Dan Carroll talks with Congressman Wenstrup

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Six fifty on this Monday morning. Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas.
I've been teasing it all morning. The brad Winstrop is
going to be here in the seven o'clock hour. But
I should not be surprised that a military man is
here early, showing up early here army time, oh seven hundred.
But you're here early, Brad Weinster. How are you? I'm

(00:24):
doing all right? And in the seven o'clock hour we're
going to talk about your report, which is good, but
this gives me a little time to what to talk
about you and your time in DC is coming to
an end. You announced that you were not going to
run for re election and what's that process been like.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well, it's been different, I mean, byron large, it didn't
feel any different until after the election. Yeah, after the
election in November, then you suddenly felt that.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
That's when you feel the finality of it.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Well, yeah, and you feel that, like you know, for
a lot of things, you just don't matter anymore. And
you start to see all these new people showing up
because a lot of the new members are around and
they haven't been sworn in yet. But there's just a
lot of things. But by and large. I had things
that I've been working on trying to get into our
final packages, which, of course, it would be a whole

(01:13):
lot easier if we just didn't throw everything into one
big pale at the end of the year. Instead did
things a little by little. But wrapping up this two
years of the pandemic Select Subcommittee has really been all encompassing.
I mean, we put together a five hundred and twenty
page report, you know, but other than that, it's been

(01:35):
kind of business as usual, except you know, now for
this last month or so, you have no office. They
give you a cubicle in the basement, and you know,
you've still got some staff around. Some have moved on,
but most of ours have said I'll take my next
job when we're finished, and so that's been good. Yeah,
but it's different. And since I had the Select Subcommittee,

(01:57):
I have an office to go to where there's you know,
it might not, but you know, it's it's bittersweet, for sure.
I have no regrets. At the twelve years of serving
in Congress. It's been a huge honor. It's it's messier,
messier than it needs to be by far. But in
a lot of ways, we quietly got a lot of
things done that never made headlines, and I'm proud of that.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, I mean that's usually the case. You know. I've
been to Washington a handful of times and spent a
little time walking around the halls of Congress and some
of the office buildings there, which are just I mean,
it really is just being there and seeing all that.
It really is a special place. And and I think
so many people get the wrong idea about DC because

(02:40):
we talk about it in such negatives way in negative ways,
but I mean in so many ways. I mean, it
really is a swamp. It really is so despicable the
way things are run in this government these days. But
there's got to be aspects of it that when you
when I mean when you when you look at how
just how how great it is and how meaningful it
is to it to really be there on a daily basis, Yeah,

(03:01):
it absolutely is.

Speaker 2 (03:02):
And you know, the American people don't get the full
perception because, uh, you know, I was asked at a
little roundtable whether it was departing members three of US,
one Democrat, two Republicans, and they moderator said, what can
be done to calm some of the chaos? I said,
I think it would make a difference if the media
paid more attention to those that actually got things across

(03:24):
the finish line than those that never do. Because truthfully,
by and large, the people that you see day in
and day out that are rowdy, et cetera, they really
they don't usually get something done. They don't pass bills,
they don't take away bills, they don't stop regulations there
you know, and that that is a problem. But I
think the bigger problem we have today is something that

(03:47):
didn't exist with our with our founders. When our country
was founded, we had three agencies, State, Treasury, and war.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
That was it.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
I changed my mind on term limits because if you've
just if you're only their two terms, you never establish
enough street cred if you will to do things right.
But in the agencies, those are the people that never
leave and they're not elected. That's where we need to
make change. It should be like the military, you get
if you don't get promoted, you're out, and when you

(04:19):
reach the top, you're term limited. We have people that
nest there forever and they're controlling way too much.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
And see when I look at at DOJE, Okay, the
Department of Government Efficiency theak Raamaswami and Elon Musk When
I hear them talk, that's what I hear them concentrating
on the bloat in the federal government and they're talking about,
you know, there's what two hundred and summer five hundred
some agencies right now. They're talking about, we can take
this down to ninety nine. And essentially they're talking about

(04:48):
the apparatus of government that spends so much money. All
you hear in the media is, Oh, they want to
cut Medicare, they want to cut Social Security, they want
to cut you know, all these entitlement programs. I haven't
heard them talk about that at all. They're talking about
govern an efficiency, and that's a great place to start.
If you can streamline things and make things more efficient, right,
efficiencies right there in the name. I think that's an

(05:08):
important first step.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
It's not bad to have some of the things, but
are they working and what does success look like? You
go to just go to the website and look at
Health and Human Services and all the sub agencies that
are part of that, and you look at that and say,
what are these people doing that are making us a
healthier nation? Because that's really what that agency should be
about and work with Congress that we put things in place. Look,

(05:32):
I'm glad to have a country with safety nets, but
success means fewer people needing them. That's what success looks like,
not putting more people into problem.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
I agree with that. And you even in your report
you talk about the billions of dollars that got wasted
during the whole the whole COVID episode. Absolutely, when when
we look at that and act like that, you know,
there's a few billion here, a few billions, they're not
that big of a deal that that mindset needs to change.
And I think you know what, what the work you
did on that may be one of the first steps

(06:04):
in the sort of change in that mindset.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
This should be a roadmap. This should we'll talk about
it more, but this should be a roadmap to the future.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
All right, get it to a break here, news coming
up top of the hour, and then we will continue
on with Congressman. Can I still I'll always be able
to call you Congressman or Brad during the entire seven
o'clock hour, and we invite you to stick around for
that and maybe maybe we'll take a call or too,
maybe later on. That'll be great. Five three seven, five hundred,

(06:30):
Dan Carroll for Brian Thomas, fifty five KRC, The talk Station,
Your Voice freshing your country for Reasonable American fifty five KRC,
the talk Station. This report is sponsored by Staples Story

(06:52):
fifty five KRC, the Talk Station. Rainy Monday Morning, Dan
Carroll in for Brian Thomas. Brian Thomas is back tomorrow,
so we are all looking forward to that. And as
promised earlier in this show, we are going to spend
the seven o'clock hour with Congressman brad Winstrip and he
and his Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic have just

(07:16):
wrapped up a two year investigation into COVID nineteen, or
as I like to refer to it, the Wuhan and
brad Winstrip is here and brad winsterp how are you.
I'm doing all right, it's good to see.

