Popular Posts

Again with John Solomon, editor-in-chief, founder, chief investigator of ReporterJustTheNews.com, revealing tonight that an FBI investigation uncovered the fact that Mr. Higher honor himself. James Comey routinely leaked classified information to The New York Times through an intermediary, a friend on the faculty of Columbia Law School. The sheer amount of leaking appears to be political, deep, dark, purposefully deceptive, in a myriad of ways, here with details, is investigative reporter, founder of JustTheNews.com, editor-in-chief. All right. Mr. Higher honor, years ago on this program I said you have the right to remain silent and you might want to use it. This is a very long piece that you have here. It is a worthwhile read. I'll let you sum it up, and then I want your conclusion on what you're finding here, because to me it's very damning. Well, what you find out is that James Comey decided not to work through the FBI press office when he wanted to change the narrative in Washington, burnish his reputation against attacks from Democrats, and try to sully Donald Trump's reputation. If you remember, Democrats were mad that James Comey let out of the bag just before the election that there might be some new evidence in the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Hillary blamed Comey for throwing the election. She blamed the Russians for throwing the election. She blamed everybody but herself for throwing the election for her. But Comey was trying to rehabilitate that. And so he had an intermediary, a Columbia law professor by the name of Daniel Richmond, who the FBI confirmed and interviewed. And Richmond said, yes, I used my relationship with a New York Times reporter named Michael Schmidt. He's one of the authors of the Pulitzer Prize-winning package that President Trump is now suing over. And my goal was to improve negative stories about James Comey and to set a narrative, i.e., set the Russia collusion narrative. This guy worked around the official channels of the FBI press office. And at one point, the FBI noted, you met with James Comey. He gave you access to classified information. A short while later, you had a conversation with that New York Times reporter, and he ends up reporting something that appears to be classified. Did you do it? He gives, I think, perhaps the most famous denial people will remember, since Bill Clinton says it depends what the meaning of the word is, is when he tried to obfuscate whether he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, he says, I can say, I don't think I confirmed the information. I can say, with a discount, that I didn't give him the classified information. With a discount means you got to give me some room. It's an extraordinary moment. The FBI clearly had strong suspicions that this was a potential backdoor for information, maybe classified information, to get out to the media with James Comey's fingerprints on it. And they didn't go much further. They didn't put Comey before the grand jury. That we can tell. They didn't appear to put this gentleman, Daniel Richmond, before the grand jury. And like Adam Schiff, as we told you last night, here they have an eyewitness whistleblower who said, I was in the room, when he authorized leaks of intel, these end up being a dead end again. And it's another reminder of a dual system of justice that the Justice Department had the last six years. These are documents that were never given to Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan confirmed that to me today. And we're just learning, eight years later, because of what Cash Patel turned over, that the FBI had all the evidence of how the false narrative of Russia collusion was spread across this country, to the detriment of voters, to the detriment of President Trump's first campaign. And they did nothing about it. It's a credit to the FBI. It's a credit to Cash Patel. It's a credit to the people that are involved in sharing this information now with the public. Do you see legal jeopardy here? I think if Pam Bondi goes the grand jury route, that these are people that are going to be hauled before the grand jury. I want to remind people, most classified information statutes have a five-year statute of limitations. But there is a provision that extends it to 10 years if it's willing and knowing. And there is some pretty clear evidence of a strong apparatus put in place to make these leaks occur, according to the FBI documents. I think a grand jury could go back and try to compel testimony and find out if it rises to the level of criminality. Tomorrow, though, I think we're going to take people on a new destination, which is, how often did the FBI get blocked in trying to investigate Hillary Clinton corruption at the Clinton Foundation? You're going to be shocked by the answer. We'll have you back tomorrow. I'm John Solomon. This is unraveling very quickly. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

(crowd chanting)

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A news-style photograph of Donald Trump walking through what appears to be a courthouse or building corridor at night, flanked by police officers, security personnel, and other people in suits. He wears a dark suit, white shirt, and orange/gold tie, with a stern or unhappy facial expression, jaw jutted forward. Metal barricades are visible in the foreground. Above the photo is bold black text reading "The Hoax Buster" on a white background, styled like a masthead or title card.

