Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 28, 2018 - The Michael Knowles Show

46:02

Ep. 259 - 9 Questions For Robert Mueller

The Special Counsel investigation gets aggressive, so we turn the focus onto Mueller. Then, Trump threatens to shut down the government over the Wall, Ivanka Trump isn't Hillary Clinton, and a Texas mother tries to castrate her son. Date: 11-28-2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The special counsel gets aggressive and President Trump takes on joint defense agreements with former staffers.
	But while the mainstream media focus on trivial details, we will turn the focus back onto the special counsel investigation and ask nine questions that Robert Mueller must answer to prove that his investigation is anything more than the partisan hit job that it appears to be.
	Then, President Trump threatens to shut down the government over the border wall.
	Great idea.
	Democrats try to paint Ivanka Trump as Hillary Clinton.
	I'll abstain from the obvious jokes that come from that headline.
	A Texas mother tries to castrate her son.
	And John Bolton sheds some sanity on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.
	A lot to get to.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Only when I am on the road and it is very inconvenient for me do the news headlines just explode.
	There is so much more out here with the Bob Mueller investigation and a lot of questions for him that Republicans and conservatives should start asking.
	We should stop defending, start going on the offense.
	I'll have nine questions that he has to answer, but first...
	Let's make a little money with Mint Mobile.
	There is nothing better about the holiday season than unwrapping a brand new phone.
	Isn't that just the best?
	Until you get hit with a terrible brand new monthly phone bill, which is always about 7,000 times more expensive than you ever bargained for.
	Big wireless providers can really suck the joy out of the holidays, so this year, don't just upgrade your phone, upgrade your wireless provider, switch to Mint Mobile for a limited time.
	Mint Mobile is offering the best holiday deal in wireless you've ever seen.
	Three months of service for only $20.
	That is not a joke.
	This is a $20 sale for three months.
	This is a limited time offer.
	Do it right now.
	When I had big wireless companies, I spent about $20 a second, I think, after all of the charges that they add in.
	Mint Mobile's holiday deal is only here for a limited time.
	You use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan.
	You keep your old number, all of your old contacts.
	Mint Mobile runs on the nation's fastest, most advanced LTE network.
	If you're not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their seven-day money-back guarantee.
	It's an amazing program.
	And even at their regular price, it will save you so much money.
	It's just no hidden fees, no nothing.
	You pay for what you want.
	You don't get stuck in these insane, unlimited plans where you don't use any of your data.
	It's a great, great deal.
	Do it.
	You will save yourself a ton of money.
	Take advantage of the Mint Mobile Holiday Deal before it's gone.
	Three months of wireless for $20.
	Get the plan shipped to your door for free by going to mintmobile.com.
	Free!
	With Covfefe.
	C-O-V-F-E-F-E. That is mintmobile.com slash covfefe.
	C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Three months of service.
	$420.
	Why are you even still listening to me?
	Go over there and get this deal.
	mintmobile.com slash covfefe.
	C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Maybe you go get the—you know, you pull over, you put the deal, you type it in.
	You'll do it after we explain what's going on with this Mueller investigation.
	What they are trying to do is just totally confuse you with a bunch of ridiculous, unnecessary details and meaningless, trivial, interpersonal relationships— Among Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and this guy and that guy and Jerome Corsi and all of this.
	And so you get this deluge of headlines from CNN or wherever.
	And you think, oh gosh, I don't know what's happening.
	But, you know, this side has a point and that side has a point.
	We'll see where the investigation goes.
	This is their strategy.
	All of the questions that are being asked right now should be asked of the special counsel, rather, of Bob Mueller.
	What is the issue right now?
	Just to clear it up, the Mueller investigation is getting very aggressive.
	There is word that's been leaked to the press of a joint defense agreements between Jerome Corsi and Donald Trump.
	That right-wing writer and journalist and sort of conspiracy theorist, Jerome Corsi and Donald Trump.
	Of agreements where Paul Manafort now is apparently briefing the Trump team on what Mueller has been asking him.
	You'll remember, a little while ago, Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, entered into a plea agreement with the special counsel, so he said he'd cooperate in exchange for getting out of jail a little bit early.
	Now we find out, it seems, that the Manafort team has been briefing the Trump legal defense team on all of the questions and all of the tactics that Bob Mueller is using.
	So Paul Manafort, classic Washington lobbyist, looks like he's playing both sides right now.
	When it came out that Paul Manafort entered into a plea agreement, I was a little confused.
	Paul Manafort seemed like the kind of guy, especially with a name like Manaforte, you know, he's the kind of guy who will deny till you die.
	He doesn't want to be a rat.
	He doesn't want to turn on his friends.
	He's been a GOP operative since he was in the womb, since the 70s and 80s.
	So I was a little surprised.
	Now it looks like he actually was feeding some information to the Trump team.
	So that's pretty interesting.
	They're going to try to blow this out of proportion and say that a joint defense agreement between one guy being investigated and another guy being investigated is nefarious and it's wrong and it's illegal.
	None of that is true.
	This is a very common occurrence, especially when the same prosecutor is going after a bunch of different people.
