47 posts from Sunday, March 17, 2024

Right. All these lawsuits against Donald Trump, 91 felony charges. This isn't a coincidence. This isn't an accident. Either they're all talking to one another, or they all read the tea leaves. They watch the news. These bombs that they've dropped on Trump, left and right, to try and bankrupt him, to try and make it impossible to run a campaign, to try and get him convicted of some ridiculous felony. Every one of these charges. I'm the real legal analyst. OK? Every one of these charges is bogus. All 91 of them. Not one of them should have ever been brought. Not one of them. And my point to you is this. What is it that they want? They want Donald Trump in prison. You don't bring 91 felonies for the front of it. Not just to get a conviction. They want Donald Trump in prison. And what happens if they get a conviction here, a conviction there, convictions, and gets in front of these Democrat judges? Well, what happens if he's convicted? You're going to send him to jail? And if they send him to jail, what happens then? Well, Joe Biden might be the only candidate running for president, other than a few third party candidates. Can you run for president from prison? I suppose so. But you kind of have your hands tied behind your back, don't you? So the goal of the Democrat Party, the goal of Joe Biden, who's behind it all, he's aware of it. His people are out there. They've communicated with a number of these different prosecutorial offices. They don't put a stop to it. It's all bogus. It's all totalitarian. What is the goal? The goal is a one candidate race, one party rule. You didn't think it could happen. It's happening right in front of your eyes. Let's take a look at what this totalitarian Democrat Party's been up to. Impeachment number one, when the House was controlled by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, they tried to impeach him on Russian collusion. They tried. They had hearings and all the rest. Then they see this phone call that Trump himself released leaks coming out of the White House. They take a sentence completely out of context and they impeach him with barely any hearings. They impeach him on a sentence that wasn't criminal nature, nothing. And of course it goes to the Senate where he is found not guilty. Then they impeach him again. For what? After January 6, he's leaving office. He didn't call in the military. He didn't call in anybody to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. They impeach him while he's getting ready to leave for office. And while he's a private citizen at Mar-a-Lago, while he's a private, they vote to impeach him and they hold a trial in the Senate, never done before in American history ever based on what? Insurrection. Well where's the evidence? They didn't hold a hearing. They didn't have any facts. They didn't ask a question. They just said he did it. They ran through this impeachment. They ran it to the Senate because why? Because they're trying to destroy him. It's not on behalf of the country. It's not because of any so-called insurrection. That's impeachment number two. Now we have number three, the whole Russia collusion issue. Launch a criminal investigation. Schumer and the others pressured the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor and unfortunately they buckled over there because they knew it would bog down President Trump for years. The job of a special prosecutor is to focus like a laser on one person on one issue. It's not like a typical US attorney's office that has a thousand issues. It was based on fabricated information created by the Hillary Clinton or paid for it by the Hillary Clinton campaign, supported and promoted by the FBI and our intelligence agencies with the knowledge of, we now know, of Barack Obama and Joe Biden and others in the Obama administration. We've never seen anything like this. The result was no charges. Why? Because he didn't do anything wrong. That's why criminal investigations, depositions, subpoenas, warrants, nothing. Then we have this New York attorney general. She is a radical reprobate who runs for office saying she's going to get Trump. That should be enough to disbar her. The problem is it's in New York. Who controls the bar in New York? That's right. Her party. Like-minded radicals. She should have been disbarred. And what does she do? She's doing everything she can to bankrupt Trump. US attorney's office said there's no case here. Her predecessor, another radical, but he said there's no case here. She said I'll make a case here. The case is a consumer fraud statute that doesn't require fraud. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything Donald Trump did. Donald Trump not only didn't commit fraud, he made money for the banks. He paid all his taxes, everything not only on time, sometimes before time. And she digs this up and they say, oh, we got something, a phony law with a crummy, radical, elected Democrat nitwit of a judge. And now he's online for half a billion dollars trying to break him. They tried to take his businesses away. So an appellate judge said not so fast. I'll put that on stay. Why? Why are they trying to do this? Why do you think? And then we have this Soros, Manhattan DA brag, a complete moron, in my view. What does he do? Takes two laws, maybe three, tries to work him over to create a federal felony, which then creates a state felony for what? For nothing. For a bookkeeping issue. What happens there? Oh, we have another elected Democrat judge. So