Text in image: The Hoax Buster

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A news photograph taken outdoors near the National Mall in Washington, D.C., with the Lincoln Memorial visible in the background and a plane flying overhead. A man in a dark overcoat with a red tie (resembling Donald Trump) stands in the foreground, gesturing with both hands, next to a man in a black tuxedo with a bow tie. Behind them is a large branded semi-trailer truck reading "Made America" with a mountain/star logo and a graphic of a person in a welding mask/gas mask holding an American flag; the side of the trailer also shows an outline of Oklahoma with "ATOKA, OK" printed on it. A row of workers in hard hats, jeans, and work shirts (some in branded caps) stand lined up in front of the truck. In the left foreground, two men wearing white hard hats look on, and a boom microphone is visible at the upper right, indicating press coverage of the event.

Text in image: MADE AMERICA ATOKA, OK

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

And the Trump mega political obituary has been written more times than Billy Bob Thornton has been married. From The Guardian, the signals of Trump's waning influence are everywhere. Back in January, the lazy libs at the Washington Post were sure that the so-called GOP backlash over the Minnesota ICE operations had signaled a tougher landscape for Trump. Now first, most incumbent presidents face midterm headwinds. We know that, Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, all of them. But as far as Trump losing influence, that's just more wishful thinking. Now they thought Trump was really on the ropes when Indiana state senators bucked him on redistricting late last year. Indiana Republicans just handed President Trump one of his biggest defeats yet. I'm proud of the Republican legislators who took a stand. Donald Trump thought that he could come into the Hoosier cafeteria and take lunch money and he and his crew left with the black eye. Yeah, who has the black eye now? Well, it was back in December when Trump had promised to support primaries against those renegade Republicans. And when all the votes were tallied last night, five out of the eight GOP incumbents in the Indiana Senate who bucked him on redistricting lost to the candidates Trump had endorsed. Another one still too close to call tonight. Of course, they all could have just asked Trump impeachment queen Liz Cheney, how did her primary turnout back in twenty twenty two? It turns out Trump is just better at politics than most of these people. And he knew Wyoming voters better than Liz did. Now this is really why the left hates Trump, by the way, because he wins. After all, liberals only love Republicans who cave and lose. These Republicans in Indiana, you probably don't agree with them on much. I don't agree with them on much in terms of their policies, but they knew what was coming if they stood up to Trump. They stood up to him anyway. And I just wonder how different you think our country and our politics could be if more Republicans had that in them. I do believe a different kind of politics is possible. Oh, a different kind of point. Yeah, that man, by the way, ran for president and will again. The beard doesn't help. Now, the truth is Trump vexes all of them because he doesn't play by their rules. He never did. He called it as he saw it. The establishment was an abject failure, both on the left and the right. And he took them all out. He refused to be their political roadkill. And he never stopped fighting. He still not stopped fighting. Now, Obama is the smartest one they have in the Democrat Party still. There's no one who touches him. And even he could not stop Trump. So now Obama is relegated to going on some of these B list talk shows and pining away for the old days when Republicans just essentially agreed with him on everything. I'm worried about the Republican Party, not just the Democratic Party. I'd love a loyal opposition. I'd love a Republican Party that was conservative in some ways, that didn't agree with me on a whole bunch of stuff, but believed in rule of law and judicial independence and science and wasn't constantly tapping into our worst impulses. And there has been a Republican Party like that in the past, and I want to see that return. OK. Obama's worried. Did he talk about the rule of law, by the way? Yeah, he's worried. He's worried that the DOJ will finally nail everyone who had a hand in Crossfire Hurricane and that Brennan and Clapper will finally spill their guts about Obama's role in it. That's what he's worried about. The nerve of him talking about the rule of law. His intel community spied on Trump and lied in their FISA applications, and he likes a loyal opposition. Now, come on, he wants that old party back, the old GOP. Yeah, the party that got shellacked in 2006, in 2008, and in 2012. The mask is off. A decade since he left office, Obama seems to think that the only way to beat Trump and MAGA is to go full socialist. You look at somebody like Mondami, who I think is an extraordinary talent. He wants people to be able to afford housing in New York. He also, not only does he talk like a normal person, but he lives a normal