an administration, it is to change the subject.
But everybody from Nixon to Clinton to Trump and Obama
and everybody whenever the heat is on, they claim over
something they actually they claim this was just a distraction
(20:02):
from the American people. Well, we did not bug any
for it. They're just trying to you know.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
So that's the oldest dodge in the world. So yeah,
and even you know, great example of it, just to
flip the partisan script is when Clinton went after al
Qaeda way back in the day and Republicans talked about
Monica missiles for ah, excuse me a couple of weeks.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
You have allergies an explosive sneeze there, covid.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yeah, Oh my god, Yeah, I have allergy whooping cough.
I don't think so. No. So.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
During an FBI interview in June of twenty twenty three,
the whistleblower, this dozen year Democrat, recalled being part of
an all staff meeting as you just heard, in which
Shiff said the Democrats the quote is stated the group
would leak classified information which was derogatory to the President
(20:57):
of the United States, and it would be used to
in President Trump. Schiff believed, for one thing, he had
told other people he thought when Hillary won, When Hillary won,
he was sure Hillary's going to win, Like everybody in
the world was sure Hillary is going to win. He
believed he was going to become the CIA director for
one thing. Schiff believed that, so he was very excited
(21:18):
about that. When Hillary lost, he was quite upset about it,
but he was convinced. Again this is in quotes, Schiff
believed Russia hijacked the election and the United States was
in the middle of a constitutional crisis. So he is
driven by the fact that he believed Russia had actually
changed the result somehow of a US election, and it
(21:40):
was a constitutional crisis. Obviously, if you believe that, you'd
be pretty damn concerned. Classified information began leaking to the media.
The Democratic Minority leadership of the Intelligence Committee was aware
of the leaks, but was under the impression that leaking
the information was one way to topple the administration and
fix the constitutional crisis. It's the same thing as comy
(22:01):
and so many of these people or journalists, same as
the journalists ignoring Biden having dementia. They believe Trump is
such a threat to American democracy, let's blow up all
norms and violate laws and ethics of every kind to
make sure the new Hitler doesn't end up being president.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
That's how they said, good night, exactly, it nightmarish. Is
it to have the picture of Adam Schiff having the
levers of the CIA at his disposal? Wow, he is
not a long ball hitter. The whole short hitter issue. Yeah,
I'm reading a book right now, recommended by a good
friend by Michael Waller. It's big intel how the CIA
(22:43):
and FBI went from Cold War heroes to deep state villains.
And it is so far, really compelling, and it illustrates
something that I think, if you're you're reasonably smart, you
can figure out yourself. But if you have the level
(23:03):
of secrecy that the intelligence services have, people's own views
of what the priorities of the country ought to be,
no matter what the guy in the Oval office says,
or you know, no matter what Congress just passed as
a law, runs wild, gets off track. Like usually the
(23:29):
idea that the CIA went rogue momentarily, I mean, no, no,
the CIA going rogue is like the whole question. It's
the challenge of having that sort of agency. They woke
up rogue, Yeah, exactly, they went to work rogue, they
went home to their wives, rogue. It's keeping intelligence services
not rogue. That is the never ending challenge of democracies
(23:53):
anyway back to you.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
The unidentified male source who worked as a Democratic staffer
on the House Intelligence Committee for twelve years after more
than two decades in the intelligence community.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
No, no, no, discredited, disgruntled former employee. He was fired
for cause, just to real jackass nobody liked him.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Told FBI agents in December twenty seventeen that the mood
among the panel became indescribable after Trump's upset win the
year before, and ranking membership was particularly upset as he
had believed he would have been appointed as the director
of the CIA if Hillary had won, jumping down this
(24:32):
so when Schiff floated the idea of leaking that information
out because we have a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Going on right now and we need to topple this.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
President, the whistleblower said he objected to Shift's idea, only
to be told by other participants that they would not
be caught leaking classified information, so don't worry about it.
Sometime later, the whistleblower said he was approached again about
leaking against Trump and responded that he believed this activity
to be unethical and treasonous. The whistleblower reached out to
(25:04):
the FBI, and was even invented to attend a mock
grand jury hearing. So they were going through the motions
of having him testify and see what that would look like,
only to be later told that the Justice Department would
not investigate further.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Why did that happen?