rather than saying, you know, this is crap, let's throw it out. Even the Democrat legal analysts on CNN say it's crap. But no, no, we're going to go forward with that. We just need one conviction on one count. He's got like 40 counts Trump. It's not hush money. It's a non-disclosure agreement. Every media outlet reporting on this has ended into non-disclosure agreements. Is that hush money? No, it's not hush money. Every corporation in America has, every business has married couples that divorce. They do the same thing. No, it's hush money. Gotta make it sound very devious. He didn't break any law, nor did his businesses, as relates to this. So now they're bogged down in Manhattan. Then we go to Atlanta. A RICO statute. RICO has nothing to do with challenging an election. Oh, but they had a separate slave electors. We'll call them fake electors. No, we'll call them a separate slave of electors. The same thing they did in 1876, the same thing they did, I think it was 1960 in Hawaii. If you're challenging the election results in a state, and if that goes all the way to the archivist of the United States who collects the electoral votes and then presents them to Congress when it meets to count them, if you don't have an alternative slate, you have no challenge. There's nothing to replace them. This is history. And so what do they do in Atlanta? They criminalize the entire process of challenging an election. Well, he called X, Y, Z and said, are you sure we don't have the votes? You sure we can't find the votes? He didn't say create votes. He didn't say manufacture votes. He said, don't we have any votes somewhere? Are we sure we checked everywhere? Oh, that's a crime. No, it's not. We also have the issue there, whether a local DA who's corrupt, who's unethical and all the rest has the authority to bring charges that affect the federal election. A judge already ruled. She does, but she doesn't. Let's continue. Washington, D.C. Garland appoints a hack, a prosecutor who was humiliated by a Supreme Court in an eight to zero decision when he targets and goes after the former governor of Virginia. Now, that should have been a warning that you don't appoint somebody like that with a major sensitive case like this. But for Garland, it was a resume enhancer. Why? Because Biden made it clear to the New York Times through his aides that he was sick and tired of Merrick Garland, a former judge acting like a judge, a curious judge rather than a prosecutor. Garland got the message. He hires the hack and they go full bore January six. So it must have been very, very terrible. It must have been really horrific what Trump did. I'm sure he charged him with insurrection. No, sedition. No. Well, the media keeps saying it was an insurrection and Trump committed sedition, but he didn't. Oh, well, then we have the the Ku Klux Klan Act to help us. 1871, we just figured out that exists. And we have the Enron Act. That is nothing to do it, but we'll use it. And then, of course, we have this federal contractor law that's really intended to prosecute federal contractors who break the law. We'll use them all against Trump. Really? That's how serious your case is. They keep throwing around insurrection and sedition and that he incited violence. He's not charged with any of it. But they keep saying insurrection. It's amazing. Those charges are completely concocted, completely concocted. Let's move on to the documents case where we're told that's the real case. What do you mean it's the real case? You raise another constitutional issue. I started it. Let me continue. A president has unfettered power to classify or declassify anything. He is the executive branch, not the secretary of state, not anybody at the National Archives, not at the CIA. None of them are in the Constitution. The president is the executive branch. He can delegate power by his own actions. He can take the power back. If there's no president, there is no cabinet officer and all the rest that don't exist in the Constitution. But he didn't he didn't declassify. We don't have any record of it. He took the document with him. So effectively, certainly appliedly, he declassified the document. He didn't say, I'm taking the document so they can charge me with a crime. How stupid is that? But even more, Hillary Clinton was in charge. He was never president. Joe Biden scores of felonies when he was a senator, private citizen. When he was vice president. You understand when he met with that ghostwriter and gave that ghostwriter classified information, you know what that was? Joe Biden sold it effectively, not to the ghostwriter, but to the publisher. They gave him an eight million dollar advance. He had to come up with something. I've got information and they don't know it. That's what he did. He essentially sold classified information for eight million dollars. That's what he did. But we can't charge him. He's an imbecile, an imbecile. Wow. But he could be president. We can have imbeciles as president. That's perfectly fine. The Espionage Act has never been used against a president. Passed in 1917. Never been used against the next president. Never been used against the next secretary of state. Never been used against the next vice president. Wasn't used against Bill Clinton when he was hiding classified information on videos in his sock drawer. Again, not used against Hillary Clinton at a 30,000 times she violated the act. Or so, oh, Mark, she didn't. Oh, we'll quibble over the numbers, right? Or the scores of times Biden violated