Speaker 2 (07:26):
How about those Bengals, Well, we have an offense.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yeah, that's fact. I mean think about that. You got
to go out there and they're saying that, look, you
guys got to score forty points every game if you
want to have a chance to win it, and it's unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, they got some work to do in the off season. Yes,
oh it's not off season yet.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Darn it. Well when the all season good. That can't
get here faster though, And January twentieth can't get here
fast enough either. But you know what, thanks for coming in.
It's great. It's great to see you again. It's been
a little while. But I mean you look good. You
look like you've got a little bit of weight. Take
them off your shoulders.

Speaker 2 (08:04):
Yes, yeah, this two year's log is really not just
a two year's log of the Select Subcommittee. But it's
been five years. You know, I sit on Intelligence Committee,
and I can remember during lockdown, another doctor in Ohio
was calling me and he was calling infectious disease doctors
in China. We were looking at how do we treat this?

(08:25):
What's going on? You know, this thing's novel called that
for a reason, no one knew quite what to do.
We were learning what we could learn from from lab work,
from cts and you know, what's the best way to
try and treat this. But in the process we started
sharing other things that we were discovering online. And one
of the things was an article from twenty fifteen. He said,

(08:47):
take a look at this, and it was Ralph Berrick
in North Carolina, Zengli She and Wuhan, China, and they
had created chaimeras in the lab. They had taken parts
of different viruses, made new viruses and made them more
pathogenic to human beings. I mean, this was unbelievable. And
my first thought is bioweapons. That was when I saw that.

(09:10):
That was my first thought. I'm on intelligence committee. I've
been looking at our adversaries bioweapons for some time before
covid Our State Department in two thousand and five said
that China has a bioweapons program. In twenty fifteen, they
published a book in China about making coronavirus bioweapons.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
I mean, what more do you need?

Speaker 2 (09:31):
And public statements by Chinese scientists about, you know, the
possibility of coronaviruses being bioweapons. It was all there. So
my concern went way up in this situation. And then
you know, you start to uncover things that like we're
actually doing gain of function research in Wuhan, China, which

(09:51):
is the idea of making something more infectious to humans.
It's unbelievable. How did we get here? And and so you know,
I've been looking at all this stuff and several people
on Intelligence Committee especially, and you know, we got a
five hundred and twenty page report that's the unclassified version.
You know, we've got more on the other side and

(10:14):
on the classified side. But let me the overarching thing
to all of this is one China's cover up so obvious.
They got rid of sequence as samples, they wouldn't let
people in THEIRS was a very clear cover up. They
sent me a letter when we started the Select Subcommittee
saying they have grave concerns that we're even looking into

(10:34):
the origins of COVID. You know this is this has
already been settled by that you were doing your own investigations.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
Yeah, they frowned on that. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
I wrote them back and I said, I don't think.
I don't think you're going to dictate what we investigated
on your land states.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
No.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
But but then they said this is already done by scientists.
I said, well, we have seven physicians on here, and
we're bringing in scientists. And I named five of theirs
that I'd like to see and one of them, I said,
if still alive, if you get my drift there. But
that's how they operate. But it wasn't just their cover up.
It was a cover up within our own government.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
And to me, that's I mean. And I looked at you,
look at all the elements of this, and it is
one scandal after another. I mean, each one of these
things by itself is a huge scandal unto itself. But
you pile one on top of the other, on top
of the other, and the American people hear about this
and their eyes start to glaze over because it's just

(11:31):
so much. It really, I mean, it really is. And
each one of these it is absolutely jaw dropping the
way you put it in the report. But before we
get too far down this road, let's let's go back
to the beginning. I think there was a sense in
Congress from the very beginning that we want to have
an investigation, we want to look into this. This investigation

(11:52):
two years you spent on it would not have happened
but for Republicans taking control of the House in twenty twelve.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
That's absolutely true. And as a matter of fact, the
minority during this said we were spending a lot of
time on things that we shouldn't be looking into. And
I called this from the very beginning, using my military background,
this is an after action review we're looking at lessons learned,
and we're going to plan out a path forward so

(12:20):
that we are ready equipped and able to go the
next time this something like this happens, and there will
be a next time. The other cover up though, of
the three, if you will, we're international scientists that wanted
to steer everyone away from a lab leak theory and
only look at the possibility of nature. And in their
internal documents they're saying, all right, we're going to write

(12:42):
this article and our job is to disprove the lab
leak theory. They don't even talk about the lab leak
as the theory. They only talk about nature. And in
their internal documents they're saying, we can't rule out that
it's engineered. This thing sure looks engineered. We started to
get all that information through Freedom of Information Act and
then our subpoenas.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
But so many times when you have and one of
my big issues, when you have uh when you government
in general, but when you when you have a committee,
when you have an investigation like this, far too often
before the work even begins, there's a there's an outcome
or a destination that seems predetermined. And this happened so

(13:21):
many Times in Washington. My sense is with this committee
that you did not start with a desired result, and
you wanted your work to lead you to that result.
Am I right about that? I wanted to this committee
with the idea of finding fact and exposing what what
really took.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
Place and then present a path forward. And so you know,
as I went through this, this was important to me.
I never mentioned political party one time in any of
our writings or in a conversation. We did not mention
political party on our side because it was about finding facts.
But what actually happened, Dan is every time we looked
under a rock, there was another rock to look under it,
and another lie rock to look under. So yeah, we're

(14:01):
going to look at EcoHealth Alliance, who was doing gain
of function research in China. Well, as we're looking through
their stuff and their internal documents, we hear from doctor
David Moorins, who was doctor Fauci's deputy, and he's saying
things like, hey, write me on my Gmail because these
blankety blanks are foyering me in other words, requesting documents

(14:23):
which belonged to the American people. He goes, and I'll
delete anything I don't want showing up in the New
York Times. Clear intent to deceive the American people was
right there. So now we look into him and it just.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
Kind of thing is, people like Rand Paul were exposing
this in real time, and when all this was going on,
there was no sense that any of this needs to
be investigated, none of this needs to be looked into.
And again, we wouldn't be here today had it not
been for a change in what happened in leadership.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
Yeah, Ram Paul asked the you question, were you doing
gain of function research in China?

