Aug. 12, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:49
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony is on our show a lot. | ||
| President Trump announcing he's going to nominate Heritage Foundation Chief Economist E.J. Anthony to be the next commissioner of the BLS, Arlos. | ||
| Maybe the BLS has gained. | ||
| He's going to replace Erica McKentifer, who just, you know, seems like a fine person, but that name every time, this is an uptick there, a lot easier. | ||
| President Trump, right? | ||
| First fire. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You don't say, man. | |
| You would have said the foot. | ||
| I guarantee you, you would have said the old BLS commissioner that was fired. | ||
| That's how you would have probably gotten around. | ||
| That's how I would have done it. | ||
| One way, which I thought about it and then I said, you know what? | ||
| Tricks on TV. | ||
| Yeah, no one at home is going to know either way, so I'm going with McKentifer. | ||
| Who President Trump fired on August 1st following a worse than expected jobs report? | ||
|
unidentified
|
At this point, I would have learned her name. | |
| So I say. | ||
| I'm a little worried about, I hope the CPI isn't like crazy because, you know, we do have to trust these numbers. | ||
| These are as good as it gets probably around the world. | ||
| Most of the numbers that we do generate. | ||
| The president had accused the last BLS director of manipulating the data. | ||
| And then when we spoke to the president, I tried to talk him into, look, the data is so bad and it hasn't been improved that there's plenty of reasons maybe to try and get somebody else to do it without saying that it was politically motivated. | ||
| Anthony, by the way, was a contributor to the Project 2025 policy blueprint, frequent squawkbox. | ||
| I guess President Trump advisor Steve Bannon had been pushing for him to be nominated. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you've tried to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big line? | ||
| MAGA media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
| Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | ||
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Waru. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Back. | ||
| Tuesday, 12 August, Year of Our Lord 2025, a packed second hour coming up. | ||
| John Solomon's going to be here with kind of a blockbuster. | ||
| He scooped everybody on last night about these seditious conspiracy charges, grand jury, all of it. | ||
| Certain whistleblowers and informants coming out. | ||
| We're going to get to John Solomon. | ||
| Also said Michael Patrick Leahy and Jeff Shepard have made an incredible film about President Nixon. | ||
| We're going to launch that today. | ||
| You get to see a trail on that. | ||
| Jim Rickers, the great Jim Rickards, is with us. | ||
| I want to introduce George Beebe. | ||
| He's the director of grant strategy at the Quincy Institute and author of an amazing book I read, I think it was last year, it came out, called The Russia Trap. | ||
| Sir, what is the Russia trap and how's this going to play into this historic summit that's going to take place in our own Alaska on Friday, sir? | ||
| Well, thanks, Steve. | ||
| I read the Russia Trap in 2019, and I was warning about a collision course that the United States and Russia were on that I thought was going to end potentially in escalation into direct military conflict. | ||
| And I laid out the case for why that was in train and what we needed to do to avoid it. | ||
| Unfortunately, I think a lot of the things that I said were going to lead toward this collision were things that the Biden administration actually did. | ||
| And we wound up in all but direct military conflict with Russia with real dangers of escalation into nuclear weapons use. | ||
| And I think to his great credit, President Trump has said, you know, we can't continue on that path. | ||
| We're going to have to find a way to settle the war in Ukraine and to put the U.S.-Russian relationship on a much safer path than it has been on. | ||
| And he's doing that. | ||
| And I think I'm hopeful that this meeting in Alaska will put the conflict in Ukraine on a path towards settlement. | ||
| It's not going to by itself settle all of the issues that have to be addressed to end the war in Ukraine. | ||
| But I think it is possible to come up with a framework agreement in Alaska that will be a path toward an ultimate peace settlement. | ||
| And I think the meeting is also going to put the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship on a much healthier course as well. | ||
| So I think the chances for Trump's success are relatively significant in all of that. | ||
| And that's a major accomplishment in and of itself. | ||
| Zelensky is clearly not going to be invited. | ||
| The Europeans are meeting. | ||
| They're going to have their say so. | ||
| When you talk about framework, what is your best guess right now of what the optimum framework is for the bilateral relationships of the United States and Russia? | ||
| Because that's what we care about. | ||
| We've been defending the Europeans. | ||
| And like I say about World War II, virtually none of the nations in NATO, their leaders, almost all those countries were either neutral, leaning towards the fascists and the Nazis or actual partners with them that our real ally were not the Bolsheviks. | ||
| There's some of the worst people. | ||
| They're as bad as the Nazi leadership, but the Russian people. | ||
| So what framework do you think is the optimum for a bilateral beginning of a rapprochement between the United States and Russia? | ||
| Well, I think the biggest issue in the relationship between Russia and the United States since the end of the Cold War has been the shape of Europe's security order. | ||
| The United States essentially said, okay, we've ended the Cold War. | ||
| We had a Europe split between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. | ||
| That's over. | ||
| We're entering a new era. | ||
| And we very quickly said, you know, and that new era is going to be NATO-centric. | ||
| NATO is going to be the organization that has overarching security responsibility in Europe. | ||