the law since 1976. He stole classified information out of the Senate's gift. They have cameras. So you know what he had to do? He literally had to do this or pull a Sandy Berger and put it down his pants or whatever the hell he did. That's what he did. And he violated the Espionage Act every time he moved the records, put it in his briefcase, went for this house, the rental home, went here, went there, kept them open. That is a slam dunk case. Slam dunk case. But Trump, they say the difference is obstruction. What we have here is a setup. You don't get a warrant. Send this FBI SWAT team to a former president's home to grab documents. How do I know that? I'm the only person on this network or almost any network who was chief of staff to an attorney general. I know you've had Bill Barr say things, I mean an attorney general like Ed Meese. You know what he would have done? He would have said, you want me to send my guys into a federal court to get a criminal warrant against a former president over documents? You know what kind of constitutional issues I don't raise? You know what kind of impact that I'll have on the future election? I'm not going to set fires all over the place. Let me give him a call. That's what he would have done. How do I know? I used to sit next to the man. If that didn't work, he still would have done something else. Gone civilly with the matter. There is no way in hell he would have done what Biden obviously was encouraging his attorney general to do or the rogue attorney general did. What else has the totalitarian Democrat party done? Well, their surrogates tried to take Trump off the ballot with some cockamamie interpretation of section 3 of the 14th amendment, which was always bizarre. But hey, anything that can work, so they tried to do that. So what else have they done? Well, my first guest, congressman leading the investigation of the January 6th committee, congressman Loudermilk, the January 6th committee destroyed massive amounts of information, manipulated witnesses, censored certain witnesses, only put out information they wanted, covered up exculpatory information that they didn't want to provide and took the most important piece of evidence Donald Trump had to prove that he had nothing at all to do with any riot, any violence, any sedition, any insurrection, which would completely destroy the Democrat party and their media's narrative. He did, in fact, offer the National Guard. He did, in fact, offer 10,000 members. He did, in fact, the night before January 6th, call the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, and say again, do you guys have enough resources and so forth? It actually happened. And yet Liz Cheney and that committee has continued to say it never happened. They're lying. The whole argument that's been going on and on, repetition of the big lie is totalitarian. That Trump led an insurrection. They don't have a syllable of evidence to support it, not a thing, which is why he's not charged with it, which is why in the end, the Senate had to find him not guilty of it. Nothing. Their goal is to imprison Donald Trump so Biden has a clear field. That's why you charge somebody with 91 felonies in four different jurisdictions. I'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

- Welcome back, America. First of all, I want to correct myself. I got to thinking about it. The US Attorney and the former DA in Manhattan took a pass on the Bragg case. I just want to make that abundantly clear. We're here with Congressman Barry Loudermilk, the Congressman from Georgia, House Financial Services Committee member and a subcommittee chairman. Congressman Loudermilk, you put out an 81-page report and you've made it abundantly clear, both on my radio show and elsewhere, that as you look into the conduct this January 6th committee, you're finding things that are extraordinarily troubling to you and your other members. That is, among other things, the mass destruction of evidence, whether it's video, whether it's deposition, whether it's text, whether it's emails, the movement of certain information behind firewalls encrypted so you folks have been unable so far, even with forensic experts, to break through and get the information. Most of this occurred a week before the Republicans took over the House, so it was done in a very aggressive way and done in a purposeful way. But you've also found a number of substantive things involving whether or not President Trump did in fact offer the National Guard. Liz Cheney has been running around and said that's false. Liz Cheney keeps referring people to the report. Liz Cheney keeps doubling down. Also, you have information from a witness who did in fact testify, but was not included in the public pronouncements about January 6th, a deputy chief of staff to the president and on and on and on. Information about Cassidy Hutcheson, so let's begin. Number one, in terms of this committee destroying and hiding information, have you made any progress? - Well, we've made progress in actually getting access to some of the documents that they moved to the executive branch, in my opinion, which was to keep it from public view and keep it from us. Four documents went to the White House. Eight documents went to the Department of Homeland Security. We were able to get the redacted copies of the testimonies of White House employees, which we included in our report. And through pressuring the White House, we're finally, they never gave us unredacted copies, but they allowed us to