Speaker 1 (15:03):
Doctor Falci said no.

Speaker 2 (15:04):
Then later he said, I was thinking of the different
definition suddenly that suddenly appeared on their website. I was
thinking of a different definition. That's that's why I said
it that way.

Speaker 1 (15:16):
You know. So he told him, you don't know what
you're talking about, That's what he said. Did you ever
say that to you, You don't know what you're talking No,
he didn't know. He did not, because by the time
I had him. By the time I had him, we
had a pretty idea what we were talking about, and
he knew and understood that and respected that. I think throughout.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
And you know, look, we got him going from where
he had publicly said, you know, it's a conspiracy theory
if you say it came from the lab to No,
it's not a conspiracy theory. Doctor Collins, the same thing,
but look, here's the motive. In twenty eleven and twenty twelve,
you know, you got articles by Fauci and Collins bragging
about gain to function research being a great tool, and

(15:57):
their idea was that they could create a virus and
that they think will come out of nature eventually, and
if we already have it and can create a vaccine
for it, then we're ahead of the game. But they
were asked in twenty twelve doctor Fauci specifically, well aren't
you concerned about it getting out lab and creating a pandemic?
This is in twenty twelve, and he said, well, I

(16:18):
think the benefits out weigh the risk.

Speaker 1 (16:20):
Oh, for God's sake, all right, yeah, and how many
million dead? That's what would maybe you know, frown on that.
So wouldn't you want to say that it came from nature? Well? Yeah,
wash your hands. Look look at the shiny object over there.
Don't look at me. All right, we got to get
to a break. But when we come back, I want
to start walking through some of the specific points that

(16:43):
you make in the report, and we'll go through those
one by one as we spend the seven o'clock hour
with Congressman Brad Westerner up here on fifty five KRCV
Talks to fifty five KRCD Talk station. Dan Carroll for
Brian Thomas and Brad weinstervis here today talking about the
Select Subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic. To your investigation has done,
the report is out. You had a markup that happened.

(17:06):
I believe it was Thursday last week. Wednesday, Thursday last week.
And what exactly was that about.

Speaker 2 (17:13):
The markup was just we had unanimous consent from both
sides of the aisle OK to move the reports, our
report forwards.

Speaker 1 (17:22):
So a procedural thing more more than anything else. That's
all I was. Yeah, no fireworks. Let's start with some
of the things that jumped out at me. And when
we talk about the origin of the COVID nineteen, which
I called the Wuhan virus. So the committee finds COVID
nineteen most likely emerged from a lab in Wuhan, China,

(17:44):
And you provide some of the five strongest arguments in
favor of the lab leak theory. One that resonates with
me is that the virus possesses a biological characistic not
found in nature, and if there was evidence of a
natural origin, it would have already surfaced. So when we

(18:06):
look at these this sort of evidence, why can we
not say definitively that the virus came from a lamb?

Speaker 2 (18:14):
Because China didn't cooperate at all, and so that's always
going to be the unknown. And if somebody from China
were to speak up and tell the whole story and
tell the truth and say, you know what they thought,
we destroyed the samples, I actually have them, that person
probably wouldn't be around very long. But that's the biggest obstruction.
But as John Radcliffe, who was Director of National Intelligence

(18:38):
and now will be CIA director, what he said was true.
He said nobody had more intelligence in front of them
than he did. You know, from across the board, and
if you were to put together the forensics the evidence,
if you will, on one side you had arguments for nature,

(18:59):
and the other side you had arguments for LAB. I mean,
the list goes on and on for LAB and it's
very short in nature, and you've never found it, which
usually we have at some points you find the animal.
And the article that was written called proximal Origins was
by a group of scientists that Fauci, Collins and a
guy named Jeremy Farrar put together, and they even said

(19:23):
in their emails that their focus was to disprove the
lab leak theory when they wrote their article. And the
very day that doctor Fauci went on the White House
lawn and acted surprise, like, whoa, look, here's this article,
which he knew was being written. He said, this article
by these brilliant evolutionary virologists are saying that this came

(19:45):
from this came from nature, This came from nature, and
that should settle it right. The very day one of
the authors of that was writing an email and he said,
we still can't rule out this thing as engineered.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
There's just too much there.

Speaker 2 (20:00):
This is what they were saying, but not what they
presented to the public, and not what doctor Fauci presented
to the public. And when we had doctor Fauci in
for interview, you know, I said, well, you tellted this
article proximal origins, I said, but you now say that
it's not a conspiracy theory that it could be a
lab leak theory. He said, did you ever talk to

(20:23):
the authors of or read these articles? And I went
through litany of scientific articles by actual virologists that were saying,
here's how you can make this in the lab, and
how we believe it was made in the lab COVID
nineteen I'm talking about. And he said, no, never talk
to them. Well, you said you had an open mind,
But how can you say you have an open mind

(20:44):
if you never looked into the other side and all
that was out there, and so but we did, But
we did, and we talked to them all. We talked
to people from both sides. We talked to the people
that said they thought it came from nature, who all
had skin in the game because they do this type
of work. And these were people involved that said things like,

(21:07):
imagine the s show that will happen if people think
this came from the lab. And I'm paraphrasing here, right,
but also imagine what this will do to international harmony
and our research if it's concluded it came from the lab.
They had all the motive, Dan and and now, and
but we discovered it. We discovered their motive it's it's

(21:27):
sitting right there. But they didn't think anyone would ever
see what they were saying.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
But but but this, this gave rise to this, this
bigger notion that the only narrative that we are supposed
to accept, the only narrative that is uh that that
we will allow to be on the news, is the
one that we want that and and and I think
that was one of the most dangerous things that come
out of this, the notion that we can only accept

(21:55):
the approved government narrative of a of a particular Yeah,
and think about this, and that gets into a whole
lot of, you know, bigger things in general society.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
I think everyone will remember when Donald Trump said we're
going to restrict travel. Okay, we asked doctor Fauci, were
you in favor of that? Did you recommend that we
restrict travel? And he said yes, it was a good idea.
And I'm thinking, well, where were you when all that
was on the news and everything out of the politicians

(22:24):
from the other side of the aisle, which none of
this should have been political started saying, oh, that's racist
and xenophobic.