| And Russia is simply going to have to swallow that. | ||
| And Russia doesn't really have a significant role to play in all of this. | ||
| Russia can be a junior partner to NATO. | ||
| It can basically endorse decisions that the NATO allies agree to, but it can't really be a decision maker in all of this. | ||
| And the Russians said, hey, no, wait a minute, that's not what we thought we were agreeing to. | ||
| Europe should be a player in European security decision making. | ||
| And Russia has to make sure that NATO doesn't put military forces in close proximity to Russia's own borders and pose a military threat as Russia sees it to Russian interests. | ||
| And this has been the central issue, I think, between Russia and the West, between Russia and the United States, ever since. | ||
| And the Russians have urged a way to try to find a compromise that respects both European security interests and Russia's own security concerns. | ||
| And the West has essentially said no, you know, we're not going to talk about that. | ||
| That's out of bounds. | ||
| And eventually we reached the point where the Russians said, okay, if you're not going to talk about it at the diplomatic table, we're going to settle this matter on the battlefield. | ||
| We can exercise a veto over whether Ukraine becomes a member of NATO or not. | ||
| We can exercise a veto over whether the West puts military forces on Ukrainian territory. | ||
| If you're not willing to address this at the negotiating table, we'll address it on the battlefield. | ||
| And we're now at a point where the United States has said, okay, we do need to address this at the negotiating table. | ||
| If we can settle that issue, and it's going to take a lot to address this, Ukraine is a part of it. | ||
| Settling the war in Ukraine on a compromise basis is a big part of addressing this bigger issue, but it doesn't by itself solve all the issues that have to be addressed. | ||
| We have to look at arms control. | ||
| We have to look at confidence in security measures in Europe. | ||
| We need to recognize that Russia has to have a voice on European security issues that directly affect Russia's core security concerns. | ||
| So I think that is something that has to be addressed in a framework. | ||
| We have to put the conflict in Ukraine on a path toward a compromise. | ||
| And I think the two presidents are going to do that in Alaska. | ||
| But we also have to put in place an understanding that these broader issues about Europe's security, both conventional military issues and nuclear matters, have to be on the table, that Russia, Europe, and the United States have to be negotiating over these. | ||
| That's going to take a while. | ||
| But I think acknowledging in Alaska that that has to be on the agenda is a critical matter. | ||
| We do that. | ||
| And then I think that helps the United States in its broader geopolitical issues. | ||
| It disincentivizes a close security relationship between Russia and China. | ||
| It won't drive a wedge between the two of them. | ||
| They'll certainly continue to have extensive economic and political interactions as normal countries do, but it doesn't incentivize them to cooperate in security matters against the United States to the degree that they have in recent years. | ||
| And I think it helps ensure that Europe stands on its own two feet as a security player in the world. | ||
| Europe hasn't been doing this. | ||
| They've been relying on the United States to be essentially their security subcontractor. | ||
| We can't afford to do that anymore. | ||
| And this helps ensure that they play that role. | ||
| I mean, when you look at it, though, I remember when I came off of sea duty and went to the Pentagon in 1980, the Red Army coming across the North German plain, the Folda Gap, you know, the forward deployment of Persian missiles, all of it to stop the Red Army. | ||
| You've got guys three years into a war. | ||
| They really haven't taken all that much new territory from what they had, and they failed to take Odessa. | ||
| There's no chance they can go across Poland into Germany. | ||
| And the NATO side's a joke. | ||
| The whole 5% is not for 10 years. | ||
| It's just about Ukraine. | ||
| The population over there, I think they took a poll. | ||
| 9% of the German population wants to defend their country. | ||
| NATO has no real military force. | ||
| I think they can put forward outside the United Kingdom two combat divisions if you put them all together. | ||
| They don't really want to pay for the military. | ||
| So are we overblowing the fact that these security, you got an army that really can't take anything and is after a million casualties can't take Odessa. | ||
| And you've absent tactical nuclear weapons. | ||
| And you have Europeans that's really not a military threat, the Russian army. | ||
| And in addition, they don't want to pay for anything. | ||
| They want the Americans to pay for it, sir. | ||
| No, I think that's exactly right. | ||
| The Russians were fighting on territory that was extremely favorable to them, short supply lines right on the Russian border, in a country that they were intimately familiar with. | ||
| They had once been one country. | ||
| Their military officers knew Ukraine, its territory, its terrain, the way that Ukrainians fight, all of that were essentially optimum conditions for the Russian military. | ||
| And they still have inched forward for years on this. | ||
| They've not overwhelmed Ukraine militarily in any quick sense. | ||
| So to look at their performance in Ukraine and say, we worry that the Russians are going to take Germany or Poland or France, I think is absurd. | ||
| They have no capability to do so. | ||
| I think they also have no desire to do so. | ||
| They're not even going to take all of Ukrainian territory. | ||
| The vast bulk of Ukraine is going to remain independent once this war is over. | ||
| And the Russians have no capability to occupy and govern the rest of Ukraine either, let alone conquer it. | ||
| It would require an enormous occupation army far bigger than what the Russian military has. | ||
| So we have to understand that the Russian threat, quote unquote, to Europe really is not a threat of military invasion. | ||
