September 29, 2025 • 40 mins
James Comey has been indicted on two federal counts — lying to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. But what does this mean for the broader debate over justice, accountability, and the politicization of government?
In today’s episode, Todd Huff breaks down the charges against the former FBI director and explains the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury — and why that process matters in a free society. While many on the Left dismiss this indictment as political retribution, Todd argues that true rule of law must cut both ways. It is dangerous to weaponize government against political opponents, but it is equally dangerous to allow powerful elites to operate without accountability.
Todd also highlights the long pattern of government abuse and selective enforcement — from IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, to the Steele dossier and Russia collusion hoax, to the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story and Big Tech censorship. Context matters, and so does balance: justice must not become revenge, but neither should it be abandoned out of fear of political consequences.
(Sponsor: 48 Financial)
(Sponsor: Full Sweet Wealth)
(Sponsor: Freedom Marketplace)
(Sponsor: Soltea – promo code TODD)
In today’s episode, Todd Huff breaks down the charges against the former FBI director and explains the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury — and why that process matters in a free society. While many on the Left dismiss this indictment as political retribution, Todd argues that true rule of law must cut both ways. It is dangerous to weaponize government against political opponents, but it is equally dangerous to allow powerful elites to operate without accountability.
Todd also highlights the long pattern of government abuse and selective enforcement — from IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, to the Steele dossier and Russia collusion hoax, to the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story and Big Tech censorship. Context matters, and so does balance: justice must not become revenge, but neither should it be abandoned out of fear of political consequences.
(Sponsor: 48 Financial)
(Sponsor: Full Sweet Wealth)
(Sponsor: Freedom Marketplace)
(Sponsor: Soltea – promo code TODD)
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff Show, America's Home Poor, Conservative,
not bitter talk and education be advised. The content of
this program has been talking about it two prevents and
even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
To the right.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
And now coming to you from the full suite Wealth Studios,
here is your conservative but not bitter host Todd Huff.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Well, that is right, my friends, Conservative not bitter. Indeed,
it's a pleasure to be here today. Thank you for
joining us. Hope you had a nice weekend. We did
as well. We did as well, I'm assuming you did.
But it's going to be back here as always. You'll
know last week I just returned on Friday. We had
been out of town and just return for Friday. So
(00:58):
back at it behind the microphone here today, and it
is a pleasure to be here. I want to talk
about James James Commy's indictment today. That's what I want
to get to on today's program. A lot of things
I want to get to regarding this, and I think
at its core what we want to discuss here is
(01:21):
the difference. Well, I guess two things that I think
two things that are there's two sources of pressure. Number one,
you don't want to politicize something and go after your
political opponents for unjustified or political causes. At the same time,
(01:43):
you don't want to have one side or one group
of people be able to act without any sort of
regard for the law, and then once they no longer
have the ability to do so, to not be held account.
And so that's the question that we want to get
into today. Where's that line? How do we address this?
(02:05):
And we're going to do our best today. My friends, again,
it's good to be back. Your program brought to you
in part by our friends at four eight Financial. Friends,
think about this for just a moment. Our investments they're
like seats that we plant, you know this. They grow,
they multiply, but are they bearing the type of fruit
that we want. At four eight Financial, they believe your
(02:30):
money should reflect your values. They specialize in wealth management
and biblically responsible investing, screening out companies that do not
align with your faith. It's all part of what they
call their purpose centered financial planning, helping you live a
life of meaning and purpose. Want to see if your
current investments align with your values or to what degree
(02:54):
that they do. All you have to do is visit
for eightfinancial dot com slash todd. That's eight financial dot
com slash todd four eight financial. They're here to worry
about your money so that you do not have to.
All right, So that being said, my friends, James Comy
has been and dying it. He's been indicted on two counts.
(03:19):
One is a false statement to Congress. The other is
obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The basis for these charges
is a twenty twenty Senate testimony where James Comy denied
authorizing anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source.
(03:42):
Prosecutors have found or alledged that this was false and
designed to impede the hearing, and so this went to
a grand jury. Now let's talk about a grand jury
for a moment, because this is important. So, Kris, the framers,
the founders, the people who help build this country. We're
(04:04):
smart enough to understand that this political abuses could happen
in a country. Of course, I would maintain it's probably
part of human nature. So whenever someone is in political power,
they might have an inclination to go after those with
whom they disagree because if you can criminalize disagreement, or
(04:26):
if you can effectively turn into criminals those who disagree
with you, then the ability to win political fights in
your country becomes easier, especially if you can completely outlaw
those That is an atrocious way to behave in a
free society. We don't want this. We don't want every
four years or every election cycle there to be a
(04:48):
different cast of characters that are targeted by our government,
by the federal government, by or any government really, but
we're talking here specifically about the federal government. Terrible thing,
and so that's one of the reasons why, one of
the many reasons why we have a jury of our peers.
In fact, I've seen and it's comical. I saw one
(05:12):
guy do a video where he talked about being on
a jury, and he said something like, what do you
want me to be on a jury? For? Man? You know,
I'm a I'm working forty hours a week down at
the local grocery store or wherever he was working. You
want me to get into a group of twelve people
with a banker, with a housewife, with a you know,
(05:36):
someone who's a blue collar worker, some white collar workers,
some retired folks, and you want me to decide if
some random guy is guilty of a crime. No, man,
I mean, I don't know what I'm doing. This is
this is how some people think. Now I know. I
want to be clear. We're talking about a grand jury,
which is different than a trial jury, but there's similarities
as well. And so, but the idea is is that
(05:59):
you don't want people embedded in our government. You don't
want people who are on the government payroll to be
making decisions about whether or not the people in our
society are guilty of creative or breaking the law. Because
what happens is you can see you have a recipe
for disaster. If everybody involved, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury,
(06:22):
if they're all getting their paychecks from effectively the same pots,
then recipe for disaster can happen. And so the idea is,
again we're talking here about trial juries, not grand juries.
But again there's a common thread here because I know
a lot of people, a lot of younger people think
this should say just find the professionals, find hire a
(06:44):
group of people, train them on how to be a juror,
you know, make them, put them on the payroll, make
that be their job, and they can go from trial
to trial, determine who's guilty, who's not guilty, all that.
But that's not what the founders and vision, nor do
I think that that's what we should have. We should have.
A trial of our peers is a wonderful thing. It's
(07:07):
and what it does is it basically is one of
the many safeguards that we have against government overreach. And
so the government comes and makes the charges, and this
again in this case, I don't want to conflate these things.
I'm just talking about the thinking and the ideas behind it.
And we'll get into a grand jury specifically. But the
(07:27):
government makes the case. The government makes the claim this
person broke the law. They did this, and we're going
to prove it in a court of law. They take
it to a judge who's also a part of the government, right,
he's part of the he or shey's part of the
judicial branch. That person presides over the case, tries to
make sure that the constitution, that statutes are fairly applied
(07:51):
to the defendant, that rules are followed, that there's discovery
that you know, the entire process, that evidence is not
a lot to be admitted, is not admitted I shared
when I was on a jury, there was a portion
of time where I wasn't sure if we were going
to get dismissed or if it was going to be
(08:11):
a mistrial, because the prosecution when playing back a video
of an interview they had with the defendant, they were
supposed to delete all verbage, all reference to a I
think it was narcan. I believe it was, or maybe
it was to a specific drug. But narcian, of course,
(08:33):
is to help you if you have an overdose of
a drug. But nonetheless, whatever the term was was supposed
to be washed from all. It was supposed to be
bleeped out and taken out of transcripts and so forth.