Speaker 1 (22:32):
So I asked doctor.

Speaker 2 (22:33):
I asked doctor Fauci, was restricting travel racist. He said no,
was it xenophobic? He said no, Well, why didn't you
say that when that became the narrative to the public.
You're supposed to be a public health leader, then clear
the record of what is actually what you recommended, by
the way, and and so that's just another example. But

(22:56):
we saw things FDA rush for full of approval of
the vaccine. Look, I believe the vaccine saved hundreds of
thousands of lives of the most vulnerable. And I was
for the emergency Youth authorization authorization for those that we
knew were dying.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
Well the state to hold that dot because I want
to get into the vaccine as we continue, we got
a ton of stuff to get to here, but we
got to get to a quick break and we'll continue
on with brad Redstrip right after this on fifty five KRC,
the talk station. Right now, you can save up to
twenty seven twenty eight time from the nine first morning
forecast rain today a high of fifty six, then cloudy tonight,

(23:37):
some fog as well. The other night low fifty one
and some more showers on top four tomorrow forty seven
for the high fifty two. At fifty five KRC, the
talk stage from the UCF Tramphing Center.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
When it comes to stroke, every second count. So that's
why the uc Health Comprehensive Stroke Center is a clear
choice for RAPPID life saving treatment.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
Learn more at you see health dot com.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
They've walked off east found Reagan the Highway at the
Gabreth due to an accident, and then it's backing traffic
cup quickly to Hamilton Avenue. There's a wreck on southbound
seventy five s ramp to eastbound two seventy five in
erl Ainger, as well as river at Bender Chuck Ingram
On fifty five krc DE talk station.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
Fifty five kr CD talk Station seven twenty nine, we
continue our conversation with Congressman brad Winstrip. So the lab leak,
and one more thing on the lab leak, and then
I'll want to move on. But in the fall of
twenty nineteen, months before COVID nineteen was discovered at the
Wet Market or I guess at least that narrative was

(24:43):
out there, China chose not to disclose this information that
there was a couple of researchers at the Wuhan Lab
who came down sick with with COVID nineteen. They didn't
tell the United States, didn't tell the CDC, NIH World
Health Organization. So this is where things really start to
unravel in our relationship with China as it relates to

(25:06):
this issue. Is that accurate?

Speaker 2 (25:07):
Yes, And for those in the arena, people were starting
to see rumors of a new type of pneumonia developing
in China. They also as time went on, they changed
their ventilation system in the woman lab to be one
that filters better. They had reports over time of accidents

(25:30):
in their labs, and they were using for this a
BSL two, which is a lower level of security. And
even Ralph Berrick, who does this type of research in
North Carolina, he said needs to be done at a
level three or four, nothing less. But there that's what
was being done. And then their military took over the lab.
I mean, all of these things are pretty good indicators

(25:53):
of what was going on. But the bottom line is
President She lied. He said things were in the controller
light to the who he manipulated, the who he lied.
You know, I would hear people say Donald Trump lied,
I suddenly lied. He just believed President She was being
honest and he wasn't. And quickly. I think President Trump
figured that out pretty quickly.

Speaker 1 (26:17):
One of the least surprising things to me is that
federal and state governments were not coordinated and were unprepared
to oversee the allocation of WUHAN Relief Funds paycheck protection
program supposed to help working Americans. At least sixty four
billion dollars was lost to chislers and criminals. There another

(26:38):
one hundred and ninety one billion went down the drain
through fraud and federal government unemployment system. So all this
money that was wasted when you talk about these programs
that were supposed to help people out, this is another scandalous,
unbelievably scandalous aspect of this that all this money went

(27:00):
out the door and there was essentially no accounting for
any of it. And then there were some half hearted efforts,
I think, to recoup some of that money, but by
and large, we just you know, flushed, you know, hundreds
of billions of dollars down the drain, and no one
seems to care.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
Yeah, we're trying to incentivize states by being able to
maybe keep some of what they recover to do that,
and that really was was held up. But the biggest thing.
The one that was the most egregious dand through the
whole thing is with unemployment and you and what was
put in place against our wishes on Ways and Means

(27:40):
committee was this self attestation. In other words, you just
say you're unemployed. You know, we weren't asking for verifying data,
which was easy to get. And actually Horowitz, who also
was the inspector General for Faiza, going back to the
fake Russian collusion narrative, you know, he pointed that out

(28:02):
that this was absolutely the worst thing that we could
do is just let people do that, and he pointed
out how easily it could have been done. So again,
solutions oriented as well, but it was there from the beginning.
It should have been able to be done that way.
But the theft is absolutely appalling at a time when
we are so far in debt and now we're just

(28:24):
aiding a bend people that hate us, that are stealing money,
because a lot of it were foreign adversaries that were stealing.

Speaker 1 (28:32):
But see, I think that's what I think about that
this report. Then why it's important that you document all
those things because during the course of your investigation you said, well,
look at this element of it, and instead of just
leaving that alone. You detail that in the report, and
I think that's really important. This report does not reflect
well on doctor Fauci. Are the dots if someone wants

(28:53):
to go through this report and connect the dots on
doctor Fauci And I don't know that there's been a
referral for him to be investigated criminally on this, but
are there are the dots there in this report to
be able to connect if somebody wants, oh the dots
are there? Maybe a legitimate media outlet wants to do that.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
The dots are there to connect. The question is was
anything done illegal? Look, I would say this early on
people were going to be subject to being what about
the fund wrong?