| It's the threat of unintentional escalation into a nuclear confrontation that the Russians don't want and we don't want Europeans don't want. | ||
| That's the big danger. | ||
| And that's why we have to be negotiating for a new relationship. | ||
| That's the trap. | ||
| George, where do people get you at the Quincy Institute? | ||
| Want to have you back on? | ||
| Where do people go for social media and your website? | ||
| It's QuincyInstitute.quincyinst.org. | ||
| And do you have a social media handle? | ||
| Do you have a Twitter handle? | ||
| I do not. | ||
| I'm on LinkedIn, but I'm not on Twitter. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| We'll get some people over to the website today. | ||
| Sir, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| Appreciate you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Jim Brickett is still with us. | ||
| Rickard's going to jump in here. | ||
| We got John Solomon, big scoop coming out of Solomon. | ||
| I think we're starting to get close to the sharp end of the stick on this seditious conspiracy. | ||
| I'm feeling it now. | ||
| John Shalom is going to be here to explain why. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Johnny Khan takes this out with American Heart. | ||
| We'll be back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
American made. | |
| I got American part. | ||
| I got American made. | ||
| In America's heart. | ||
| Kill America's Voice, family. | ||
| Are you on Getter yet? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| What are you waiting for? | ||
| It's free. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's uncensored. | |
| And it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. | ||
| Download the Getter app right now. | ||
| It's totally free. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day. | |
| You want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking? | ||
| Go to get her. | ||
| That's right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You can follow all of your favorites, Steve Bannon, Charlie Cook, Jack the Soviet, and so many more. | |
| Download the Getter app now, sign up for free, and be part of the new band. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| As we told you, the most important thing everyone's working on, and the president has raised the stakes on this, is this seditious conspiracy investigation currently underway, John Solomon. | ||
| John, you broke pretty big blockbuster news last night, late at night, over at Just the News in Solomon John Solomon Reports. | ||
| Walk us through what last night's scoop was, why it's important, and where it's going to lead to, sir. | ||
| Well, we've been talking about a long time how much the legacy news media were a co-conspirator in the creating of false narratives that hampered American elections and hampered an American president. | ||
| Over the next few days, we're going to try to lay out how the media became so deeply involved. | ||
| And last night we released our first example. | ||
| The FBI has known since 2017 that Adam Schiff was accused of leaking classified information by one of his own staffers, a longtime Democrat staffer on the House Intelligence Committee. | ||
| Went to the FBI four times between 2017 and 2023 to say that Adam Schiff, starting when he was ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, leaked classified information. | ||
| In fact, he was in a meeting. | ||
| He was in a meeting where Schiff authorized the leak of information. | ||
| Obviously, Schiff wouldn't do it himself. | ||
| He'd asked some of his people downstream from him. | ||
| That staffer told the FBI he considered Schiff's instructions to be illegal, unethical, and treasonous, the same word that Tulsi Gabbard first used a few weeks ago. | ||
| Despite having four interviews with this gentleman and getting very specific information from him, and by the way, he was a career national security officer who got assigned to the House Intelligence Committee. | ||
| He leaned Democrat. | ||
| He was a Democrat by self-identification. | ||
| The FBI did nothing. | ||
| And I think that that is how many times did we hear, oh, we're taking these leaks seriously. | ||
| We can't run them down. | ||
| In this case, they ran it down. | ||
| They could show from an eyewitness that Adam Schiff had approved classified leaks. | ||
| They chose, the Justice Department chose not to bring a prosecution. | ||
| So this is, and folks, when you get into the weeds here, which we're going to have to do, it's mind-blowing because the timeframe you said is 2017, and it's a Democratic staffer on the well, he was on the House Intelligence Committee. | ||
| He was the ranking member, in fact. | ||
| Correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
| A guy named Donald John Trump was actually President of the United States, and there was an FBI director at that time that was removed, Comey, but then another one that was approved, Ray. | ||
| Plus, Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House. | ||
| Devin Nunez, he removed Devin Nunez, remember, forced Devin Nunez to recuse himself and put Trey Gowdy in charge of the thing. | ||
| Those leaks that came out, wouldn't the Republicans immediately know that Schiff had basically leaked classified information? | ||
| And this is what he went on TV every night and hammered President Trump about. | ||
| I mean, this is not what's shocking here is not that Schiff did it. | ||
| What's shocking is that you had a Democratic staffer that went to the FBI and said this is happening multiple times. | ||
| The FBI never informed the President of the United States. | ||
| And more importantly, Trey Gowdy and Paul Ryan are up to their neck in this thing. | ||
| You could have seen immediately, you would have seen immediately that this was classified documentation. | ||
| And I think what's going to come out is that people on the staff, I don't know, people like I'm a thought some random names. | ||
| Cash Patel, the general counsel of the committee, and Derek Harvey and others warned people about what was happening. | ||