But the prosecution overlooked an instance and it was actually
in the video. They didn't edit that part out, they
didn't bleep it out, and so we heard this. The
(08:54):
defense attorney immediately objected. They convened a meeting at the
judges bench. The judge said, this is going to take
some discussion. He dismissed us for an early lunch, a
long lunch, and they hashed it out. Turns out we
simply were given instructions. The judge did not declare a mistrial.
He was simply said, look, I'm going to instruct them
(09:14):
to not consider what they heard in their final decision,
but you know, to take in the other facts of
the case and we can continue moving forward in this
particular in this trial. And so the reason is because
you want people there who are It's a type of safeguard.
It's a type of safeguard that says, you know, we
(09:37):
want to follow the law. The jury wants to follow
the law, but we also want to make sure that
the prosecution and that the judge and all the people
involved in this have done the right things, have provided
enough evidence whereby we can say this person is guilty.
So it's a built in safeguard. Now that's for a trial,
(09:57):
a trial jury. Now for a grand jury. Grand juries
are a little bit different. It's a preceding step. And
so what happens is a prosecution prosecutor will convene a
grand jury and they will present evidence. These people are
regular people. It's twenty three members in federal grand juries
(10:19):
are typically from what I understand are typically is the
typical size. And this is the same pool of people
that you would have for criminal or for I should say,
for trial juries. And so prosecution, the prosecution presents evidence
to these members of the grand jury, and they need
twelve of the twenty three to vote to what's called
(10:42):
a true bill. And if it's a true bill, then
it will the person's indicted. This will move forward into
the criminal process. They're not deciding the guilt or innocence,
or guilt or not guilty verdict of the person. They're
deciding probable cause. Again, these are all things that are
(11:02):
established in determining whether or not a person is actually
at the end of the process guilty, but whether the
process simply moves to the next step. And so this
grand jury said, by the way, they were given three
particular charges to consider. One of them they said that
there was not enough evidence to establish probable cause. The
(11:25):
other two that they did. And so now now this
moves forward. There's an indictment, and we'll see what happens
next if this how far this goes, This could be
stopped at any part of the process. But this could
go to Tuno's I'm not making any predictions or projections,
(11:45):
but this is done in secrets. The defense is at present.
This is just kind of a checkpoint whereby there are
people in the I suppose the local non government community
who will have an input as to whether or not
there's probable cause in bringing charges against an individual. And
(12:08):
again on two of these three charges they said yes.
As it pertains to James Comy. Now the standard is less.
Now when you go to trial, there's a term that
you have probably heard. I know that those of you,
unless you're new and you're just getting your feet wet
into politics and having to discussed these things, or didn't
(12:29):
pay attention to high school government, civics, whatever you might
have had, you're familiar with some of these terms. But
once you get into a criminal trial situation, there's a
thing that says there's a standard that basically says beyond
reasonable doubt. Right. So the idea here is to say,
(12:51):
once you get to the trial, you're determining someone's criminal
guilt or not guiltiness. You decide if there's basically any
other logical explanation other than the case presented by the prosecution.
And so the idea isn't to sit there at the
end of hearing the testimony and to say, well, I
(13:12):
listen to the defense, I listened to the prosecution. I
think the prosecution's right, that's not the idea in fact,
that some people say. You have to be ninety plus
percent certain that the case presented by the prosecution is
really what happened. And effectively, what you're doing is saying,
is there any other logical explanation that can be used
(13:33):
to determine whether or not this person is guilty? Now
that is the level. That's the level of required scrutiny
required for you to cast a guilty verdict. Now you're
to presume that they're not guilty. Your presumption is not
guilty until you've hurt enough evidence to where they're guilty.
(13:55):
That is different from a grand jury. A grand jury
does not have that same level of requirement upon them
as to whether or not they move something into in
this particular case, decide that there is probable cause. This
is a different situation. Again, the defense is not present.
(14:15):
This is just the prosecution presenting the evidence to the
grand jury, and the grand jury basically says, we think
you've got enough here to establish probable cause. You can
move these charges to the indictment stage, or you don't
have them, and we can't recommend that you do that.
So this has simply gone through that particular stage right now. Now,
(14:40):
you may have heard people say things like a grand
jury could indict a ham sandwich, and there's some truth
in that. And this because the standard is lower, they
are not hearing, you know, arguments from the defense and
so forth. It's just one sided. Here's what I've got.
Is there enough evidence to proceed with this? That's where
(15:02):
that's where we are kill me. As I've said, has
been indicted on two counts. A third was rejected, showing
that the grand jury had some hesitation somewhere in what
they were shown. Okay, now, the charges that were filed
against Komy have a five year statute of limitations, not
(15:22):
statue of limitations, as Cosmo Kramer would have told you
if you were a Seinfeld fan, and we're approaching that
period of time to where he would have been ineligible
to even be indicted. But they've gotten this underneath that
particular time frame and window. The potential penalty for this
(15:44):
includes up to five years per count, five years in
prison per count. And so I want to talk about
this today. I want to talk about this today. I
want to talk about whether I want to talk about
the dangers of politicizing weaponizing our government to go after
(16:06):
our political adversaries. But I also want to talk about
the dangers of allowing people to hide behind that allow
them to basically do whatever they want without repercussion. That
is dangerous as well in a free society. So we'll
continue this conversation in a moment. Friends, Are you tired
of spending your hard earned money yet businesses that turn
(16:30):
around and support leftist causes? I know that I am.
I've had enough of this. You've heard me talk about
the seven pillars of propaganda that the left uses to
press their absolutely morally bankrupt ideology upon the American people.
One of those pillars, one of those areas of our society.
They do this is in woke business, and they use
(16:51):
this sometimes subtly and sometimes with a very heavy hand.
But this is why we created Freedom Marketplace. Freedom Marketplace
is a free searchable directory of businesses that share your
conservative values, businesses that avowed not to support leftist candidates,
not to support leftist causes. In fact, if they do,
(17:14):
they will be booted from said directory. I've never had
this happen, but we absolutely and positively will boot people
who violate the terms of being listed at Freedom Marketplace.
Dot next but dot net excuse me, so no login
is required to think you can, but that's not necessary.
This isn't about anything other than providing you with people
(17:36):
with businesses that are patriotic pushing in the same direction
you are. Check it out, Freedom marketplace dot net. That's
freedom marketplace, dot net, liberty and business for all. All right,
So it's pretty clear if you thought about this for
five seconds, that you don't want a country, a society,
a government where you have one group that's in power
(18:00):
who's making it a crime basically to be in the
political opposition. That is not what we want. That is
not a free society, That is not an admirable way
to live. That does not help us get to truth.
That creates an air of fear. It silences people who
(18:22):
are afraid of getting caught up in I guess the
political crossfire is silences people or it threatens to silence
people who simply have different ideas. We don't want that. However, However,
on the other side of the equation, you cannot have
You absolutely cannot have a group of people, a group
of individuals, or just an individual who thinks he or
(18:46):
she can do whatever they want when they are in
political power, because they will then when they're out of
political power, say to you, you can't target me because
I'm your political opposition. You see, context matters again, That's
why went through this thing with the grand jury. This
wasn't just like the Department of Justice came along and said,
we're gonna arbitrarily charge James Comy for what he is
(19:09):
alleged to have done in the past nearly five years ago.
We're gonna take this to a grand jury. Again. That's
why these processes exist. Now, it doesn't mean that those
cannot be abused. I would maintain that these things were
abused against President Trump. In fact, I want to go
through some of the things how the left has weaponized
(19:30):
the government against Trump. There's a pattern of abuse here
that we can see. And here's the question we have
to ask ourselves. Yes on the ways. You know, so
many things are like riding a bicycle, right. You have
to find balance between the truth the two and you'll
hear when the left is on one side of the argument.