Speaker 1 (29:25):
That's the fun It wasn't there already something in place?
Oh let me go through that. Yeah, let me go
through that that that we're not allowed to do this
sort of funding and yet he was signing off on
it anyway. Yeah, so let's go through that. I'm glad.

Speaker 2 (29:37):
I'm glad you brought that up because that, to me
is one of the key findings of everything.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Because he did that behind Trump's back, and this is
before the WUHAN even started.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well, let me tell you all that, let me tell
you about the grant process. Yeh yes. So first of all,
EcoHealth Alliance wanted to do gain a function research where
they are going to insert what's called receptor binding domains
on a bat backbone. So from another animal, you take
a receptor binding to me. In short, that makes something

(30:07):
more infectious stickier to human cell.

Speaker 1 (30:09):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
They also wanted to add a fure in cleavage site.
COVID nineteen is a type of coronavirus that never had
a feur and cleavage site on it in nature.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
Never. But now I don't know what that means. What
does that mean?

Speaker 2 (30:24):
Well, the fure in cleavage site is if you think
of like R two D two when he extends that
arm and can get into a system.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
All right.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
The fur and cleavage site is part of the virus
that when activated does pop out okay and gets into
the human cell on particular respiratory Okay, okay, So that
gives that gives you some idea. So two components that
you add to a bat backbone of a virus. So
you start with a bat virus, you put it's like legos.

(30:53):
Now you're putting in parts, you're moving some out putting
others in. And that's as simple as I think I
can I can put it. But that was their proposal.
What was interesting is in an email with Ralph Berrick
in North Carolina and Zengli she in Wuhan, China, Peter Dazik,
the head of Eco Health Alliance, is saying, we'll just

(31:14):
tell them we're going to do this in North Carolina,
but once we get the money, we'll shift it over
to Wuhan. Do it at a BSL too, a less
safe lab because it costs less.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
We'll do that. Ralph Barrack said, no, no, no, no no.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
That initial proposal went to DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
Government military agency.

Speaker 1 (31:40):
Right.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
They said, no, this is this is too risky. We're
not we're not issuing that grant. They go over to NIH.
Now you're talking Francis Collins and Tony Fauci. They go
over there, they get the grant. So we asked doctor
Fauci about the grand process. Doctor Fauci, you signed off
on on these grants, and uh, you know who basically

(32:04):
who's responsible? He said, well, you know, I just I
do just sign them. At one point he said, we
get billions of dollars in grants. I can't know what's
in all of them. I just sign them. He said,
we have an advisory board that looks them over. Okay,
that looks them over. And once they do that, then
I just sign them. And we said, doctor Fauci, they
didn't comply with the grant. They were not doing their

(32:25):
periodic reporting. They developed a pathogen that should have been reported,
they didn't do it. They were two years late with that.
Does a flag go up at N I H or
N I A I D that you're in charge of,
to say, where's your report? He said, that's over in compliance.
I have nothing to do with.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
You, of course, of course. Yeah. And when and when
we were we were talking about Doge earlier, this is
the cod this is what we're talking aboutvik Ramaswani and
Elon Musk are going to be looking at that and this,
this is why so many billions of dollars goes out
the door and and no one, there's no account bil And.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
One step further on that, I said, look, you're doing
dangerous research. You know it's dangerous. You've said that is
from the very beginning. You're doing dangerous research in a
lab of an adversary, And what's your oversight?

Speaker 1 (33:15):
Are you in the lab?

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Are you able to see what's going on every step
of the way he goes. I wouldn't even know how
to do that. So we know that they're working on
bio weapons over there, and we allow this kind of
money to go out the door.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
And it wasn't supposed to happen though what there was
already guidelines against us.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
There was already there was a pause on it, but
there was there was a little glitch clause that allowed
them to work around it. These are these are the
things you're talking about, right, These are the things we
got to fix, make sure something like this can never
happen again. They get its accountability and transparency that there's

(33:53):
a lack of, and they've gone wild with this, able
to cloak themselves and be blameless on many things.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
All right, we're way late for a break here fifty
five KRC, the talk stays, Hie, Ryan, come us here
for foreign extime? Fifty five KRC, the talk station. How
much does that report weigh? You got a giant buying

(34:21):
to there. Five hundred and something pages of the Select
Subcommittee Coronavirus Pandemic Report two years worth of work right there.
One of the biggest things to me was the and
you get into this a lot, and the report was
about the whole thing about misinformation. And I mean, we
see how bloated, how inept, how fraudulent our federal bureaucracies

(34:45):
really can be. But when it comes to misinformation, you
talk about the spread of misinformation through conflicting messages, knee
jerk reactions, lack of transparency. The most egregious examples of
her basis miss information all flabel drug use, lablaque theory.
And the biggest purveyor of misinformation, it turns out, was

(35:08):
the federal government, without a doubt.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
And this goes to one of the things that I
said from the very beginning, and I said that it's
a secretary of Asar America needs to hear from the
doctors treating COVID patients. Imagine the difference every day if
you had a doctor all anywhere around the country stepping
out to a flood of microphones, lowering his mask, saying

(35:32):
here's what I saw today.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
Well, and I remember a group of doctors coming out
who were treating COVID patients at the time, and this
one doctor who had like a Jamaican accent. A big
woman came out and said, I'm treating these patients with hydroxychloriclin.
It's working, This is working, this is working. And those
people got shut down. I mean they were never seen

(35:55):
or heard from again.

Speaker 2 (35:56):
They got shut down by people that were never standing
over patients watching them die, desperate to try and save
a life. And it's easy for them because people were
just numbers on paper to them, and that would be
the difference. That's why we had the wrong messenger. That's
part of this report too, is who's going to be
the messenger in a situation like this?