come to the White House and review the unredacted copies. And after looking at it, we realized there's enough that was remained unredacted in the copies. They sent us that showed a different story than what this select committee was presenting. DHS, for months, they just went silent on us. Now they're telling us, oh, we still haven't finished our review of these documents. It's been well over a year. They're slow walking it. But we have at least now have Homeland Security is as of last week said, well, look, you can come look at these documents as well. But for some reason, they sent us the key document that we were looking for, which was the transcribed interview of the driver of the SUV that Trump was supposedly take the steering wheel from. So we did make some progress there. We're still trying to break passwords. But the biggest, I think, violation of public trust and house rules was the destruction or the hiding of the videotapes of all the depositions. Those, I think, are clearly-- they admitted to getting rid of those. And so of everything that they've done, I think that is the biggest violation. Let's dig in a little bit further, Congressman. This National Guard issue, I had the acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, on my radio show about a year ago. He said, everything you're reading in the media is not true. And hearing from the Democrats is being spun that, in fact, Donald Trump did offer the National Guard. He offered it in front of him. He offered it to him. That is, he told him to be ready in case they're called up. Cash Patel, Chief of Staff, has said the same thing. So they're trashing both of these men. They're twisting what they have said. And in fact, Mark Meadows testified that they had a National Guard unit, specifically positioned at Andrews Air Force Base, should it be necessary. And the former secretary of defense also told me on the radio that he believed it was January 5, the day before, that he got a call from President Trump. He wanted reassurance, did President Trump, that, in fact, we were in a position to help and that everybody had everything they need. And you also came in touch with a witness and witness information of, believe it was Deputy Chief of Staff, which he heard most of this, and actually heard the mayor of DC turn down any help. Is that right? That's correct. And that was one of the supposedly missing documents. That was Tony Ornato, who was the Deputy Chief of Staff. Two Mark Meadows, over operations. Now, he had been the head of secret service detail until President Trump promoted him to the Deputy Chief of Staff of Operations. And we knew that he had done multiple transcribed interviews with the committee, but there was one that was just commonly referred to as the missing Ornato interview. And our team, through a lot of diligence and digging, we were able to find that. And exactly what you just said was in there, that he had testified to the committee, that he heard the conversation with Mark Meadows offering up to 10,000 troops. And even in early January, not long after the attack on the Capitol, Vanity Fair of all publications had ran an article that Trump had offered National Guard and told Secretary Miller, you have full authorization to get the Guard ready. That was in January by a liberal publication. So there is much more evidence. We even have evidence from the White House transcribed interviews that we received from the White House employees, where one of them said, that responded to a question by the select committee, which was, when President Trump first heard of the attack on the Capitol, what was his response? And this White House employee, who was physically with the president that day, said his immediate response was, get Pelosi and Milley on the phone and see what help they need. There are several instances on the record where he had offered and even was trying to get people to take the National Guard. But it was Pelosi. It was Bowser that turned down the offer. But it was crucial that they destroy the truth. It was crucial that they cover it up. It was crucial that witnesses that corroborate the president's position, that people who had evidence that would demonstrate that the president did what he said he did, it was crucial that those people be silenced, that they not be heard, that their information be killed, that they not have public testimony when the click lights were there. And so this whole argument about Donald Trump leading an insurrection, impeached on an insurrection, charged with the Klan Act and the rest, but still the environment is created about an insurrection. Donald Trump was never, ever, ever involved in or promoted an insurrection and is a rational matter, Congressman. If you're supporting an insurrection, wouldn't there be an email, a text, a sentence, a witness anywhere who said, I heard Trump say we're gonna take the building, I heard him call it so and so and say, we're gonna do these things, not one word. When we come back, Cassidy Hutcheson who was a key witness in a darling of the meeting wrote her own book and was taken under the wing of Liz Cheney, you found out information about that too. We'll be right back. Welcome back America, Congressman Barry Loudermilk. What about Cassidy Hutcheson who Liz Cheney took under her wing, who got an enormous amount of publicity, who wrote a book, what about her? - Well, she's very interesting because she was interviewed probably more than anyone else. Her first three interviews by the committee lined