(19:53):
In this particular case, they are on the side that
says we don't want basically Comy to face justice. We
want to protect Komi. All you hear about is how
dangerous it is for the government to seek to get
retribution against its political enemies. I'm, by the way, I
agree with that. That's a terrible thing that the government
(20:15):
is seeking retribution. But there's another side of this. There's
also you know, you can tip the bicycle over to
the left, as Biden to when he was writing his
ten Speed or whatever he was writing when he was president,
and he tipped over stationary. But you can tip it
over both directions. You got to balance at both left
and right. You can balance or tip over, I should say,
(20:36):
the other direction if you're not properly balanced. And the
other direction is when we refuse to hold people to account,
when we are refused to enforce the law, when we
refuse to go after people who have been actively weaponizing
the government to go after their political opposition, their adversaries
(20:58):
in prior years. And that is the other side of this,
and that is why context is king. That is why
nuance and context matters. That is why it matters to
understand the facts of the situation. James Comy should not
be exempt from all political excuse me, all criminal prosecutions
because he is a political adversary of Donald Trump. Likewise,
(21:22):
James Comby should not be targeted for criminal trials and
so forth charges indictments simply because he is a political
adversary of Trump. These things should not matter. But my friends,
given where we are in this well, the dismantling of
(21:45):
our society in the way that things are supposed to work,
this is the place that we have reached, and so
this is the place that we are. So that's the
balance we have to balance between keeping making sure we
don't target people simply for being on the other side
of the political aisle. That is, I will not stand
for that, whether is someone on our side of the
(22:09):
aisle being targeted or someone on the other side. I am, however,
a fan of justice, and I don't want to see
people use that as a defense that says, just because
I'm on the other side of the isle politically from you,
I should be able to do whatever I want whenever
I want to do it, and keep you from holding
me accountable per the law. Once you are in political
(22:32):
power the other side that is equally as bad. Justice
needs to be pursued. And that's what I want to
talk about here. So in the next segment, we're going
to talk about some of the ways the left is
weaponized government. You'll see a pattern of abuse many of
these things. You know, some of these things might jar
some things back in the memory, but you get the idea.
But I'm going to take a time out. In the meantime,
(22:53):
my friends, sit tight. You are listening here to the
home of conservative not Better Talk. I'm your host, Todt
Huff Back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends,
talking about James Comey's indictments here today. Before I get
too much further down that path, let me let me
(23:14):
remind you here that well, of those folks that you've
seen out there, you've noticed some families, they have a
plan to deal with anything that lasts for generations. That's
not by accident. My friends, Full Sweet Wealth works with
people who want to make sure that their wealth will
make a difference for years to come, for generations to come.
(23:38):
Their team brings together high level investment strategies like private equity,
private credit, and option strategies with expert legal guidance. It's
all about making sure your vision becomes reality for the
people you love today and tomorrow. If you're looking to
do more than just manage your money, if you want
to leave a mark and build something lasting, take a
(23:58):
look at Full Sweet wealthfullsweetwealth dot com is the website.
Jason and his team will take great care of you,
very skilled and have a wide variety of ways that
they can help you as you look to build your
legacy and secure your future with Full Suite Wealth. If
you go there, By the way, if you reach out
to them, let them know you heard about them here
(24:20):
on the tot Have Show. By the way, I want
to say this too. I want to say this too.
We here at the tod Huff Show we do our
level best to find businesses, partners, sponsors that you can
benefit from. I know not everybody can benefit from every sponsor,
(24:41):
but we try to find people that we think can
provide you with a product, a service, some value, some
things that we think you would be interested in knowing about.
And so those are the folks that make this program possible.
If you can support those advertisers, those sponsors, those partners,
I encourage you to do so. Full Sweet Wealth is
(25:04):
just one of them. In fact, coming to you from
the Full Sweet Wealth studios that you would have heard
mentioned at the top of the program if you heard
it from the beginning anyway, my friends, So let's get
back to this. Let's get back to talking about Komy here.
Let's get back to talking about these indictments. And there's
really questions here, right, should political elites, should people on
(25:28):
the left, either side of the aye. But in this case,
I know Komy, they say is a Republican. Komy's as
anti Trump as they get. Komy is someone who is
interested in the UNI Party. I don't know that Komy's
a leftist, but he's a lover of big government, there's
no doubt about that. But should people like Komy be
able to avoid being held accountable or should they be
(25:52):
held to the same standard as the average American as
you or I would be held that's the question. And
is it revenge political retribution to hold someone accountable who
actually committed an alleged crime. That's the question here. I
mean that at its core would be no, right. I mean,
the context matters. It's not revenge if you're if you're
(26:16):
basically enforcing the law. It is if you're misapplying the law.
It is if you're making laws up as they did
against Trump, you know, and prosecuting someone for the first
time ever as they did with Trump with some sort
of a concoction as to how he broke the law.
That's not what's happening here. This is pretty pretty straightforward.
In fact, I can't explain the average conservative. The average
(26:38):
person can explain to you what Comy is alleged to
have done wrong here much more easily than the average
person can explain what Trump did wrong and some of
his legal legal shenanigans that he's had to deal with.
All right, but before the break, I'd mentioned that the
left ISoP has weaponized the government for some time. You'll
(27:00):
see that there's a pattern, a paturn of abuse. As
Michael Scott would say during the deput that's one of
my favorite offices, the deposition. There's a pattern. He has
to have mnemonic devices to remember words that he wants
to say. Pat took a turn, he said. Don't ask
me how that made him remember it. But there's a
pattern of abuse here, pat turn of abuse. Let's go
(27:24):
through some of these. Some of these go back fifteen
years or so. In fact, this first one does irs
targeting twenty ten to twenty thirteen. The Tea party groups,
remember Tea party groups. They were flagged for extra security
this is Lois Learner. IRIS admitted wrongdoing in a twenty
seventeen settlement TEA party groups. Conservative groups were targeted, were
(27:46):
flagged for extra scrutiny. I might have said security scrutiny.
That's what I meant to say. And this was admitted
finally in two thousand and seventeen. They were targeted because
they were conservative crossfire hurric. Now we're getting into the
Trump era. Twenty sixteen, that's when the FBI used Clinton
funded Steel dossier. Oh yes, the steal dossier, Russia Russia,
(28:10):
Russia collusion, delusion. They used this for FAISA warrants on
Trump aid carter page. The Inspector General found seventeen errors
and or admissions omissions from this. So they use this
dossier to effectively spy. Trump said to phone tap his
(28:34):
administer his campaign. I should say good old Clinton emails.
Hillary Clinton's emails back prior to the twenty sixteen election,
James Comy, at the time FBI Director James Comy admitted,
remember this, I remember talking about this. This program started
in twenty fifteen, so this wasn't long into this program's
(28:56):
existence when I had to talk about Clinton email servers.
That's when I told you that Hillary Clinton thought that
it was safe to house a server in her bathroom.
She thought that the four walls and the door that
locked around that server acted as a firewall, and all
the crazy things that came from that. But Hillary, excuse me.
(29:18):
Comy said of Hillary that she acted extremely careless, but
she was she was. The Department of Justice said they
weren't going to press charges. You remember, this came out
just a few weeks before the election. It was all
kind of a mess back then. But Comy came out
and says she acted extremely carelessly, but that she that
(29:42):
didn't warrant charges to be to be found. There's a term.