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Because investigators believed Schiff was protected by the Constitution's speech
or debate Clause, which bars the apprehension of legislators for
their professional activities except in the event of felony, treason,
or breach of peace. And apparently the Justice Department, and
again this is in twenty well, so he first went
(25:45):
in twenty seventeen, I guess this would have been in
twenty twenty three. So I was about to say it
was a Trump Justice Department, but as a Biden Justice Department.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
So the Biden Justice Department.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Whether you believe this is you know, on the oven
up or not, didn't think that Schiff had run a
foul of the felony treason and breach of priests, breach
of peace to the extent that they could get a
win there. The whistle Bowler claimed during his June twenty
twenty three interview that he did not believe ship's actions
were covered by the speech or debate clause, but apparently
(26:13):
the Justice Department did. But it's the Biden Justice Department, So.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Right, yeah, this is something.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
So do you think this will go far enough that
we actually see this guy testify before a panel or Congress?
Like it'll go that far? You'd need somebody else to
come forward.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
So if he actually said not really not to testify
in front of a committee, I mean that you don't
need much pretext at all for that.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
No, no, no, no, not to have the committee. For
people to believe it, you'd need more than one person.
And I mean if he was saying to this whole committee,
I think this is treasonous, which has just got a
little bit too much. I'm the good guy standing up
against evil is just a tad.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
It might be one hundred percent true, but I don't know.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
You know, the whole on the hero of the story
thing always considers me a little bit.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
There'd be a lot of people on the committee. I mean,
you got the people in the committee.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
He's a staffer, so if he was there for the conversation,
how many people were involved fifty? I mean, if you
got all the committee members and staffers, Okay, minimum twenty
people and nobody else has come forward. Well and well,
how specific have we gotten in describing the situation where
(27:38):
Schiff was advocating this. I mean, because if it was
while Republicans were in the room, you'd think one of
that would said something. By now, that's a good point,
that's a decent point. Ranking membership was particularly upset that
the mood on the panel was indescribable. Indescribable, But the
House Intelligence Committee doesn't include just Democrats obviously.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Right now, there may be some contexts. Were just the
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee get together, right, maybe
the nefarious plot was hatched then, I don't know, it's
just a question. Almost has to be the case for
this story to work. So just to give you a
little overarching feeling of the fast and looseness, I was
(28:24):
trying to describe this book I'm reading, and I've done
some preliminary looking into how credible it is. It seems
to be. The more I read, the more I think,
all right, I got to make sure this is credible
because it's really quite extraordinary. It's descriptions of how Intel
actually works and when it goes wrong, how it you know,
doesn't serve the people of the United States. But one
(28:45):
of the early accounts in the book is the fellow
who wrote it, who is a young like arch conservative
activist type and also a college journalist in DC, and
how he got on the radar of various people who
are high up in the intel community because he was
(29:07):
very enthusiastic about going to Central America in particular, which
is where there was a real divide between Reagan and
his people, including William Casey, the director of the CIA,
what they thought ought to be happening, and Congress, because
Congress at the time was heavily Democrat. I don't remember
the specifics of it, but the Democrats were in general
(29:31):
very supportive of Daniel Ortegan. The Sandinistas. Look it up someday.
It's a fascinating story. And he turned out to be
a communist dictator, I'll be damned anyway, not a brave
you know, a communist liberator of his people. Anyway. So
this guy who had come to the attention of these
heavyweights in ways I could describe, but we don't really
(29:51):
have time. He was told to go to church and
sit in a back pew and stay there till he
was contacted, and he sat there and at the very
very very very end, when the organ was playing, the
director of the CIA himself, William Casey Wow, came up
(30:12):
to him and they had a very brief conversation, and
then an assistant in Casey gave him a name, said
remember this name. Do not forget this name. It's all
you need to know. And then they left. And as
the guy explains in the book, because Congress had either
not authorized or specifically forbidden certain acts or certain you know,
(30:36):
avenues for the intelligence agencies to do their work, Casey
and supporters of Reagan's policies were going entirely outside the
intelligence apparatus and finding private citizens who were similarly dedicated
to do intelligence work for them. And because it was
in church, nobody could compel Casey to testify Wow for
(30:58):
various legal countries too reasons. And so he went to
church on a practically daily basis and had brief conversations
with people Wow and all these people.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
The problem is all these people think they are they
are patriots, and they they can be trusted with working outside.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Of the constitution.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
Like James Coley, he believes, you know, I'm a good
guy who cares about America, so it's okay. If I
go around the rules. It doesn't always work out.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And I wholeheartedly agreed at the time and agree now
with Reagan and his people what they were thinking about
Central America. But it's a great illustration of No. No,
I actually believe this stuff and it is really really important.