| So this scandal is horrible for Schiff, but there's a lot of blame to go around here about why this concerted effort by Paul Ryan, the Republican establishment, Trey Gowdy, Chris Ray, another Republican, why they were in on this to take down President Trump, sir. | ||
| Yeah, so as best we can tell, the majority staff was not fully alerted to the FBI's investigation. | ||
| It looks like this goes to some career official in the U.S. Attorney's Office on Donald Trump's watch, and it dies there. | ||
| So the questions that we all need to be asking, and we are asking right now, is what did Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, know? | ||
| What did Rod Rosenstein, the acting attorney general for All Matters Russia, know, because this was a Russia matter? | ||
| What did the U.S. Attorney that Donald Trump appointed in Washington, D.C. know? | ||
| That's going to be something I'm almost certain the House Judiciary Committee is going to take on. | ||
| I'm going to be talking to Jim Jordan shortly. | ||
| We'll get on top of that. | ||
| But it may have died in the deep state. | ||
| One little hand may have pulled it in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., put it in a closet, and nobody else knew about it until Cash Patel got to be FBI director and then dug these documents up. | ||
| Tonight, we're going to learn about a similar circumstance. | ||
| Tonight, we're going to learn about what James Comey's own inner circle, the people he trusted most in his inner circle, what they knew about leaks of classified information coming from the FBI, what they told the FBI and the Justice Department Inspector General, and what the Justice Department did not do under President Trump and under President Biden to bring some form of accountability to those leaks. | ||
| You're seeing a pattern here. | ||
| The leaking of classified information was essentially sanctioned by a lack of accountability and the false stories allowed to stand because no one was accused, was arrested for the leaking of this information. | ||
| Now, let me remind people, most of the statutes on classified information are just five-year statute of limitations, but there is one provision of the Espionage Act that extends the statute of limitations to 10 years, and that is knowing and willful leaking, meaning you authorized the leak. | ||
| You didn't accidentally do it. | ||
| You knowingly, willfully, certainly the whistleblower on Adam Schiff said it was knowing and willful because Schiff even says at some point or his staff says, don't worry about it. | ||
| We'll be protected by the debate and speech clause of the Constitution. | ||
| So that does sound like it could lean into knowing and willful. | ||
| And the question for Pam Bondi is, are you going to look at this under the 10-year statute? | ||
| That's something we're asking today of the Justice Department right now. | ||
| John, you're an expert in this. | ||
| Given the story last night, the implications are, do you think this rises to the level of for Schiff? | ||
| Let's just take Schiff, forget all the other, because there's so much other stuff going on. | ||
| But just on Schiff and what you've reported, do you think that's the type of thing that you could see, particularly if they decide on the 10-year, that you could actually see indictments on? | ||
| It's possible. | ||
| I mean, the Justice Department will have to make a decision on whether the debate and speech clause protects a member from leaking something in his official capacity or her official capacity. | ||
| These are not the equities of the House Intelligence Committee. | ||
| These are federal executive branch equities, meaning the intelligence is owned by the executive branch. | ||
| So I think you can Overcome the speech and debate clause in that circumstance. | ||
| But those are things that have to be worked through. | ||
| I think the other way to look at it is Adam Schiff now one of those co-conspirators in a long-running 10-year conspiracy against the American people and Donald Trump. | ||
| That's another way this could go. | ||
| And I think there's some big decisions ahead for Pam Bondi. | ||
| You and I have been saying this. | ||
| The ball is in Pam Bonnie's case. | ||
| Cash Patel has teed up an extraordinary amount of evidence that I don't think he even knew existed until he became FBI director. | ||
| All of his people are helping him. | ||
| All these career people have come out of the woodwork at the FBI to tell the dirty secrets of what was going on. | ||
| Now it's up to Pam Bondi to decide how do you take all this evidence and get some real accountability. | ||
| We don't need another investigation. | ||
| We need real accountability, consequences. | ||
| Are you going to, this, the Comey situation, that will break tonight on Just the News? | ||
| We're working on it right now. | ||
| Hopefully, have that out by the time we all go to bed. | ||
| And we'll give you an update tomorrow on that. | ||
| And we've got a lot more stuff coming ahead, Steve. | ||
| And the other thing I've been working on this week, some jaw-dropping evidence of just how often the FBI and the Justice Department was protecting Hillary Clinton from real allegations of corruption. | ||
| We've seen some documents that have literally blown me away in terms of their specificity. | ||
| Later this week, we're going to lean into the Clinton Foundation and how much obstruction of justice occurred there. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| John, where do people get your content? | ||
| The show, podcast, all the different news sites, sir, and your social media. | ||
| You bet. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Justinnews.com is a news site. | ||
| We put all our stuff up, including the original documents. | ||
| You could look at them yourself. | ||
| You don't have to take my word for them. | ||
| And then Jay Solomon reports on social media handles. | ||
| And I'm lucky enough every night to follow you here at Real America's Voice at 6 o'clock with Justin News, No Noise, Amanda Head and I. Always grateful to have that handoff. | ||
| Great job, John. | ||
| Fantastic. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| Look forward to seeing you tomorrow. | ||
| Sounds good, buddy. | ||
| Every day, I think you're getting another bombshell. | ||