I'm drawing a blank on the term. It'll come to
me in a moment. But basically, that was what Comy concluded,
citing with Hillary and actually doing something that hadn't been done,
(30:02):
which is go to the podium and explain why charges
were not brought against somebody. Then, of course we had
the Russian collusion probe. This consumed Trump's well, you could
say his entire presidency, but definitely the first couple of years.
Moeller later found that there was no conspiracy. That entire thing.
I never from day one understood why somebody would have
(30:26):
ever believed that story that Trump got on an airplane
and went to the Kremlin. I mean, this is how
I envisioned it anyway, But whether the specifics are what
they alleged, this is the general generally, what the argument
was that Trump called up or visited with Putin and
had him get some of his best social media marketers
(30:46):
to effectively convince or to trick Hillary voters on social
media platforms like Twitter at the time, like Pokemon go
to trick them into believing that they should vote for
Trump instead of Hillary. It is just preposterous. This whole
thing was just idiotic. As I said before, if a
marketing firm was that effective at getting results, they would
(31:08):
be hired by people all over. They could charge whatever
price they wanted. And by the way, the last step
of any conspiracy is not a media campaign, it's not
an advertising blitz. But anyway, that's out there as well
where they use this to weaponize against the Trump administration.
What about Hunter Biden's laptop? Remember when there were fifty
(31:28):
one not just one or two or five, but fifty
one so called intelligence experts, intelligence officials in the weeks
leading up to the twenty twenty election. You see a
pattern here. You see a pattern where there's evidence of
wrongdoing by a candidate in the case of Hillary, or
by the candidate's son that could potentially implicate the candidate
(31:51):
himself Joe Biden in twenty twenty, you see this, and
then you have people step in at the last minute
from within the government or those who have government credentials,
who assure the rest of us that Hillary didn't do
anything wrong and that Hunter Biden didn't do anything wrong.
In fact, the fifty one intelligence experts told us that
(32:13):
it was most likely Russian disinformation misinformation, and the FBI
warned tech companies before the election, and this is where
this information was throttled. It was kept from being shared
across these platforms, and a lot of people even in
the wake of the election came out and said that
(32:36):
had they known this, they would have not voted for
Joseph Robinett Bribery. I remember I remember telling you behind
this microphone in twenty twenty, or maybe twenty twelve, was
twenty twenty, because before the election, I remember saying, this
little old guy with a microphone talk radio show podcast
(32:57):
knows more. Apparently than fifty one intel diligence professionals, the
so called experts. By the way, if you ever want
to know why people like me are skeptical of trusting
the experts, love no further than this, because this is
a bunch of bunk. They made it up. They had
no reason to say what they were saying. It turns
(33:19):
out the Hunter Biden laptop story was absolutely true. And
here we are here we are now dealing with some
of the repercussions of this, and again part of those repercussions.
And excuse me, by the way, I've got a bit
of a sinus infection. This happens to me every fall.
I'm trying every trick I can to prevent this. So
(33:41):
you might hear some coughing or the voice changing anyway,
the Hunter Biden laptop story is another example. I'm up
against the clock here, my friends. I'm out of time.
This segment sit tight. We'll continue on the other side
of the break. You're listening to conservative not better talk.
I'm your host, Todd Huff. Back in just a minute.
(34:04):
Welcome back, my friends, Darting final segment of this The
Todd Huff Show. It's good to be back here. On
this Monday, friends, I want to tell you really quickly too.
If you're concerned about cholesterol, if you're concerned about heart health,
consider taking salty. Salty isn't all natural clinically proven way
to lower your cholesterol. It's been proven to be good
(34:26):
for your heart and it's something that again science has
spoken on here. Science has spoken on and told us
that salty is safe and it is effective. It's all natural.
It's not a drug. You don't have to go to
your doctor. Again, I'm not against the doctor. I'm against
the doctor every time there's a sniffle. But you know,
(34:47):
there's a time to go to the doctor. This is
a good first step. It's very affordable. Salty dot com
is the website I take the product you can as well.
Salty dot Com sol Tea pro Todd gets you what
free shipping and fifty percent off. That's a heck of
a deal, my friends, fifty percent off your first purchase.
As I said, it's already quite affordable, the discount makes
(35:09):
it even more so. Salty dot Com Solta promo code Todd.
All right, I got a little to catch up on
here before we get to the end of the program. Today.
One thing I didn't mention before in the last segment
because of time constraints big tech censorship. Back from twenty
twenty to twenty twenty two, the White House pressured we
(35:30):
know this now, the Biden administration, President Bribery and his
Auto pen and people on his staff pressured Facebook and
Twitter to suppress what they consider to be misinformation. Just
let this sink in. You want to talk about a
real violation against the First Amendment, against your rights to
speak your mind in a public form like Facebook or
(35:52):
Twitter or whatever x whatever it was called back then,
this is it. This isn't This isn't Biden just complaining
about some of the things said about him on Facebook.
This isn't like Trump saying the media is fake news.
This is actually using the powers and the force of
the government to tell a private company to silence people,
(36:18):
to silence certain opinions that they don't politically agree with.
This is at the heart of the sort of things
that the founders wanted to prevent when they penned the
First Amendment. Missouri versus Biden court case flagged potential First
Amendment violations. I mean, this is right there for anyone
(36:39):
to see. So This is how conservatives, or in particular,
how Trump have been targeted by well by the government.
This is how they've been targeted by the weaponization of
our government. Now we don't want to do the same.
I know that there are people out there who say, Todd,
(37:01):
if they do it, then we should do it as well.
I reject that position. I do. I reject that position.
I understand the thinking, Todd. If we always play by
the rules and they never play by the rules, we're
going to have a problem. My friends, if we all
decide we're not going to play by the rules, then
we're all definitely going to have a problem. We have
(37:21):
to fix this problem the right way. We have to
be willing to do whatever it takes, whatever it takes legally,
whatever it takes morally, we have to be as long
as it falls within those lines it's moral and legal,
then we have to be prepared to do that. In fact,
on today's Todd talk, I talked about that very thing.
(37:41):
I talked about this concept of redistricting for those who
are resistant to redistricting. In fact, I might make a
phone call here in my state. I'm not sure I've
been thinking about it, but I might be calling my
representative to tell her that I think we should look
into to pursuing the redistricting model. I know that that
(38:04):
is upsets some people, even people on the conservative side,
and I understand, but I also understand that we're in
the midst of a cold civil war. And I also
understand that Blue states have already squeezed as much political
opportunity as they can from their states the way that
they have districted those states, and now they're telling us
(38:28):
no one else can do the same. I reject that.
I fully understand blue states can do it. We know
Missouri Texas have both signed into law their new maps.
California's proceeding with a map to basically try to counteract
what's happened in those two states. But Indiana the state
that could potentially do that as well. There's plenty of others,
(38:49):
and there's a lot more territory for Republicans to gain,
some seats for Republicans to potentially gain. There's no guarantee
in this, right, There's no guarantee in this at all.