So I'm just going to go outside the bounds. Insurrection,
(31:49):
that's right. Sometimes it incites erections and insurrections. I just
hope at the end of the day, Adam Schiff ends
up in leg irons in Likechapolic square men where I
can throw very fruit products at his head. That's what
I hope happens.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
More on the way, Times is.
Speaker 7 (32:07):
Now confirming it was a meteorite that smashed through the
roof of a home in mcdona, Georgia, and that it
was twenty million years older than Earth itself. Nicknamed the
McDonough meteorite, it was seen streaking across the sky in June.
Researchers say it's more than four and a half billion
years old, twenty million.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Years older than Earth itself. They can't measure that. I
don't think it's possible.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
No, I don't think so we kind of round how
old the Earth is, not within I mean, it's like
roughly four and a half billion years old, but it's
kind of rounding. You can't round within twenty million on
that anyway. Won't get distracted by that.
Speaker 5 (32:44):
Do you know?
Speaker 3 (32:44):
There are endless meteorites on the Moon. I just learned
this the other day. That's a problem for like a
moon base or anything like that because there's no atmosphere.
You're constantly being pelted by little rocks coming at you
at the speed of bullets, right.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
With no atmosphere to burn them up.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
You know, the Earth has them coming too, but our
atmosphere burns all the little ones up.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
Yeah. Fascinating stuff, isn't it. So I guess there's a
big debate between astronomers, not astronomers, just space scientists, rocket
scientists literally over whether we ought to have a moon
base on the Moon or an orbiting base that that
has essentially the same function.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
And I wasn't aware of this, but that's yeah, that's interesting.
And maybe the whole moon base on the Moon that
we've all been picturing is not feasible, right, So a
couple of things we're going to get into next hour,
and I'm really looking forward to although they're both a
little troubling. UH some stories about mental health, one that
(33:39):
has to do with smartphones and and one having to
do with Uh. There's a rash of people becoming therapists
now as other fields disappear, partly because of AI.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Wow, and I think I may have really bad news
for those people.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Yeah, I've gotten the best therapy I've ever gotten in
my life. When I'm a whole bunch of different topics,
the raising kids or whatever from chat GPT.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
And then the other thing I want to get into,
also troubling Franken babies featuring the Chinese Frankenstein as he's
known the whole Well, if we allow gene editing to
get babies to blah blah blah, boid this disease, how
long until we have you know, designer babies being met
(34:27):
Now now is when that's when it's gonna happen.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Now.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
I want to hear this. Some of the greatest minds
of our time are as enthusiastic as they are about AI.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
I can't wait to hear this. There is not a oh,
we're playing God here, No, there's a let's do it.
How quick, can we do it? Spirit about designing babies, well.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
You people are crazy, but there's always going to be
people like that, so there's no stopping it.
Speaker 1 (34:54):
Yeah, no kidding. So anyway, that's stuff to come next hour.
Among other fair will they be green with bolts in
their neck optional, that's the point. You just check the
Frankenstein box. I mean, it's a little on the nose
to me. Look, we were planning to have a Franken baby,
and so we thought square head, bolts in the neck,
(35:17):
greenish skin, big stitch scar across the forehead. We're kind
of thinking now, maybe that was a little much, but anyway,
we love him. Little kids are making fun of him
at school. We should have thought this through. We've got
more on the way. Armstrong and getdy
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.