up with everyone else that they had met, that they had invited in to testify. But what's interesting is some of this we've derived from Cassidy Hutcheson's book and Liz Cheney's book is after her third transcribed interview, she had a meeting with Liz Cheney. After that meeting, she fired her existing attorney. Liz Cheney arranged for her to get a different attorney. And then they held another, a fourth transcribed interview. But unlike the others, this was just her and Liz Cheney and Liz's hideaway office in the Capitol. And the only others present was a court reporter and a videographer. No other member of the committee knew that this interview was going on afterwards. Liz Cheney showed the videotape of her testimony and the committee moved to have an emergency hearing at that moment to parade her in front of America that she could tell these sensational stories. They never tried to corroborate her story at all. In fact, going forward, I told our team as we start looking at all these transcribed interviews, don't just look at the way people answer questions, look at the questions that were asked and more importantly, the questions that weren't asked. And many times they would not ask firsthand, people had a firsthand account of these instances, they wouldn't even ask these questions because they didn't want anyone to give a testimony counter to what Cassidy Hutchinson had testified. - And that includes the so-called beast, the presidential limousine, where she conveys this story where Donald Trump is struggling with the Secret Service agents who's driving the car, grabs them by the neck, which is so preposterous. She wasn't there, so she, it's all hearsay, if worse. They put her in front of the clig lights, it's headlines everywhere, but they didn't bring in the people who were actually involved that day, including the driver, the Secret Service driver and the others, who I understand from you and your report, said none of that ever happened, correct? - That is correct, but he had to interject that. So she made these accusations in June. They didn't call the driver in until September. Of course, this is already national news and they're pushing this narrative that Trump is this irate guy, he's crazy, he's tried to choke a Secret Service officer, tried to grab the steering wheel from this guy. You would think when they bring this guy in, that is one thing they would ask him. They didn't even ask him if that incident was true, he had to interject it on his own. That right there tells me they did not want to get to the truth, they had their predetermined narrative, they were gonna suppress anything that countered these sensational stories that Ms. Hutchinson came up with. And again, hers was third party. She said she heard Tony Ornato, Tony Ornato called her over after the speech on the lips and said, did you hear what happened in The Beast? Tony Ornato testified in the same transcribed interview that we released, that never happened. He never told her anything like that and had never heard of that story at all until she testified to it in June. And so again, they suppressed anything that was contrary to what Ms. Hutchinson said because her story played right into the narrative that they wanted to sell to the American people. You have to assume all this material that was destroyed, interviews and all the rest, actually cut against their narrative. Otherwise, why would they destroy it? That is a perfectly legitimate inference. And you have to assume it was intentional, somebody ordered it. And you have to assume there are witnesses to this. Liz Cheney has made herself the face and the voice of this committee. She's doubled down, she's been all over the internet, trashing anybody who disagrees with her, keeps referencing them to page whatever it is of the report, which of course is not the final say. And so my question to you is this. Are we gonna be able to get to the bottom of this, the destruction of the information and the use of this committee and our tax dollars to advance another horrendous hit job on the former president and his staff on behalf of the Democrat Party? Are we gonna be able to get to the bottom of this? In other words, at some point before the next election, because God only hopes you guys hold on, but you may not. Are we gonna have testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury by Liz Cheney and others so we can get to the bottom of this, have them straighten it out, turn to the pages of the report they want you to show and then show them the other information and ask them how that information didn't get into this report and so forth and so on. - Well, Mark, that is our plan. We still have a lot more investigation to go. We're gonna build upon what we laid out in this report. We're already working overtime now on the next phase of information and once we compile all that together, at some point, we're gonna need people who were on that committee and we're gonna call them in and we're going to ask some difficult questions for them because we got to make sure the American people not only know the truth of what happened, but something like this never happens again in this country. - Amen. I mean, they want us to know the information, so why did they destroy half of it? Congressman Loudermilk, I wanna thank you for what you're doing. Keep it up and we'll definitely wanna have you back. God bless you, my friend. - Well, God bless you, Mark. Thank you very much. - We'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.