This is a political election. There could be political consequences
for doing these things. I'm just saying we have to
be prepared and willing to do whatever is moral, legal
and ethical in order to win this fight. There has
(39:10):
to be a winner. You can't compromise. You can't compromise,
my friends, with the people who are cheering for the
death of Charlie Kirk, that are mocking his death. There's
no compromise for those. There are compromises that can be
made with other people on the left side of the aisle,
the liberals and the Democrats, but you cannot compromise with
that level of moral depravity that are cheering for the
(39:30):
death of people that are in our group. Selective prosecution
was had with BLM riders in twenty twenty. Many charges
were dropped quickly. Converse or I guess comparing contrast that
with the way that January six ers were prosecuted aggressively
by the way some should have been, but many were
(39:50):
held in violation, were denied due process. Whereas it concern
about that, it's just not there, my friends. Context matters,
and it matters a lot. It's wrong to target our
opponents just because there are opponents, but it's also wrong
to shield those who are the elites, those are who
(40:12):
those are who are in the inner circle. Excuse me,
The voices acted up here. Those who are responsible for
doing some of these things, those who are responsible potentially
for weaponizing the government, misleading the public, doing all sorts
of things, and then suddenly saying they can't be held
accountable because they're on the other side of the political aisle.
(40:36):
It's wrong to do that, as well, true rule of law.
It cuts both ways, my friends, even for those who
are powerful and connected. I have to go have a
wonderful day. We'll talk again, Sue, my friends. SDG
Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff Show, America's Home Poor, Conservative,
not bitter talk and education be advised. The content of
this program has been talking about it two prevents and
even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
To the right.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
And now coming to you from the full suite Wealth Studios,
here is your conservative but not bitter host Todd Huff.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Well, that is right, my friends, Conservative not bitter. Indeed,
it's a pleasure to be here today. Thank you for
joining us. Hope you had a nice weekend. We did
as well. We did as well, I'm assuming you did.
But it's going to be back here as always. You'll
know last week I just returned on Friday. We had
been out of town and just return for Friday. So
(00:58):
back at it behind the microphone here today, and it
is a pleasure to be here. I want to talk
about James James Commy's indictment today. That's what I want
to get to on today's program. A lot of things
I want to get to regarding this, and I think
at its core what we want to discuss here is
(01:21):
the difference. Well, I guess two things that I think
two things that are there's two sources of pressure. Number one,
you don't want to politicize something and go after your
political opponents for unjustified or political causes. At the same time,
(01:43):
you don't want to have one side or one group
of people be able to act without any sort of
regard for the law, and then once they no longer
have the ability to do so, to not be held account.
And so that's the question that we want to get
into today. Where's that line? How do we address this?
(02:05):
And we're going to do our best today. My friends, again,
it's good to be back. Your program brought to you
in part by our friends at four eight Financial. Friends,
think about this for just a moment. Our investments they're
like seats that we plant, you know this. They grow,
they multiply, but are they bearing the type of fruit
that we want. At four eight Financial, they believe your
(02:30):
money should reflect your values. They specialize in wealth management
and biblically responsible investing, screening out companies that do not
align with your faith. It's all part of what they
call their purpose centered financial planning, helping you live a
life of meaning and purpose. Want to see if your
current investments align with your values or to what degree
(02:54):
that they do. All you have to do is visit
for eightfinancial dot com slash todd. That's eight financial dot
com slash todd four eight financial. They're here to worry
about your money so that you do not have to.
All right, So that being said, my friends, James Comy
has been and dying it. He's been indicted on two counts.
(03:19):
One is a false statement to Congress. The other is
obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The basis for these charges
is a twenty twenty Senate testimony where James Comy denied
authorizing anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source.
(03:42):
Prosecutors have found or alledged that this was false and
designed to impede the hearing, and so this went to
a grand jury. Now let's talk about a grand jury
for a moment, because this is important. So, Kris, the framers,
the founders, the people who help build this country. We're
(04:04):
smart enough to understand that this political abuses could happen
in a country. Of course, I would maintain it's probably
part of human nature. So whenever someone is in political power,
they might have an inclination to go after those with
whom they disagree because if you can criminalize disagreement, or
(04:26):
if you can effectively turn into criminals those who disagree
with you, then the ability to win political fights in
your country becomes easier, especially if you can completely outlaw
those That is an atrocious way to behave in a
free society. We don't want this. We don't want every
four years or every election cycle there to be a
(04:48):
different cast of characters that are targeted by our government,
by the federal government, by or any government really, but
we're talking here specifically about the federal government. Terrible thing,
and so that's one of the reasons why, one of
the many reasons why we have a jury of our peers.
In fact, I've seen and it's comical. I saw one
(05:12):
guy do a video where he talked about being on
a jury, and he said something like, what do you
want me to be on a jury? For? Man? You know,
I'm a I'm working forty hours a week down at
the local grocery store or wherever he was working. You
want me to get into a group of twelve people
with a banker, with a housewife, with a you know,
(05:36):
someone who's a blue collar worker, some white collar workers,
some retired folks, and you want me to decide if
some random guy is guilty of a crime. No, man,
I mean, I don't know what I'm doing. This is
this is how some people think. Now I know. I
want to be clear. We're talking about a grand jury,
which is different than a trial jury, but there's similarities
as well. And so, but the idea is is that
(05:59):
you don't want people embedded in our government. You don't
want people who are on the government payroll to be
making decisions about whether or not the people in our
society are guilty of creative or breaking the law. Because
what happens is you can see you have a recipe
for disaster. If everybody involved, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury,
(06:22):
if they're all getting their paychecks from effectively the same pots,
then recipe for disaster can happen. And so the idea is,
again we're talking here about trial juries, not grand juries.
But again there's a common thread here because I know
a lot of people, a lot of younger people think
this should say just find the professionals, find hire a
(06:44):
group of people, train them on how to be a juror,
you know, make them, put them on the payroll, make
that be their job, and they can go from trial
to trial, determine who's guilty, who's not guilty, all that.
But that's not what the founders and vision, nor do
I think that that's what we should have. We should have.
A trial of our peers is a wonderful thing. It's
(07:07):
and what it does is it basically is one of
the many safeguards that we have against government overreach. And
so the government comes and makes the charges, and this
again in this case, I don't want to conflate these things.
I'm just talking about the thinking and the ideas behind it.
And we'll get into a grand jury specifically. But the
(07:27):
government makes the case. The government makes the claim this
person broke the law. They did this, and we're going
to prove it in a court of law. They take
it to a judge who's also a part of the government, right,
he's part of the he or shey's part of the
judicial branch. That person presides over the case, tries to
make sure that the constitution, that statutes are fairly applied
(07:51):
to the defendant, that rules are followed, that there's discovery
that you know, the entire process, that evidence is not
a lot to be admitted, is not admitted I shared
when I was on a jury, there was a portion
of time where I wasn't sure if we were going
to get dismissed or if it was going to be
(08:11):
a mistrial, because the prosecution when playing back a video
of an interview they had with the defendant, they were
supposed to delete all verbage, all reference to a I
think it was narcan. I believe it was, or maybe
it was to a specific drug. But narcian, of course,
(08:33):
is to help you if you have an overdose of
a drug. But nonetheless, whatever the term was was supposed
to be washed from all. It was supposed to be
bleeped out and taken out of transcripts and so forth.
But the prosecution overlooked an instance and it was actually
in the video. They didn't edit that part out, they
didn't bleep it out, and so we heard this. The
(08:54):
defense attorney immediately objected. They convened a meeting at the
judges bench. The judge said, this is going to take
some discussion. He dismissed us for an early lunch, a
long lunch, and they hashed it out. Turns out we
simply were given instructions. The judge did not declare a mistrial.
He was simply said, look, I'm going to instruct them
(09:14):
to not consider what they heard in their final decision,
but you know, to take in the other facts of
the case and we can continue moving forward in this
particular in this trial. And so the reason is because
you want people there who are It's a type of safeguard.
It's a type of safeguard that says, you know, we
(09:37):
want to follow the law. The jury wants to follow
the law, but we also want to make sure that
the prosecution and that the judge and all the people
involved in this have done the right things, have provided
enough evidence whereby we can say this person is guilty.