life, but he also, he names what is obviously wrong. Yes. I love seeing those two spoon with Mondani. Now, the truth is, liberalism, it's already failed. It's failed in New York, it failed in Chicago, failed in St. Louis, failed in Los Angeles, in San Francisco, in Oakland, in Portland, in Seattle. The list goes on and on. But the red states, they're booming. Their populations increasing. And Donald Trump remains the most powerful force in politics, not just here in the U.S., but worldwide. And anyone, and I mean anyone trying to diminish him or MAGA, is either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant. And that's the angle. Here with his thought is Matt Towery, political analyst and pollster. Matt, I think you and I have done this segment far too many times. You think so? Right? How many times have we done this? This is like insane at this point. Over and over again. Right? Right? No. Okay. Again, established, as you've pointed out, that the midterms are always tough for the party in power. They just always are. However, people will write off, of course, what happened in Indiana last night by saying, well, it was a primary election, state Senate House, doesn't really matter. What do you say to that claim? Oh, goodness. I'm saying it again. Donald Trump is a force unequaled in the Republican Party. And let me just go to this point. There was about a month or so ago, I think we were talking about a month or so ago, you had a group of Republicans saying, oh, he's diminished. The war is killing him. It's taking his polling numbers away. His polling numbers among Republicans are the best they've ever been. There's the height. He has as much power now. And by the way, he's an incumbent now. So when he makes these endorsements in these midterms, they're a lot more powerful than in 2022. So I think Trump is just is exactly what we've said for the last few months. And that is he's on target. He's still strongly Republicans. And might I add something about Obama? I polled 2008 for Politico. I polled 2008 for Politico. OK, I know why Obama wants to have that old Republican Party. I know because he crushed it. That's why he doesn't want Donald Trump because they know Donald Trump's too tough to deal with. I mean, Obama was out there, Matt, with all those celebrities. And in 2016 and 2024, he did the whole thing, getting Biden off the ticket. He was doing all sorts of jiu-jitsu and they almost put Trump in jail. They tried to. Trump comes back and beats them all again. He is so bitter. OK, that should be the banner. Bitter Obama. That's it. Bitter Obama. He's jealous of Trump and he's bitter about Trump. That's it. He is bitter. He is bitter. I have one other thing about the polling. I want people to know right now, the polling that you're seeing come in on Trump is incorrect. The reason it's off is most of these polls do not correlate. They don't wait to his last election. Donald Trump has a floor, basically, of about 41, 42 if he has an absolute worst day. He has a ceiling of about 56 or 57 because the rest of the country is so polarized you can only go that far. But he's got a loyal 43 to 44 percent on any day of the month. And when he's doing well, he's got 50 plus and the pollsters are wrong. And I'm right. I guarantee I'm right about that. I mean, again, I said this before. I will say it again. He has not even started campaigning yet. Right. I mean, he hasn't even begun. That's going to start. The war is going to get wrapped up sooner, the better for that. But when he starts campaigning, I mean, no one touches him. I'm sorry. I'm so sick of these articles about Wither Trump, Wither MAGA. They're all stupid. Don't pay attention to them. Matt, I got to get to this redistricting, though, because this is important. Alabama, Louisiana. They're debating this mid-decade redistricting following that Supreme Court ruling last week. Do you think the results in Indiana will play into any of the results there and whether there will be any hesitant Republicans who sit on the sidelines? Well, it's sure better because today I saw where South Carolina, he's putting, lobbing in bombs in South Carolina and telling these guys who said they wouldn't consider redistricting, he wants them to do it as well. Now, South Carolina has their primary in June, but he's flexing his muscles. The Georgia legislature just sat on their rear end and did absolutely nothing. They could have taken Sanford Bishop out, as we talked about last week, in a heartbeat. They didn't do a thing and nobody's talking about it right now. I don't know what they're going to do. I believe that Trump has started something and he's going to finish it. I guarantee you he'll get the job done. Matt, he's carried this entire party on his back for a decade, honestly. I mean, one person, with the exception of a few people like Ron DeSantis. But he's carried the whole party on his back. And these people are clueless when it comes to actually winning and governing because politics is supposed to be about the art of winning, so you could put your policies in place. Matt, final word. Oh, absolutely. And he's the best at it. And he's proved it again. We saw it last night.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

