All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2021 - Epoch Times
12:46
What the Media Isn’t Telling You About the Trump Impeachment Inquiry
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, another day, another prediction of the end of the Trump administration.
Just to refresh your recollection...
Breaking news.
A bombshell.
Today is a turning point.
Today was historically bad for President Trump.
Today was a turning point.
A turning point.
We're at a turning point here.
The beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.
We have another bombshell.
Mike Pence might have to assume the office of the presidency.
Rumblings of the word impeachment.
Breaking news.
Another bombshell out of the White House.
I believe this is the beginning of the end.
It's really the beginning of the end.
He may be feeling the walls closing in on him.
All the walls closing in on him.
The walls closing in on him.
Breaking news, a new bombshell.
One astrologer says this means the beginning of the end for President Donald Trump.
Trump will resign.
Trump is going to resign.
Is this the tipping point?
I know we've said it over and over.
You think this is a tipping point?
And over and over.
This is a tipping point.
And over and over.
Breaking news, President Trump off the rails.
It was the beginning of the end today.
The beginning of the end.
Breaking news tonight, new bombshell.
This is the beginning of the end.
The beginning of the end.
The walls are closing in.
The walls closing in.
The walls closing in.
Not too much hyperventilation.
I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too.
Is that potentially impeachable if it's an obstruction of justice?
I think we're going to have to look into it a little bit further.
You were saying that this could lead down the road to impeachment, but we weren't anywhere near that yet.
Does this breaking news tonight change your view on that?
Are we getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?
Reluctantly, Wolf, I have to say yes.
Is it an impeachable offense if, in fact, the president obstructed justice?
So in terms of impeachment, are you taking action, working with Republicans, or doing anything that would actually move that agenda forward?
Do you harbor any hopes that you will find a conservative legal mind to match your desire to proceed with impeachment on...
I think he can be looked at and perhaps even charged with obstruction of justice.
I think that...
So you mean impeachment proceedings?
I beg your pardon?
You mean impeachment proceedings?
Impeachment originates in the House.
House leadership in the Republican Party has shown no interest in that and seems like it's the furthest thing from their mind.
You think that's going to change?
Are you suggesting that President Trump should face impeachment?
No, I'm not suggesting that.
Oh, and impeachment!
I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected.
I support impeaching this president.
I will fight every day until he is impeached!
It may well produce impeachment.
We're gonna go in there, we're gonna impeach some a*****.
We begin impeachment proceedings now.
We are introducing articles of impeachment to remove President Trump from office.
I rise today, Mr.
Speaker.
To call for the impeachment of the president.
You guys are going to be in a situation where you would have to probably take a vote on the impeachment of Donald Trump.
Would you vote yes or no?
I would vote yes.
I would vote to impeach.
Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!
And now we have a whistleblower!
The whistleblower's complaint at the center of the storm in Washington, the center of this new impeachment inquiry involving President Trump.
That complaint now made public tonight and what it alleges, saying some White House officials tried to cover up the call with the president of Ukraine, trying to conceal the transcript of the call on a separate, highly secure computer system.
Now let's sprinkle in the blatant anti-Trump bias over at ABC, NBC and CBS. The Media Research Center analyzed all of President Trump's coverage at ABC, CBS, and NBC Evening News.
Out of 684 evaluative comments included in these broadcasts, a whopping 96% has been negative versus a meager 4% that has been positive.
End of quote.
Now, as to the whistleblower complaint that is the subject of the current grounds for impeachment, President Trump said the call was perfect.
My call was perfect.
The president yesterday of Ukraine said there was no pressure put on him whatsoever, none whatsoever.
And he said it loud and clear for the press.
What these guys are doing, Democrats, are doing to this country is a disgrace.
And it shouldn't be allowed.
There should be a way of stopping it, maybe legally through the courts.
It's a disgrace to our country.
It's another witch hunt.
Here we go again.
It's Adam Schiff and his crew making up stories and sitting there like pious, whatever you want to call them.
It's just really a disgrace.
It's a terrible thing for our country.
They can't do any work.
They're frozen, the Democrats.
They're going to lose the election.
They know it.
That's why they're doing it.
And it should never be allowed what's happened to this president.
They don't want to talk about infrastructure.
They don't want to talk about lowering drug prices.
They don't want to talk about anything because they're fixated on this and Nancy Pelosi has been hijacked by the radical left and everybody knows it.
Thank you.
Okay, that's just Trump being Trump, right?
But do you know who else agreed with him?
The CNN intel analyst Phil Mudd.
Now before I play what Phil Mudd said, you need a little background information.