So it's a built in safeguard. Now that's for a trial,
(09:57):
a trial jury. Now for a grand jury. Grand juries
are a little bit different. It's a preceding step. And
so what happens is a prosecution prosecutor will convene a
grand jury and they will present evidence. These people are
regular people. It's twenty three members in federal grand juries
(10:19):
are typically from what I understand are typically is the
typical size. And this is the same pool of people
that you would have for criminal or for I should say,
for trial juries. And so prosecution, the prosecution presents evidence
to these members of the grand jury, and they need
twelve of the twenty three to vote to what's called
(10:42):
a true bill. And if it's a true bill, then
it will the person's indicted. This will move forward into
the criminal process. They're not deciding the guilt or innocence,
or guilt or not guilty verdict of the person. They're
deciding probable cause. Again, these are all things that are
(11:02):
established in determining whether or not a person is actually
at the end of the process guilty, but whether the
process simply moves to the next step. And so this
grand jury said, by the way, they were given three
particular charges to consider. One of them they said that
there was not enough evidence to establish probable cause. The
(11:25):
other two that they did. And so now now this
moves forward. There's an indictment, and we'll see what happens
next if this how far this goes, This could be
stopped at any part of the process. But this could
go to Tuno's I'm not making any predictions or projections,
(11:45):
but this is done in secrets. The defense is at present.
This is just kind of a checkpoint whereby there are
people in the I suppose the local non government community
who will have an input as to whether or not
there's probable cause in bringing charges against an individual. And
(12:08):
again on two of these three charges they said yes.
As it pertains to James Comy. Now the standard is less.
Now when you go to trial, there's a term that
you have probably heard. I know that those of you,
unless you're new and you're just getting your feet wet
into politics and having to discussed these things, or didn't
(12:29):
pay attention to high school government, civics, whatever you might
have had, you're familiar with some of these terms. But
once you get into a criminal trial situation, there's a
thing that says there's a standard that basically says beyond
reasonable doubt. Right. So the idea here is to say,
(12:51):
once you get to the trial, you're determining someone's criminal
guilt or not guiltiness. You decide if there's basically any
other logical explanation other than the case presented by the prosecution.
And so the idea isn't to sit there at the
end of hearing the testimony and to say, well, I
(13:12):
listen to the defense, I listened to the prosecution. I
think the prosecution's right, that's not the idea in fact,
that some people say. You have to be ninety plus
percent certain that the case presented by the prosecution is
really what happened. And effectively, what you're doing is saying,
is there any other logical explanation that can be used
(13:33):
to determine whether or not this person is guilty? Now
that is the level. That's the level of required scrutiny
required for you to cast a guilty verdict. Now you're
to presume that they're not guilty. Your presumption is not
guilty until you've hurt enough evidence to where they're guilty.
(13:55):
That is different from a grand jury. A grand jury
does not have that same level of requirement upon them
as to whether or not they move something into in
this particular case, decide that there is probable cause. This
is a different situation. Again, the defense is not present.
(14:15):
This is just the prosecution presenting the evidence to the
grand jury, and the grand jury basically says, we think
you've got enough here to establish probable cause. You can
move these charges to the indictment stage, or you don't
have them, and we can't recommend that you do that.
So this has simply gone through that particular stage right now. Now,
(14:40):
you may have heard people say things like a grand
jury could indict a ham sandwich, and there's some truth
in that. And this because the standard is lower, they
are not hearing, you know, arguments from the defense and
so forth. It's just one sided. Here's what I've got.
Is there enough evidence to proceed with this? That's where
(15:02):
that's where we are kill me. As I've said, has
been indicted on two counts. A third was rejected, showing
that the grand jury had some hesitation somewhere in what
they were shown. Okay, now, the charges that were filed
against Komy have a five year statute of limitations, not
(15:22):
statue of limitations, as Cosmo Kramer would have told you
if you were a Seinfeld fan, and we're approaching that
period of time to where he would have been ineligible
to even be indicted. But they've gotten this underneath that
particular time frame and window. The potential penalty for this
(15:44):
includes up to five years per count, five years in
prison per count. And so I want to talk about
this today. I want to talk about this today. I
want to talk about whether I want to talk about
the dangers of politicizing weaponizing our government to go after
(16:06):
our political adversaries. But I also want to talk about
the dangers of allowing people to hide behind that allow
them to basically do whatever they want without repercussion. That
is dangerous as well in a free society. So we'll
continue this conversation in a moment. Friends, Are you tired
of spending your hard earned money yet businesses that turn
(16:30):
around and support leftist causes? I know that I am.
I've had enough of this. You've heard me talk about
the seven pillars of propaganda that the left uses to
press their absolutely morally bankrupt ideology upon the American people.
One of those pillars, one of those areas of our society.
They do this is in woke business, and they use
(16:51):
this sometimes subtly and sometimes with a very heavy hand.
But this is why we created Freedom Marketplace. Freedom Marketplace
is a free searchable directory of businesses that share your
conservative values, businesses that avowed not to support leftist candidates,
not to support leftist causes. In fact, if they do,
(17:14):
they will be booted from said directory. I've never had
this happen, but we absolutely and positively will boot people
who violate the terms of being listed at Freedom Marketplace.
Dot next but dot net excuse me, so no login
is required to think you can, but that's not necessary.
This isn't about anything other than providing you with people
(17:36):
with businesses that are patriotic pushing in the same direction
you are. Check it out, Freedom marketplace dot net. That's
freedom marketplace, dot net, liberty and business for all. All right,
So it's pretty clear if you thought about this for
five seconds, that you don't want a country, a society,
a government where you have one group that's in power
(18:00):
who's making it a crime basically to be in the
political opposition. That is not what we want. That is
not a free society, That is not an admirable way
to live. That does not help us get to truth.
That creates an air of fear. It silences people who
(18:22):
are afraid of getting caught up in I guess the
political crossfire is silences people or it threatens to silence
people who simply have different ideas. We don't want that. However, However,
on the other side of the equation, you cannot have
You absolutely cannot have a group of people, a group
of individuals, or just an individual who thinks he or
(18:46):
she can do whatever they want when they are in
political power, because they will then when they're out of
political power, say to you, you can't target me because
I'm your political opposition. You see, context matters again, That's
why went through this thing with the grand jury. This
wasn't just like the Department of Justice came along and said,
we're gonna arbitrarily charge James Comy for what he is
(19:09):
alleged to have done in the past nearly five years ago.
We're gonna take this to a grand jury. Again. That's
why these processes exist. Now, it doesn't mean that those
cannot be abused. I would maintain that these things were
abused against President Trump. In fact, I want to go
through some of the things how the left has weaponized
(19:30):
the government against Trump. There's a pattern of abuse here
that we can see. And here's the question we have
to ask ourselves. Yes on the ways. You know, so
many things are like riding a bicycle, right. You have
to find balance between the truth the two and you'll
hear when the left is on one side of the argument.