Speaker 1 (36:15):
Trust it is. It is one of the most Unamerican
things that I can possibly think of, that our government
was actively involved in shutting down a dissenting voices like this,
not because the information was wrong, but simply because it
went against the official government narrative.

Speaker 2 (36:31):
That that's exactly right, and that sounds pretty communists or
socialist to me.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
And then you had people like Jay botechat and our
media was cheering it on the whole time.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
Well, they're part of it, They're they're part of it,
They're they're right in on it. They get their talking
points from the Democrat Party and they go for it.
And that's the administration that was leading this. And I
mean within the agencies. I don't know if somebody's a
Republican or Democrat, but I do know in the White
House what they are. And so if that's where things

(37:02):
are coming from with a political directive, it's a problem.
And you saw people like Jay Badacheria, who you know
the Great Barrington Declaration. Okay, you may disagree with parts
of it, but have the scientific debate. You know, we
found out there was no science behind the mask, there
was no science behind six feet. Actually that was being
more directed by the teachers union who wanted a trigger

(37:22):
to close the schools. That's in the report as well.
But you had these people that were actually just having
a scientific debate and they were being chastised, they were
being humiliated, they were really being told. The public was
being told that these people don't know what they're talking about,
and actually they do. And I just give you examples.

(37:44):
So the doctor patient relationship was just destroyed. If the
government's going to tell you here's the mandate, you've got
to do it. They sped up approving the vaccine so
the government could issue the mandate because then they made
it fully approved. You had two people from the FDA
walk away saying, no, this is wrong. You're speeding this

(38:04):
process up for political purposes. The mandate, to me was
one of the most obscene things. Americans want to be educated,
not indoctrinated, and they.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
Want to start. See.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
Well, that came from somebody who was hesitant to take
the vaccine. When I explained who's vulnerable and what it
does and what it doesn't do, person said, I'm more
likely to take it now. But you just educated me.
I don't want to be indoctrinated. That's where I got
And so this is just human nature. These are the
things that we talk about in our report of how

(38:39):
we can do things better. But you put shove these
people aside. You ended scientific debate, and American people quit
falling for it. By and large, even though their favorite
news station might continue to spew these things, people fell off.
That's why Donald Trump went overwhelmingly one of the reasons why.

Speaker 1 (38:58):
Yeah, it's amazing how this the tentacles of this to
carry on into everyday life, every day people's interaction with
government every day, and it's going to continue, I think
for a long time. To come seven forty six, another
quick break in here, and then we'll continue on on
fifty five KRC, the talking fifty five KRC, the talk station.

(39:31):
Bred Winstrip is here talking about the five hundred, five
hundred and twenty four pages.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Five twenty and then seventeen pages of recommendation. Yeah, the future, Yeah,
And I mean there are so many elements to this.
And then I was talking earlier about how each one
of these is a major scandal. I mean, why don't
we deal with scandal in this country the way we
used to deal with it. You know, it used to

(39:56):
be truth justice in the American way, right. You know,
even as a teenager when Watergate was going on, you know,
I was proud of Republicans because everyone was just after
the truth. And you know, if that meant there's ramifications,
then then so be it. I had the same approach
in my mind on Intelligence Committee when we were looking
into the fake well we didn't know it was fake

(40:18):
Russian collusion. I went in open minded if Trump did
something wrong, and so be it. Well, we quickly found
out not only did he do nothing wrong, whatsoever they
did they they paid for that whole thing, and and
and you know, at the end of the day, even
though the Inspector General proved it and they knew it
was fake, still nothing else, and.

Speaker 1 (40:38):
They and they continued to lie to them.

Speaker 2 (40:40):
They were they were part of it and unble. But
because why that's media the media should be driving, like
why haven't heads rolled? Why haven't heads rolled? Because if
their side's the one doing the scandals, and they have
a side in media, then they don't want to pursue it.
And look, we saw this teachers union, the teachers Union

(41:01):
were the Biden transition team reached out to the teachers
union right away after he won and basically started asking
them what they would want for schools as far as
closures and the rules. The teachers union, not scientists, not
the CDC. Randy Winingarten had Randy Winegarden had the head

(41:22):
of the CDC, Willensky, director Willenskey's personal sell And you
go through the Teachers' Union's documents and their internal conversation
and I'm not blaming every teacher on this, I'm blaming
the leadership of the union. They said, we need a
trigger to close. What we're after is a trigger to close.
So what they wanted was like ten feet of distancing. Why, well,

(41:45):
you can't go back to.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
School in person, kids, but you look at the unintended
consequences there, and so we ended up with six. Yeah,
you got kids working from home and parents looking over
their shoulder at what they're learning on the computer. And
the parents are like, what the hell is this? Learned that?
We learned that? And wait a minute, this is what's
going on in the school and uh and and the
rest and the rest is history. There talk a little

(42:08):
bit about Andrew Cuomo, Yes, in New York, and you've
recommended him for criminal investigations.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Yes, and that criminal retro is because they issued a
report that tried to play down the nursing home deaths
and lower the number. And that was discovered even by
the Attorney General. And he destroyed documents. Uh, he never
he produced documents. He didn't really produce documents. He he
often claimed he didn't know anything. So for example, God,

(42:37):
so he wrote a book? Did he wrote a book
about his great leadership during the wuy case? In point,
when we asked him how he wrote his book, he
pointed to his head and said it's all here. We said,
what what what did you refer to? What documents? Did
you refer to. He pointed to his head ghost writer
up there, and he said it was all right here.

(42:57):
But then he doesn't recall anything, so this is amazing
he doesn't. So he issues a directive and I think
this is something I really want the audience to hear.
Is what he did, and where we had biparts support
from physicians to call it malpractice. CDC guidance issued guidance
guidance talking about quarantining this and that. So when we

(43:19):
came to nursing homes for some reason, Governor Cuomo issued
a directive, not guidance, but a directive.

Speaker 1 (43:26):
That's an order, right.