| This also goes back to this Paul Ryan forcing Devin Nunez to recuse himself and essentially shutting down Cash as general counsel and Derek Harvey as chief investigator and essentially turning the House Intelligence Committee on President Trump's first term over to Schiff and to Swalwell. | ||
| Swalwell, who we now know was compromised by a Chinese Communist Party agent of influence. | ||
| This is the outrageous nature. | ||
| This was how it was fixed against President Trump. | ||
| This thing's going to get so nasty as the details come out. | ||
| Jim Rickerts, we've got about a minute. | ||
| I'm going to hold you through, brother, your sense of where this investigation is going and how deep and how sordid it is, sir. | ||
| Well, a great job by John Solomon. | ||
| Now, John made the point: there's a five-year statute on leaking classified information, but it's 10 years of its knowing and willful, et cetera. | ||
| That's a very powerful point. | ||
| But that is not the only way to extend the statute of limitations. | ||
| That's one way, an important way. | ||
| But if there's a conspiracy, the question is: when do you start the statute of limitations? | ||
| Leave aside whether it's five years or seven years or 10 years. | ||
| When do you start the clock? | ||
| In a conspiracy, you start it from the last act, not the first act. | ||
| So the first act may have been in 2016 or 2017. | ||
| But if they were still conspiring and taking actions and having conversations, et cetera, in furtherance of that, as late as 2021 or 2022, et cetera, or even more recently, then throw five years on top of that. | ||
| So you're easily past today's date. | ||
| So I don't think statute of limitations is going to be much of a problem on these prosecutions. | ||
| Jim, hang on for a second. | ||
| We'll get your take on the Russia trap in the summit that we're going to have. | ||
| Jim Rickerts is with us. | ||
| Also, two very special people, Michael Patrick Leahy and Jeff Shepard, on their new film that's going to be released today on the War Room site. | ||
| And you can get it for free. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| If you like what's happening down in Texas, dial Patriot, 972 Patriot, 972 Patriot. | ||
| Talk to the folks at Patriot Mobile. | ||
| You'll talk to a U.S. citizen in a call center in the United States of America about shifting your service today to the best mobile service in the country, Patriot Mobile, 972 Patriot. | ||
| Make the switch today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann. | |
| So, Jim Rickerts, give me your assessment on the run-up to Alaska and this summit. | ||
| With everything John Solomon's showing daily and other reports are coming out about this conspiracy, a seditious conspiracy against President Trump, President Trump said yesterday at the press conference, hey, it's kind of a sign of weakness. | ||
| We have a capital that's out of control with crime and degeneracy, but he's stepping in to take action on that. | ||
| Where do you think we sit? | ||
| And what are the things the audience should be looking for as we run up to the meeting on Friday in Alaska, sir? | ||
| Well, the one we already mentioned, Steve, is that this is much broader than Ukraine. | ||
| It involves basically all the security arrangements for Europe undoing or at least going beyond what was set up at the end of World War II. | ||
| The Russians, the Soviets at the time, disbanded the Warsaw Pact, but we never disbanded NATO. | ||
| I don't know how many Americans understand. | ||
| Article 5 in NATO says, an attack on one member is an attack on all. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So what does that mean? | ||
| So if Russia has some kind of attack on Estonia, and I'm not expecting that, it's not a forecast, but we, the United States, are involved in a nuclear war with Russia because of a little corner of Estonia. | ||
| I mean, I wish the Estonians well, but I don't think Americans understand what this expansion of NATO means to us in terms of security against nuclear attacks. | ||
| I agree completely with George Beebe, and you made the point. | ||
| You know, it's an interesting debate what the Russians could do. | ||
| You know, there's no anti-missile defense against a rustic missile. | ||
| They go 10,000 miles an hour. | ||
| But the question is, what do they want to do? | ||
| And you and George got that right. | ||
| Basically, they want eastern Ukraine and they're going to get it. | ||
| Putin will not agree to an unconditional ceasefire. | ||
| Why should he? | ||
| He's winning. | ||
| People say this is a stealing. | ||
| This is not a stealing. | ||
| The Russians have been methodically surrounding Paklovsk, which is a major logistics hub. | ||
| When they take Perklovsk, and they're close to doing it, the entire logistics, rail lines, roads, access, supplies, et cetera, for the Ukrainian Eastern Front will collapse. | ||
| And then there won't be much standing between the Russians and the Niper River. | ||
| And by the way, the Ukrainians have lied about everything. | ||
| So if you gave them a ceasefire, what would they do? | ||
| They do R ⁇ R for their troops. | ||
| They restock weapons. | ||
| They'd ask for more money, et cetera. | ||
| They wouldn't use the ceasefire in good faith to settle the conflict. | ||
| They would just use it to basically replenish their arsenals and keep fighting. | ||
| And, you know, the Russians and NATO, the United States and others, we walked away from Minsk I, Minsk II. | ||
| We had the Maidan coup d'état in 2014. | ||
| Everything the United States and its allies have done has been betrayal. | ||
| The Russians, and Putin even wore it for two or three lies and then finally said, you know, I'm tired of the lies. | ||
| We're just going to take action. | ||
| We're going to keep doing it. | ||
| So I hope that Putin and Trump rebuild, they have an existing relationship. | ||
| I hope they can rebuild that. | ||
| There's a lot of good that could come out of it, but I wouldn't look for any breakthrough on Ukraine. | ||
| One other quick note, Steve. | ||
| There's a connection to China here, a big one, because we're in the middle of this trade negotiation with China. | ||