With that, we bring in Mark Tieson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and Washington Post columnist and a Fox News contributor. Mark, always good to have you with us. What do you make of this clear dividing line between the current lead candidate for the GOP in the presidential election and his former ally, Senator Lindsey Graham? Well, I don't think he's his former ally, and I think Donald Trump tends to use this. Looks like Mark's shot is freezing up there. All right. Do we have Mark back? All right. Can you hear me? Coming in a little bit in and out there, Mark. Let's try it one more time. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah, sure. So, I mean, look, Lindsey Graham has his heart in the right place, but he is wrong and Donald Trump is right. And here's why. Donald Trump is being honest with pro-life voters in saying there is no chance that a 15-week abortion ban is going to get passed by the United States Senate because you need 60 votes to do that, to overcome a filibuster. And there's no way that the Republican Party is going to have a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority anytime soon. We don't even have the majority at all right now, and we're trying to get it back. So, it would be an empty promise to say we're going to pass a 15-week abortion ban at the federal level. But that has not stopped Democrats from demagoguing the issue. Joe Biden has said that Donald Trump wants a federal ban on abortion nationwide. And Biden served in the Senate for decades. He knows that's not true. He knows how the filibuster works, but he's trying to do it anyway because that's the only issue he has. So, what Donald Trump has done is he's being honest with the voters. He has defanged the issue from Democrats. They can no longer say that he wants a federal abortion ban because he's taken that off the table. And he's enabled Republicans to now go after Democrats and point out that they are the abortion extremists. The Democratic orthodoxy used to be abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and there was a necessary evil. Now their policy is federal taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. That is way out of step with the American people. So, Republicans can now focus on that rather than defending a ban at the federal level that is never going to happen that most Americans don't want to happen at that time. Yeah. I mean, we've heard a lot of things along the way and the evolution of former President Trump's stance on this. And I think it's fair to say that a lot of politicians have evolved on this issue over time to the position. It's very, very difficult to navigate in this country. Here's the former GOP candidate, Nikki Haley, and what she said during the campaign on this. Watch. I think that there is a place for a federal law, but they need to tell the American people the truth on how you get there. The only way you get a federal law is if you have a majority of the House, 60 Senate votes, and a signature by a president. So no Republican president can ban any state law, can ban abortions any more than Democrats can ban state laws. So what should we do? I think we find consensus. You know, your thoughts on her stance, which sounds fairly similar to former President Trump's stance right now. Yeah, it sounds like everyone was hailing Nikki Haley for saying that. But when Donald Trump says something similar, all of a sudden he's a pro-choice radical of some kind. I mean, look, first of all, the only reason we can ban abortion in any level is because of Donald Trump, because of the Supreme Court. He's the only president in six decades, Republican, that had a perfect record of Supreme Court appointments, which gave us this right. And second of all, he's right. We have to fight this out of the states and we have to do it in an incremental way. We have to end of Roe was not the end of the fight. It was the beginning. We have to convince Americans over time of the sanctity of unborn life. And that's going to take incremental progress at the state level. And if you do it the opposite way, they're going to elect pro-choice Democrats and it'll set back the pro-life cause even more. Yeah. In some ways, a lot of the same people who were fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade and say this is a state issue. It has to be decided by people closer to the issue in their own state. Some states will be very conservative on it. Some states will be more liberal. And they claim that that was exactly what they felt should happen now that they got what they wanted. They want to go back to some sort of blanket federal decision on all of this. So we'll see where it goes. Mark, thank you very much. Good to see you as always. Take care.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.