Speaker 2 (43:28):
And he said that no nursing home will can deny
someone admission to the nursing home with a diagnosis of
COVID nineteen or a presumed diagnosis of COVID nineteen. And
then he said, and you are prohibited from even testing

(43:48):
them for COVID nineteen. What kind of nonsense is this?
And how can the nursing home treat the patient appropriately
and protect the other patients appropriately if they don't know
the status, don't know who should be quarantined and can't
say we can't take you because we can't quarantine you.

(44:09):
That's what that directive did. It made no sense, and
the CDC guideline said, you can refuse someone if you
can't adhere to the proper protocols. You don't take someone
highly contagious and put him next to the most vulnerable,
which the elderly were they most and they have co morbidities.
They are the absolute most vulnerable population in America. And

(44:33):
he took highly contagious people and made them be admitted
to the nursing homes. Then it's an interview months a
month or so later and people asked him about it.
He said, oh, I didn't know anything about that. He said,
he knew nothing about it. Well, there's evidence to the contrary.
But besides that, then he wanted to report put out

(44:55):
that said that wasn't as bad as they're saying it was.
You know that we didn't have all these nursing home deaths.
What they ignored was people that were in the nursing
home got covid, went to the hospital and died. They
ignored all those deaths to lower the number. He said,
he didn't have anything to do with any of this. Well,

(45:16):
it was interesting. We asked him if he edited that
report in any way, shape or form, and he said, no, Well,
guess what. Whistle blowers came forward. We have emails that said,
here are the governor's edits, and then we got the
edits in his handwriting on the report. That's why he

(45:38):
was referred, that's why he was.

Speaker 1 (45:42):
Lying in front of Congress. Is still frowned upon. I'm
glad to hear it. It's frowned upon by Congress, that's
for sure. Thank you very much. All right, can you
do you want to hang around for another half an hour?

Speaker 2 (45:52):
I wish I could go, I wish I could write obligations.

Speaker 1 (45:56):
I do, and I head back to d C today
as well. But because we literally could have done the
whole show from five o'clock on. No, I agree with you.
I agree with you. There's so much here and the
more and the more you talk about it, the more
my memory has jogged about things that I want to
talk to you about. But you know what, maybe we
can do it again sometimes.

Speaker 2 (46:15):
You know, it's so true, and even during our two years,
you know, as I look back on stuff that we
did in the first couple of months, it's like, gosh,
I almost forgot about that.

Speaker 1 (46:24):
Yeah, it's amazing and we forgot that really that it
really is. But this report is great. This is a
lot of material for future talk shows for me. So
I want to thank you for that. Well, and I'll
be around more importantly. I'll be around, yeah, more importantly
for the American people exactly, and for America going forward.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
And we tried to make it an easy read for people,
you know, not overly scientific, and in the case of that,
we're making break it down, explain it. And I think
I think that we did that and people can take
it one section at a time, like I'm interested in
the school closures. I'm in masks. I want to see
what you found about all these things.

Speaker 1 (47:03):
All right, Well, I got to talk to Chris Sminman
after eight o'clock, so well we'll hear what he has
to say. But brad Winstrop, you're looking good, brother, great
to see you.

Speaker 2 (47:12):
Well, you know what, I can stay fifteen more minutes
if you want me to fifteen minutes, I can stay
another fifteen minutes.

Speaker 1 (47:18):
All right, sounds good. Let's do that, and uh, Joe
will do that. And we got to get to the
news here at the top of the hour, though, Dan
Carroll for Brian Thomas with brad Winstrop on fifty five
krs the talk station, Your voice, thank you for day McCall,
your country. It's here at every day fifty five krs
the talk station, This report, Dave Sponsor more minutes with

(47:40):
not Greg Landsman, but brad Winstrop and brad weinst used
to be my We were talking about that off the air.
It used to be my congressman. But then they changed
districts on me. I didn't move, but the district moved.
And now and now you're you were you know, you're
not my representative Ohio.

Speaker 2 (47:57):
A loss to seed, which you know doesn't help us anyway,
that's part of it.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
That's thanks. But I mean we're talking about the report
two years were the work from the subcommittee that you
were the chairman of, and I mean you get into
every single aspect of everything that was related to COVID
nineteen one. That we haven't touched on a lot yet
is the vaccines. You were in favor of Operation Warp Speed.

(48:24):
Absolutely you said before that it saved lives. There's a
lot of people who would probably argue with you on
that that the COVID vaccines actually wound up maybe doing
more harm than good. That maybe they you know, some
people died because of taking the vaccine who didn't need it.

Speaker 2 (48:41):
Yeah, let's talk about that, because you know, I followed
the trials closely. Actually I tried to get in the trial,
but when I went over to UC, I had just
given blood and that disqualified me.

Speaker 1 (48:51):
So I couldn't get in it. But I watched it
very closely. Well, what about all the reporting that the
big pharmaceutical companies withheld information about the trials that they did.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
What about all Well, I don't think they withheld information.
I think from the trials because the trials were pretty clear.
You're not going to you know, we didn't do a
good job of and this is part of our report.
We didn't do a good job of adverse effects of
the vaccines, things like that vaccine injuries. We got to
clean up that. But look, think about what was going on.

(49:21):
Millions of people did die. People were dying, but we
knew who was dying and who was most vulnerable to
a large degree, you know, ndred percent, but to a
large degree. What the trials showed. And I said this
from Storry, here's what the trial showed that just because
you get the vaccine doesn't mean you can't get COVID.
It's different from the others. The mRNA technology is different

(49:45):
from the vaccines. We grew up with that being said.
That should have been something everyone was aware of.

Speaker 1 (49:51):
But yeah, that was part of the original narrative from
this government and from the media was that if you
get the vaccine totally, you can't get it, you can't spread.