| Trump just extended that, I forget, 30 or 50 days or whatever. | ||
| They were debating, we have 30% tariffs on them. | ||
| They have 10 on us. | ||
| They were talking about taking that to 140 or whatever. | ||
| But China will not agree to a deal until we sort things out with Russia, because Trump has said, if I can't get a ceasefire with Russia, I'm going to put secondary sanctions on China because they're doing business with Russia. | ||
| Why should China agree to anything if there's this hammer sword hanging over their heads? | ||
| So they won't. | ||
| So what Trump did, he bought time with China so he could talk to Putin, but he's not going to get what he wants from Putin. | ||
| And so I think Trump is pinning himself into a corner on tariffs and ceasefire because he's listening to the warmongers. | ||
| By the way, you talk about that. | ||
| The same great powers, geopolitical issues still face us today. | ||
| They face Richard Nixon back in the early 1970s when Richard Nixon did the rapprochement with the Chinese Communist Party and laid the predicate for Ronald Reagan later to bring down and destroy the evil empire. | ||
| Let's go ahead and play. | ||
| We've got an amazing film and two great people here to talk about. | ||
| Let's go and play the trailer and I'll bring in Jeff Shepard and Michael Patrick Leahy. | ||
| 49 states, 520 electoral college votes, the largest presidential landslide in American history. | ||
| But less than halfway through his term in office, Richard Nixon is gone. | ||
| Secret meetings between judges and prosecutors. | ||
| Evidence hidden from defense attorneys, biased juries, an unaccountable prosecution force packed with political enemies, congressional leaders who are out to get the president, and a dishonest media. | ||
| All told, a corrupt judiciary, unaccountable prosecutors, and an overreaching Congress violated the due process rights of Richard Nixon and the Watergate defendants more than a dozen times. | ||
| We will document all those due process violations, something that no one else has ever done over the course of more than half a century. | ||
| This is how the deep state took down a president and created the playbook they've used ever since. | ||
| Okay, Michael Patrick Leahy and Jeff Shepard join us now. | ||
| This film is totally free to War Room posse members. | ||
| All you have to do is go to warroom.film, warroomalloneword.film, put in your email, boom. | ||
| You can watch this hour and 30 minutes, I think it is. | ||
| Amazing nonfiction film. | ||
| Leahy, let me start with you, and I'm going to get to Jeff. | ||
| We've had Jeff on a bunch of times. | ||
| The conventional wisdom is that the CIA, the FBI, Woodward and Bernstein, the Washington Post, all the president's men, Ben Bradley and Kay Graham, they took down Richard Nixon. | ||
| This takes a much more sophisticated look at actually how the deep state actually did it and actually took down Nixon. | ||
| And what's so haunting about this, and the reason we're so proud to put it up for two weeks only for free to the Warren posse, it really, I think, sends chills down your spine about how close this is to what they're trying to do to President Trump right now with this radical judiciary. | ||
| Your thoughts, sir? | ||
| It's a playbook, Steve, that worked in 1972, 73, 74 against Richard Nixon, but it was a very different world then. | ||
| It's the same playbook that they're trying to use against Donald Trump. | ||
| It's failed. | ||
| But we document the due process violations. | ||
| It's the first time anyone has ever put together what we call the dirty dozen due process violations that violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Richard Nixon and all the Watergate defendants. | ||
| And the reason we were able to do this is because I interviewed Jeff Shepard, who had worked in the Nixon White House back in April of last year. | ||
| And when he revealed all this to me, I said to him, Jeff, can you document, put all this in a list? | ||
| And let's do a documentary on this. | ||
| And he provided all the evidence. | ||
| So I give all the credit to Jeff Shepard for working in the Nixon White House and having basically the receipts on these due process violations. | ||
| Jeff, when you say the due process violation, for those of us not lawyers, that seems, it is the way they did it. | ||
| It's a little refined. | ||
| But what you bring up in the film is that you had Leon Jaworski, who's a quite controversial figure and actually links back to the Warren Commission, right? | ||
| You have Jaworski, you have House Judiciary. | ||
| They're having meetings. | ||
| They have a blueprint. | ||
| You exposed all this by going into the archives because you were there as a young man. | ||
| And I guess you figured something was not right. | ||
| I mean, the way you connect the dots here between Judge Sorica, who's presented as a hero, the House Judiciary Committee, how they work together with the Justice Department. | ||
| This is why post-Watergate, the Justice Department was kind of hermetically sealed because these radicals could essentially control the legal process of the country. | ||
| I mean, how did you go? | ||
| How many years did it take you to compile all this to show us that this was a vast conspiracy, a vast legal conspiracy against President Nixon? | ||
| Well, I've been at this for 20 years. | ||
| Of course, I lived through it. | ||
| 50 years ago, I was the youngest lawyer on President Nixon's Watergate defense team, and it ended badly. | ||
| We suspected things weren't going as They should. | ||
| But I started really looking into it about 20 years ago when I discovered that the Watergate Special Prosecution Force were really government employees. | ||
| So their records, those that survived, were kept at National Archives. | ||
| And I've become a strong customer of the National Archives ever since. | ||
| But what really held things up, Steve, is the top four lawyers took their records with them when they left office. | ||
| And they stayed unavailable to researchers and didn't even start to surface until 2013. | ||
| Just a little over 10 years ago, the real dirt started to come out. | ||
| And this is like researching your family's genealogy. | ||