(19:53):
In this particular case, they are on the side that
says we don't want basically Comy to face justice. We
want to protect Komi. All you hear about is how
dangerous it is for the government to seek to get
retribution against its political enemies. I'm, by the way, I
agree with that. That's a terrible thing that the government
(20:15):
is seeking retribution. But there's another side of this. There's
also you know, you can tip the bicycle over to
the left, as Biden to when he was writing his
ten Speed or whatever he was writing when he was president,
and he tipped over stationary. But you can tip it
over both directions. You got to balance at both left
and right. You can balance or tip over, I should say,
(20:36):
the other direction if you're not properly balanced. And the
other direction is when we refuse to hold people to account,
when we are refused to enforce the law, when we
refuse to go after people who have been actively weaponizing
the government to go after their political opposition, their adversaries
(20:58):
in prior years. And that is the other side of this,
and that is why context is king. That is why
nuance and context matters. That is why it matters to
understand the facts of the situation. James Comy should not
be exempt from all political excuse me, all criminal prosecutions
because he is a political adversary of Donald Trump. Likewise,
(21:22):
James Comby should not be targeted for criminal trials and
so forth charges indictments simply because he is a political
adversary of Trump. These things should not matter. But my friends,
given where we are in this well, the dismantling of
(21:45):
our society in the way that things are supposed to work,
this is the place that we have reached, and so
this is the place that we are. So that's the
balance we have to balance between keeping making sure we
don't target people simply for being on the other side
of the political aisle. That is, I will not stand
for that, whether is someone on our side of the
(22:09):
aisle being targeted or someone on the other side. I am, however,
a fan of justice, and I don't want to see
people use that as a defense that says, just because
I'm on the other side of the isle politically from you,
I should be able to do whatever I want whenever
I want to do it, and keep you from holding
me accountable per the law. Once you are in political
(22:32):
power the other side that is equally as bad. Justice
needs to be pursued. And that's what I want to
talk about here. So in the next segment, we're going
to talk about some of the ways the left is
weaponized government. You'll see a pattern of abuse many of
these things. You know, some of these things might jar
some things back in the memory, but you get the idea.
But I'm going to take a time out. In the meantime,
(22:53):
my friends, sit tight. You are listening here to the
home of conservative not Better Talk. I'm your host, Todt
Huff Back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends,
talking about James Comey's indictments here today. Before I get
too much further down that path, let me let me
(23:14):
remind you here that well, of those folks that you've
seen out there, you've noticed some families, they have a
plan to deal with anything that lasts for generations. That's
not by accident. My friends, Full Sweet Wealth works with
people who want to make sure that their wealth will
make a difference for years to come, for generations to come.
(23:38):
Their team brings together high level investment strategies like private equity,
private credit, and option strategies with expert legal guidance. It's
all about making sure your vision becomes reality for the
people you love today and tomorrow. If you're looking to
do more than just manage your money, if you want
to leave a mark and build something lasting, take a
(23:58):
look at Full Sweet wealthfullsweetwealth dot com is the website.
Jason and his team will take great care of you,
very skilled and have a wide variety of ways that
they can help you as you look to build your
legacy and secure your future with Full Suite Wealth. If
you go there, By the way, if you reach out
to them, let them know you heard about them here
(24:20):
on the tot Have Show. By the way, I want
to say this too. I want to say this too.
We here at the tod Huff Show we do our
level best to find businesses, partners, sponsors that you can
benefit from. I know not everybody can benefit from every sponsor,
(24:41):
but we try to find people that we think can
provide you with a product, a service, some value, some
things that we think you would be interested in knowing about.
And so those are the folks that make this program possible.
If you can support those advertisers, those sponsors, those partners,
I encourage you to do so. Full Sweet Wealth is
(25:04):
just one of them. In fact, coming to you from
the Full Sweet Wealth studios that you would have heard
mentioned at the top of the program if you heard
it from the beginning anyway, my friends, So let's get
back to this. Let's get back to talking about Komy here.
Let's get back to talking about these indictments. And there's
really questions here, right, should political elites, should people on
(25:28):
the left, either side of the aye. But in this case,
I know Komy, they say is a Republican. Komy's as
anti Trump as they get. Komy is someone who is
interested in the UNI Party. I don't know that Komy's
a leftist, but he's a lover of big government, there's
no doubt about that. But should people like Komy be
able to avoid being held accountable or should they be
(25:52):
held to the same standard as the average American as
you or I would be held that's the question. And
is it revenge political retribution to hold someone accountable who
actually committed an alleged crime. That's the question here. I
mean that at its core would be no, right. I mean,
the context matters. It's not revenge if you're if you're
(26:16):
basically enforcing the law. It is if you're misapplying the law.
It is if you're making laws up as they did
against Trump, you know, and prosecuting someone for the first
time ever as they did with Trump with some sort
of a concoction as to how he broke the law.
That's not what's happening here. This is pretty pretty straightforward.
In fact, I can't explain the average conservative. The average
(26:38):
person can explain to you what Comy is alleged to
have done wrong here much more easily than the average
person can explain what Trump did wrong and some of
his legal legal shenanigans that he's had to deal with.
All right, but before the break, I'd mentioned that the
left ISoP has weaponized the government for some time. You'll
(27:00):
see that there's a pattern, a paturn of abuse. As
Michael Scott would say during the deput that's one of
my favorite offices, the deposition. There's a pattern. He has
to have mnemonic devices to remember words that he wants
to say. Pat took a turn, he said. Don't ask
me how that made him remember it. But there's a
pattern of abuse here, pat turn of abuse. Let's go
(27:24):
through some of these. Some of these go back fifteen
years or so. In fact, this first one does irs
targeting twenty ten to twenty thirteen. The Tea party groups,
remember Tea party groups. They were flagged for extra security
this is Lois Learner. IRIS admitted wrongdoing in a twenty
seventeen settlement TEA party groups. Conservative groups were targeted, were
(27:46):
flagged for extra scrutiny. I might have said security scrutiny.
That's what I meant to say. And this was admitted
finally in two thousand and seventeen. They were targeted because
they were conservative crossfire hurric. Now we're getting into the
Trump era. Twenty sixteen, that's when the FBI used Clinton
funded Steel dossier. Oh yes, the steal dossier, Russia Russia,
(28:10):
Russia collusion, delusion. They used this for FAISA warrants on
Trump aid carter page. The Inspector General found seventeen errors
and or admissions omissions from this. So they use this
dossier to effectively spy. Trump said to phone tap his
(28:34):
administer his campaign. I should say good old Clinton emails.
Hillary Clinton's emails back prior to the twenty sixteen election,
James Comy, at the time FBI Director James Comy admitted,
remember this, I remember talking about this. This program started
in twenty fifteen, so this wasn't long into this program's
(28:56):
existence when I had to talk about Clinton email servers.
That's when I told you that Hillary Clinton thought that
it was safe to house a server in her bathroom.
She thought that the four walls and the door that
locked around that server acted as a firewall, and all
the crazy things that came from that. But Hillary, excuse me.
(29:18):
Comy said of Hillary that she acted extremely careless, but
she was she was. The Department of Justice said they
weren't going to press charges. You remember, this came out
just a few weeks before the election. It was all
kind of a mess back then. But Comy came out
and says she acted extremely carelessly, but that she that
(29:42):
didn't warrant charges to be to be found. There's a term.
I'm drawing a blank on the term. It'll come to
me in a moment. But basically, that was what Comy concluded,
citing with Hillary and actually doing something that hadn't been done,
(30:02):
which is go to the podium and explain why charges
were not brought against somebody. Then, of course we had
the Russian collusion probe. This consumed Trump's well, you could
say his entire presidency, but definitely the first couple of years.
Moeller later found that there was no conspiracy. That entire thing.
I never from day one understood why somebody would have
(30:26):
ever believed that story that Trump got on an airplane
and went to the Kremlin. I mean, this is how
I envisioned it anyway, But whether the specifics are what
they alleged, this is the general generally, what the argument
was that Trump called up or visited with Putin and
had him get some of his best social media marketers
(30:46):
to effectively convince or to trick Hillary voters on social
media platforms like Twitter at the time, like Pokemon go
to trick them into believing that they should vote for
Trump instead of Hillary. It is just preposterous. This whole
thing was just idiotic. As I said before, if a
marketing firm was that effective at getting results, they would
(31:08):
be hired by people all over. They could charge whatever
price they wanted. And by the way, the last step
of any conspiracy is not a media campaign, it's not
an advertising blitz. But anyway, that's out there as well
where they use this to weaponize against the Trump administration.