Speaker 2 (50:00):
Fauci said it, and you know, I pointed out to
him that's not true, and the trials had shown that.
But people were dying and people were people did well.
The trial has showed that if you get the vaccine,
you're less likely to die and less likely to get
as sick, but you can still get COVID. It was

(50:23):
not a dead end for the virus. Like doctor Fauci said,
that to me was a form of malpractice, if you will,
by telling the people that, because that's not true, and
you know how it is with drugs, you got to
list every side effect, you guys, you got to be
honest about it. This is where we went way wrong.
We weren't honest about it. So it was a proved
for emergency use. That should be a decision between you

(50:46):
and your doctor, as we have data of who's dying,
what's worse. Does the benefit out weigh the risk for
you depending upon your health status. That's where we were,
That's what it should have been. And again at the beginning,
it was just for the most vulnerable. But then they
wanted you know, your two your you're two month old

(51:07):
to get vaccinated. I mean, it was ridiculous, no evidence
out there to say that that should happen. And we
talked before. People want to be educated, not indoctrinated, and
that comes from sitting, having a chance to sit with
your physician discuss your health. I'll give you an example.
So I was told that before I could go to
Germany for a security conference and I needed to get

(51:29):
a booster. And I said, okay, Well listen, I had
two doses of Pfizer. And months later I was cooking
and I couldn't smell garlic salt and I said to
my wife, I've got COVID or had it? I said
maybe last week. Remember I had a chill one day,
I probably got COVID. I didn't go get tested because
I figured I had it OK and recovering and now

(51:50):
you know, doing fine, and no one in my family
was sick either. Now, before I was to get this booster,
I said I want to get my antibodies and T
cells and on that on the hill, they said, oh,
we can't do T sells. Our lab can do antibodies's
let's see where they are. A strong number was forty.
My number was eight hundred and twenty one. If you

(52:11):
sit with your doctor and your number is eight hundred
and twenty one, your doctor's going to say, I don't
see what a booster's going to do for you. Matter
of fact, I'm a little concerned you might get a
hyperimmune response. That's what doctor Winsterrop would say to a patient, right.
But this is the environment that we were in. And
it's interesting now that they don't if you see the ads,
they don't call it the COVID vaccine anymore. They call

(52:33):
it the COVID shot, COVID shot of the COVID booster. Yeah,
and variants are not a new idea. That's what viruses do.
So when we had COVID and then we had variants,
it shouldn't be shocking. The conversation should be there's probably
going to be some variants. We'll see if they're more
infectious or less effect infectious.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
What do we have to have to do. Are we
supposed to believe, because it's being put out to us
now that hey, your your annual flu shot and get
your COVID shot at the same time, that these two
things are kind of akin to each other.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
And I think that's a conversation you have with your doctor.
I would tell you my kids are young, eleven and seven.
We're at the pediatrician's office, and the pediatrician says, I
just don't see where there's benefit compared to the little
risk of getting this vaccination. And not only that, we
really don't know. And I said this from the very beginning,

(53:25):
to be honest with patients. I can't tell you what
we're going to know about this vaccine ten years from now,
twenty years from now. I'm not certain just my own observations.
We know that COVID was creating clots. People were throwing
clots with COVID. Yeah, we know that people young males
were getting myocarditis from the vaccine.

Speaker 1 (53:48):
So well, I mean, so I don't know what se
So that's one of the other elements. There are so
many anecdotal stories out there about young people athletes who
are in good shape. People you know mari on runners,
basketball players dropping dead after they get the vaccine. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:06):
I had a parent call me. He's a county commissioner,
and he said, hey, my son's in high school. They're
telling him he has to get the vaccine. I said,
is he healthy and he said yeah. I said, well,
are you worried about myocarditis from the vaccine?

Speaker 1 (54:20):
He said yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
I said, well you should be. You should be. I said,
but think, maybe do this at this point. I said maybe,
at this point. What you do is you get one
dose of pfiser, go to your doctor, talk to your
doctor about it. Get one dose of pfiser, and that
gives you good protection because the myocarditis is occurring after

(54:42):
the second dose. Very few, if any had it after
the first dose. Then you'll have coverage and you know,
get a note from your doctor saying he's covered, he
got he got the one dose, he's.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Good to go. The school boards were rejecting things like this.
Who were they?

Speaker 2 (55:01):
Do you understand where I'm saying, But we have to
have a better reporting system, data system, so that doctors
with their patients can make decisions this best for their patient.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
All right, a minute and a half left, and then
I know you got to go. It seems like the
melding and the overlap of politics and science and health,
it seems like these things we'd be better off if
we can keep these things in separate lanes. I mean,

(55:32):
keep the politics out of health information, yes, and science information.
How important is that moving forward?

Speaker 2 (55:37):
Absolutely? You know there's a White House pandemic Preparedness team
right now and a former Air Force surgeon heads it,
and he wanted to meet with the Republican Doctor's Caucus,
which he did, and he said, how do we re
establish trust? And I said, get it out of the
White House. Get it out of the White House. And
that's in our proposals that we put a con struck together.

(56:01):
We're a team, an agnostic team that may be part
of the executive branch, but is out of the White House,
not sitting in the White House. And they will they
will decide CDC does this, NI H does this, n
I A, I D does this? F D A has
to do this, and you all report to us because
we got different messages from different components of our government throughout.

(56:24):
That can't happen, and you have to not only say,
here's what we think, but here's why.

Speaker 1 (56:29):
That's what we need to do. All right With that,
brad Winstrip will let you go. Thanks for the time,
great great seeing you again. Thanks for being here. You too,
and I'll be around.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
You know, I'm leaving Congress, but I'm not not gone.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
I know you'll be around. But whatever your your next
chapter in life holds, you're going to knock it out
of the park, just like you've done up to this.
Oh you're kind. Thank you. I mean, I mean I've
seen you in action. Thank you know, I mean you
still look great in the uniform. And I've seen you
speak at that ends events and Memorial Day things and
things like that, and it's been fantastic. But thanks for

(57:05):
the time, and I have a great day, and we'll
talk some more about this down the road. Thank you, God, blessure.
All right on fifty five KRC Detalk Station