| If you find interesting stuff, it encourages you to look further and further and further. | ||
| And I've really been through this and uncovered an incredible paper trail. | ||
| Picture a triangle with each branch of government at the points. | ||
| There were people from each of the three branches secretly communicating, secretly meeting, secretly orchestrating Nixon's demise. | ||
| And it's three different federal judges and all the Watergate prosecutors, the politically recruited and appointed Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and the congressional staff on the House Judiciary Committee. | ||
| And you put the puzzle together, and I grant you, you go off in the weeds because this gets really deep. | ||
| But what I was able to provide for Michael when he asked for help was to isolate 12 of the most important due process violations that occurred during the Watergate prosecutions. | ||
| And he did a brilliant job of making this understandable. | ||
| One of the things I've struggled with for 20 years is how to explain to people how this was pulled off. | ||
| And I've got the documents, but the Watergate story is every bit complex back then as some of the stuff we're discovering going on today. | ||
| You've got to work really hard to pay attention and understand the interconnection and inner play. | ||
| And that's where this documentary makes it clear. | ||
| Michael's done a really superb job in focusing just on due process. | ||
| You know, we use the term, it's bandied about. | ||
| Everybody wants due process. | ||
| It's in the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment, but nobody's quite sure what it is because it's an amalgamation of a whole bunch of different decisions, much like the English common law. | ||
| People trying to figure out what was fair, what was the right way to do things. | ||
| And you have statutes, you have court decisions, you have the U.S. Attorney's Manual that all lay out what comes down to an effort to give defendants a fair trial. | ||
| And at least from my point of view, there are four characteristics. | ||
| You get an unbiased judge who's objective and not picking on one side or the other. | ||
| You get even-handed, non-partisan prosecutors who don't invent new laws or new interpretations to target particular people. | ||
| You get a jury of your peers that is untainted by adverse publicity and not politically biased. | ||
| And of course, the jury pooling Watergate was all out of the District of Columbia, which is the most politically biased place in America. | ||
| And finally, you get a right of appeal to an appellate court that's equally unbiased. | ||
| But the Watergate defendants got none of these things, absolutely none. | ||
| We picked out, Michael and I, the 12 most important due process violations. | ||
| But your viewers can go through it and watch the movie and say, well, gee, I think I understand that one. | ||
| I didn't realize that was a requirement. | ||
| Or gee whiz, imagine, imagine the judges meeting in secret. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Jeff, Jeff, hang on for a second. | ||
| I'm going to hold you guys through the break. | ||
| We also got Jim Berger. | ||
| Warroom.film. | ||
| That would be singular. | ||
| You get it for free. | ||
| Put your email in. | ||
| You get it for free for the next two weeks. | ||
| We're going to be discussing it every day. | ||
| This was the blueprint for coming after President Trump. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Back in the warm in a moment. | ||
| Secret meetings between judges and prosecutors. | ||
| Evidence hidden from defense attorneys. | ||
| Biased juries. | ||
| An unaccountable prosecution force packed with political enemies, congressional leaders who are out to get the president, and a dishonest media. | ||
| This is how the deep state took down a president and created the playbook they've used ever since. | ||
| This film is going to blow your head up. | ||
| Many things you thought, and particularly with the Woodward and everything like that, you're about to see the real way they took down Richard Nixon and the template for how they ran the Justice Department for 50 years afterwards and how they try to come after President Trump. | ||
| So warroom.film, it's totally free for two weeks only by putting in your email. | ||
| So Warren Posse, get on it. | ||
| Every day we're going to have another reveal on this. | ||
| The guys are going to be back with you tomorrow. | ||
| Until then, Michael Patrick Leahy, thank God you went to law school. | ||
| Leahy's got like nine degrees, but he's had to go get a law degree at his advanced age night school. | ||
| Leahy, what's your social media? | ||
| Where do people go and get you, sir, in your radio show? | ||
| The radio show is michaelpatricklahey.com. | ||
| The very best way to get the latest on this is go to my ex-account, Michael P. Leahy. | ||
| Michael P. Leahy will be putting clips out. | ||
| And also for your information, clips of this will be available at the Nixon Foundation later this week as well. | ||
| Wow. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Amazing. | ||
| Jeff Shepard, you are just an American patriot and a hero, sir, for doing this work over this many years. | ||
| Where do people go on your social media to get you, sir, and where do they get your books? | ||
| Well, they want to go to my website. | ||
| All the books, all the publications, all the documents. | ||
| They're right out there on my website, reproduced. | ||
| www.shepherdonwatergate.com. | ||
| Shepherdonwatergate.com. | ||
| You see everything. | ||
| Got to have a lot of time. | ||
| It gets very, very deep in the weeds. | ||
| But every document is reproduced on that website. | ||
| Thank you, brother. | ||
| No, people want the receipts because this illuminates what is going on now. | ||
| And this is why the big fight at the Justice Department, this is why we're playing Two Nights, the PBS special, about President Trump and the rule of law. | ||
| It ties directly to this movie, particularly when Trump went down to the Sacred Temple. | ||
| Remember, their heads blew up? | ||
| The feedback we've gotten for showing that last night at six and the second parts tonight has been overwhelming. | ||