Project Veritas exposed the president and CEO of CNN, Jeff Zucker, literally directing his crew to pursue impeachment to the exclusion of other important stories.
I decided to secretly record the 9 a.m.
rundown call meetings, and it's basically run by Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN. We're moving towards impeachment.
I mean, don't, like, you know, we shouldn't pretend, oh, this is going one way, and so all these moves are moves towards impeachment.
Yeah, because what's difficult is, like, you have some conflicting things at play here, like...
There's a lot of people who are out here trying to, like, just do what they think is, like, the best of journalistic integrity.
And then you get on the 9 a.m.
call, and big boss, Jeff Zucker, tells you what to do.
Now this brings us to Phil Mudd, the CNN intel analyst.
He was on Chris Cuomo's show when the whistleblower stuff first broke, so they didn't have time to coordinate their talking points.
And Phil Mudd unleashed, not on Trump, but on the whistleblower.
Somebody says they heard something as an intel official that troubled them enough to lodge a formal complaint to the IG. How unusual.
Boy, I'm about ready to blow a gasket.
Can you explain?
That is extremely unusual.
And I listened to presidential phone calls when I was an official at the White House under George W. Bush in 2001.
Can you explain to me, A, why it's the U.S. Intelligence Committee's responsibility to listen to the President of the United States speaking to a foreign leader, and B, why the U.S. Intelligence Committee, under the rules provided by The Democrats in Congress are responsible to report to the Congress what the President of the United States says.
Last I checked, Chris, when I served, we're responsible for chasing the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and terrorists.
We're not responsible for reporting to the Congress what the President says.
He can say what he wants, Chris.
So, you don't like that somebody snitched on the President?
Correct.
The question, if you have a whistleblower issue in the Intelligence Committee might be, is somebody misusing funds?
But I want to ask the Inspector General why it is, again, the responsibility of the Intelligence Committee guys to say, We've got to complain about what the president says, and we, the intel guys, have to go report to Congress about what's going on in the White House.
The intel guys, last I checked, reported on North Korea and Iran, not on whether the president wants to make a promise to a foreign leader.
I am ticked off.
This is completely inappropriate, and the Congress should not be asking the intel guys to go snitch on the president.
No.
So what is the mechanism for policing what is done in the White House?
Quit.
Quit and you can talk to the media if you want.
You can write a book if you want.
Now, on impeachment day one, you have two witnesses who testified about the phone call that President Trump engaged in with the president of Ukraine.
Except these two witnesses admit that they never spoke to Trump about Ukraine.
In fact, the witnesses admit they never spoke to Trump at all.
We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.
Which, I mean, even though you had three opportunities with President Zelensky for him to tell you, you know what?
We're going to do these investigations to get the aid.
Didn't tell you three different times.
Never makes an announcement.
Never tweets about it.
Never does a CNN interview.
Ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you?
You didn't listen on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call?
I did not.
CNN's chief legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, Because the one criticism of these two witnesses, which I think is very much legitimate, it's not really a criticism, it's just a factual statement, is that neither of them had direct contact with the president.
Ever.
Ever.
And that's a problem if you're going to impeach the president.
And do you remember when Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, in order for impeachment to be successful, it really has to be bipartisan?
Has this been bipartisan?
A big difference between then, during the Nixon impeachment process, and even the Bill Clinton impeachment process, and now, is that at that time, you had bipartisan support for this kind of inquiry to begin.
Right now, you don't have any bipartisan support.
You just have Democrats.
All the Republicans voted against.
Now, today, two of the impeachment inquiry.
The former ambassador to Ukraine testified that yes, she had been replaced, and no, she wasn't happy about it.
But she also said she'd never heard the president solicit a bribe, nor did she ever hear the president engage in any conduct that she considered to be criminal.
Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?
No.
Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?
No.
So...
The next round of impeachment hearings involved the ambassador to the EU, Sondland.
And he testified it was his assumption that there was a quid pro quo, but admitted the president said in a phone call with him, I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
So you got a bit of a problem here, don't you?
Finally, let's change this subject just a little bit.
If you're having difficulty in this transgender world understanding what pronouns to use, you ain't alone.
I'm not as woke as I should be, and it's embarrassing.
Like, I've been messing up on my pronouns lately because I met someone who was not a guy or a girl, They were they.
Which is how they wanted to be referred to.
And that's important.
Like, I care about that.
It's just, it's new to me.
And in a sentence, structurally, it makes me sound like a runaway slave.
Like, where they at?
Thank you.
They's coming?
They down by the river.
They gonna be mad at that joke.
I'm Larry Elder, and this has been the Larry Elder Show for Epoch Times.
▲
Export Selection