What about Hunter Biden's laptop? Remember when there were fifty
(31:28):
one not just one or two or five, but fifty
one so called intelligence experts, intelligence officials in the weeks
leading up to the twenty twenty election. You see a
pattern here. You see a pattern where there's evidence of
wrongdoing by a candidate in the case of Hillary, or
by the candidate's son that could potentially implicate the candidate
(31:51):
himself Joe Biden in twenty twenty, you see this, and
then you have people step in at the last minute
from within the government or those who have government credentials,
who assure the rest of us that Hillary didn't do
anything wrong and that Hunter Biden didn't do anything wrong.
In fact, the fifty one intelligence experts told us that
(32:13):
it was most likely Russian disinformation misinformation, and the FBI
warned tech companies before the election, and this is where
this information was throttled. It was kept from being shared
across these platforms, and a lot of people even in
the wake of the election came out and said that
(32:36):
had they known this, they would have not voted for
Joseph Robinett Bribery. I remember I remember telling you behind
this microphone in twenty twenty, or maybe twenty twelve, was
twenty twenty, because before the election, I remember saying, this
little old guy with a microphone talk radio show podcast
(32:57):
knows more. Apparently than fifty one intel diligence professionals, the
so called experts. By the way, if you ever want
to know why people like me are skeptical of trusting
the experts, love no further than this, because this is
a bunch of bunk. They made it up. They had
no reason to say what they were saying. It turns
(33:19):
out the Hunter Biden laptop story was absolutely true. And
here we are here we are now dealing with some
of the repercussions of this, and again part of those repercussions.
And excuse me, by the way, I've got a bit
of a sinus infection. This happens to me every fall.
I'm trying every trick I can to prevent this. So
(33:41):
you might hear some coughing or the voice changing anyway,
the Hunter Biden laptop story is another example. I'm up
against the clock here, my friends. I'm out of time.
This segment sit tight. We'll continue on the other side
of the break. You're listening to conservative not better talk.
I'm your host, Todd Huff. Back in just a minute.
(34:04):
Welcome back, my friends, Darting final segment of this The
Todd Huff Show. It's good to be back here. On
this Monday, friends, I want to tell you really quickly too.
If you're concerned about cholesterol, if you're concerned about heart health,
consider taking salty. Salty isn't all natural clinically proven way
to lower your cholesterol. It's been proven to be good
(34:26):
for your heart and it's something that again science has
spoken on here. Science has spoken on and told us
that salty is safe and it is effective. It's all natural.
It's not a drug. You don't have to go to
your doctor. Again, I'm not against the doctor. I'm against
the doctor every time there's a sniffle. But you know,
(34:47):
there's a time to go to the doctor. This is
a good first step. It's very affordable. Salty dot com
is the website I take the product you can as well.
Salty dot Com sol Tea pro Todd gets you what
free shipping and fifty percent off. That's a heck of
a deal, my friends, fifty percent off your first purchase.
As I said, it's already quite affordable, the discount makes
(35:09):
it even more so. Salty dot Com Solta promo code Todd.
All right, I got a little to catch up on
here before we get to the end of the program. Today.
One thing I didn't mention before in the last segment
because of time constraints big tech censorship. Back from twenty
twenty to twenty twenty two, the White House pressured we
(35:30):
know this now, the Biden administration, President Bribery and his
Auto pen and people on his staff pressured Facebook and
Twitter to suppress what they consider to be misinformation. Just
let this sink in. You want to talk about a
real violation against the First Amendment, against your rights to
speak your mind in a public form like Facebook or
(35:52):
Twitter or whatever x whatever it was called back then,
this is it. This isn't This isn't Biden just complaining
about some of the things said about him on Facebook.
This isn't like Trump saying the media is fake news.
This is actually using the powers and the force of
the government to tell a private company to silence people,
(36:18):
to silence certain opinions that they don't politically agree with.
This is at the heart of the sort of things
that the founders wanted to prevent when they penned the
First Amendment. Missouri versus Biden court case flagged potential First
Amendment violations. I mean, this is right there for anyone
(36:39):
to see. So This is how conservatives, or in particular,
how Trump have been targeted by well by the government.
This is how they've been targeted by the weaponization of
our government. Now we don't want to do the same.
I know that there are people out there who say, Todd,
(37:01):
if they do it, then we should do it as well.
I reject that position. I do. I reject that position.
I understand the thinking, Todd. If we always play by
the rules and they never play by the rules, we're
going to have a problem. My friends, if we all
decide we're not going to play by the rules, then
we're all definitely going to have a problem. We have
(37:21):
to fix this problem the right way. We have to
be willing to do whatever it takes, whatever it takes legally,
whatever it takes morally, we have to be as long
as it falls within those lines it's moral and legal,
then we have to be prepared to do that. In fact,
on today's Todd talk, I talked about that very thing.
(37:41):
I talked about this concept of redistricting for those who
are resistant to redistricting. In fact, I might make a
phone call here in my state. I'm not sure I've
been thinking about it, but I might be calling my
representative to tell her that I think we should look
into to pursuing the redistricting model. I know that that
(38:04):
is upsets some people, even people on the conservative side,
and I understand, but I also understand that we're in
the midst of a cold civil war. And I also
understand that Blue states have already squeezed as much political
opportunity as they can from their states the way that
they have districted those states, and now they're telling us
(38:28):
no one else can do the same. I reject that.
I fully understand blue states can do it. We know
Missouri Texas have both signed into law their new maps.
California's proceeding with a map to basically try to counteract
what's happened in those two states. But Indiana the state
that could potentially do that as well. There's plenty of others,
(38:49):
and there's a lot more territory for Republicans to gain,
some seats for Republicans to potentially gain. There's no guarantee
in this, right, There's no guarantee in this at all.
This is a political election. There could be political consequences
for doing these things. I'm just saying we have to
be prepared and willing to do whatever is moral, legal
and ethical in order to win this fight. There has
(39:10):
to be a winner. You can't compromise. You can't compromise,
my friends, with the people who are cheering for the
death of Charlie Kirk, that are mocking his death. There's
no compromise for those. There are compromises that can be
made with other people on the left side of the aisle,
the liberals and the Democrats, but you cannot compromise with
that level of moral depravity that are cheering for the
(39:30):
death of people that are in our group. Selective prosecution
was had with BLM riders in twenty twenty. Many charges
were dropped quickly. Converse or I guess comparing contrast that
with the way that January six ers were prosecuted aggressively
by the way some should have been, but many were
(39:50):
held in violation, were denied due process. Whereas it concern
about that, it's just not there, my friends. Context matters,
and it matters a lot. It's wrong to target our
opponents just because there are opponents, but it's also wrong
to shield those who are the elites, those are who
(40:12):
those are who are in the inner circle. Excuse me,
The voices acted up here. Those who are responsible for
doing some of these things, those who are responsible potentially
for weaponizing the government, misleading the public, doing all sorts
of things, and then suddenly saying they can't be held
accountable because they're on the other side of the political aisle.
(40:36):
It's wrong to do that, as well, true rule of law.
It cuts both ways, my friends, even for those who
are powerful and connected. I have to go have a
wonderful day. We'll talk again, Sue, my friends. SDG
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.