| It's been incredible. | ||
| Wait till you get this film, though, to add to it. | ||
| Warroom.film. | ||
| Guys, we'll see you tomorrow back here in the war room. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| Richards, you're also a lawyer. | ||
| Give me your thoughts here, brother, and thoughts on the coming week. | ||
| We're going to have you back on to the end of the week when they get to Alaska. | ||
| Your observation, sir. | ||
| Well, the film sounds great. | ||
| I'll have a chance to watch it tonight. | ||
| I'd like to add a kind of a poignant footnote to everything they talked about. | ||
| So Jeff and Michael were talking about due process, Fifth Amendment, 14th Amendment in some cases. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| That's a great template. | ||
| But let's go deeper. | ||
| Let's talk about Article 2. | ||
| Because four years after Nixon resigned, sorry, three years after Nixon resigned, in 1977, he did an interview with David Frost. | ||
| And of course, everybody wanted to hear Nixon's, oh, yeah, I really did break the law and all that stuff. | ||
| And they talked about a lot else. | ||
| It wasn't all about Watergate. | ||
| But in the end, Nixon got around to saying, yeah, maybe we did something wrong here. | ||
| But then he said something that was profound. | ||
| He said, when the president does it, it's not illegal. | ||
| And those are his exact words. | ||
| And everyone's like, yeah, there goes Nixon again. | ||
| He's rationalizing. | ||
| He won't admit it, et cetera, et cetera. | ||
| But now flash forward 47 years, 2024, Trump versus United States at the Supreme Court. | ||
| What did the Supreme Court say? | ||
| They said when the president does it, it's not illegal. | ||
| Now, it had to be core duties. | ||
| There were a couple guardrails around it. | ||
| But it basically confirmed what Nixon said. | ||
| Nixon was a very good lawyer, by the way. | ||
| So 47 years had to go by before the Supreme Court said that basically if the president does it, the Congress cannot make the president a criminal because of separation of powers. | ||
| And so it's actually bigger than due process, although due process is included. | ||
| Nixon was right. | ||
| He was ridiculed at the time. | ||
| The Supreme Court basically validated that. | ||
| By the way, when the Supreme Court gave that opinion, they weren't saying, you know, starting now. | ||
| They said, this is what the Constitution said in 1789. | ||
| So as I said, Nixon was right. | ||
| Didn't do much good, but I would keep that in mind through all of this because it really is a profound and somewhat poignant point. | ||
| Rickards, where do people go to get? | ||
| It's Rickardswarroom.com. | ||
| It's a landing page. | ||
| You get strategic intelligence. | ||
| If you pick it up, you also get a book that's amazing, which is Money GPT. | ||
| Jim, thank you so much. | ||
| We're going to have you on towards the end of the week, hopefully for more observations about this summit, which you've been one of our Sherpas here for the last couple of years. | ||
| So we appreciate you, sir. | ||
| Thank you for coming in and co-hosting for a big part of the day. | ||
| Thanks, Dave. | ||
| Rickardswarroom.com. | ||
| Strategic Intelligence, go check it out. | ||
| It's what C-suite's where you chairman and chief executive officers get the inside baseball that they get. | ||
| By the way, the engine room tells me we have over a thousand people already that have signed up for the film. | ||
| Warroom.film, totally free for two weeks only. | ||
| Find out how they really took down Nixon. | ||
| Why the, and it ties directly, don't miss the six o'clock show where we're taking this PBS special and breaking it down. | ||
| It ties directly to that. | ||
| And this is how they're trying to take down President Trump the first time, and this is how they're really trying to take him down this time. | ||
| This is how they think they can stop President Trump. | ||
| And this is why you got to go in and clean out Maine Justice. | ||
| It's one of our big focuses here. | ||
| And next, the judiciary. | ||
| Maybe a start of that is what President Trump's doing in Washington, D.C. in the Imperial Capitol. | ||
| Action, action, action. | ||
| Speaking of Mike Lindell, this audience is working over that, driving the narrative in Texas, fighting all over the place, making big changes, saving their country. | ||
| What kind of deal you got for him, sir? | ||
| Well, we've extended where the two sales collided. | ||
| This is the free shipping on everything, you guys, from our beds to our mattress toppers, everything, and our employee pricing special. | ||
| So we extended them into this week. | ||
| A lot of the products are running out. | ||
| You guys get on there and get those bath sheets, those oversized bath towels, our bath towels, our bath maps. | ||
| Get on to mypillow.com forward slash war room. | ||
| That's your own place right now to go. | ||
| You guys go there, free shipping. | ||
| There's those bath items right there, the 17, as low as 1749. | ||
| And then you have all the big ticket items. | ||
| You have an employee pricing sale on our Giza premium pillows. | ||
| The ones we've sold over 80 million my pillows. | ||
| You got almost 85 million now. | ||
| We're coming up on a record. | ||
| So you guys take advantage of the employee pricing there. | ||
| And then we still have the My Crosses that came in. | ||
| You guys, we were low on the women's. | ||
| You guys that are in right now say 50% made in the USA. | ||
| And so you got mypillow.com forward slash war room, free shipping on your entire order, or call the reps 800-873-1062. | ||
| These mom and dads want to hear from all of you at the war room positive. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| We'll see you this afternoon. | ||
| Mike Lindell. | ||
| When deals collide, when sales collide. | ||
| Charlie Kirk is next. | ||
| Posto after that. | ||
| Gruber, Eric Bowling. | ||
| Then you're back in the war room, 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time today. | ||
| Warroom.film. | ||
| Get it? | ||
| It's free. | ||
| Give your email. |
Export Selection