	Very common and it looks like that's what's happening here.
	So what is the issue?
	Why do they need these joint defense agreements?
	To catch you up, we went through this a little bit yesterday.
	Right now, Roger Stone, longtime GOP operative and advisor to Donald Trump, Roger Stone is under fire because he tweeted out, quote, Trust me, it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel.
	Referring to John Podesta, the head of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	He tweeted that out one week before WikiLeaks released John Podesta's hacked emails.
	So now the spotlight is on Roger Stone.
	It's on Roger Stone's confidants, Jerome Corsi, other people he worked with, over how he knew that WikiLeaks had those hacked emails.
	What Roger Stone is saying is he knew that John Podesta would get his because Jerome Corsi had written a memo about John Podesta's lobbying work.
	So what Roger Stone is saying is, oh, that tweet and Podesta's time in the barrel, that doesn't refer to hacked emails.
	That refers to all of his nefarious lobbying work that's going to eventually land him in hot water.
	Jerome Corsi says this is BS.
	Corsi says that nine days after Stone sent that tweet, Roger Stone called asking for a backstory.
	He said, Jerome, you got to help me out.
	They're going to go after me for this WikiLeaks tweet.
	Make up a memo about John Podesta that I can say was what I was referring to in the tweet.
	Okay.
	That's what Corsi says.
	Roger Stone typically denies this, and he says that Jerome Corsi is just contradicting Roger Stone because he's being squeezed.
	So you've got these two guys, one who was a Trump advisor for a long time, another guy who's a more fringy right-wing figure who's met Trump, I guess, a couple of times.
	Neither of them are especially trustworthy, so you've got to read between the lines.
	And really, their trustworthiness is beyond the point, because the fact that the Mueller investigation is going after them is the real issue here.
	Why?
	What's at stake?
	Why they're not going after Democrats?
	But just listen to the language.
	So this is Jerome Corsi.
	In his denial, he says...
	What I construct and what I testify to the grand jury was I believed I was creating a cover story for Roger because Roger wanted to explain this tweet.
	Okay.
	What I construct and what I testify to.
	So he's not emphatically saying this is what happened.
	He's saying what I construct.
	That's a curious choice of words.
	Maybe he's not telling the whole story.
	Roger Stone, for his part, says this, quote, I steadfastly maintain that Jerry, Jerome Corsi, who had been researching the Podesta brothers, brought their business dealings to my attention, and that is what prompted my tweet.
	Now, that is a true statement.
	It's a true statement that Roger Stone steadfastly maintains this.
	The question is, is it true?
	Is Roger Stone telling the truth when he maintains that?
	The construction of that sentence also a little mealy-mouthed with the words we have.
	What I construct, okay, that's true.
	And what I steadfastly maintain, okay, that's true.
	Who's telling the truth?
	We don't know.
	Listen to this from Jerome Corsi, though.
	He says later on, By the way, the special counsel knew that I was creating a cover story for Roger.
	They can virtually tell my keystrokes on that computer.
	So clearly they took Jerome Corsi's computer.
	They're saying this document was created on this date.
	They can tell what he was doing.
	He's been now under investigation for a while.
	I do not bring this up to go after Jerome Corsi or Roger Stone.
	They can take care of themselves.
	What I bring this up as a preface to is why are we even talking about these guys in the first place?
	Why are we talking about Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, conservative writers, media figures?
	We're talking about them because Donald Trump won the presidency and he wasn't supposed to.
	Hillary was supposed to win.
	They had all decided it.
	The FBI decided it.
	Peter Strzok decided Hillary was supposed to win.
	Obama said Hillary was supposed to win.
	The administrative state, that's what was supposed to happen.
	And then Donald Trump came in and messed up their plans.
	And then Donald Trump won.
	And now we've got endless investigations into figures who are peripheral, who are ancillary to the campaign, who are just digging for anything to get these guys, to punish them for committing the unforgivable sin of working for Donald Trump.
	So that's fine.
	One issue here is that even in the conservative media, people are harping on this.
	I mean, we've got to cover it.
	This is a major story.
	But people are spending all of their time talking about it.
	They're not spending any of their time talking about Bob Mueller or the FBI or the Obama-appointed officials who were going in there, going after Trump from the early days of the campaign.
	Why not?
	Why aren't we doing that?
	You know, Ronald Reagan said, if you're explaining, you're losing.
	What he means by that is if you're on defense, if you're playing political defense, and you're just answering the allegations of the other side, you are losing because you're playing on their turf.
	You're playing by their rules, and they're going to get you.
	The classic political line is, when did you stop beating your wife?
	Excuse me, Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?
	Any answer you give justifies their premise.
	We shouldn't do that.
	So I have nine questions for Robert Mueller and the special counsel.
	Because this special counsel investigation stinks to high heaven.
	The whole Russia investigation stinks to high heaven.
	And they need to answer nine questions before we can conclude that this is not just the partisan hit job that it certainly seems to be.
	Here's the first question.
	May 23rd, 2016.
	Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Orr's wife, Nellie Orr, goes on the payroll of Fusion GPS. You'll remember Fusion GPS is the political shop behind the Steele dossier, that dossier with all that scintillating false information about Donald Trump.
	So Nellie Orr, the wife of the Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Orr, is working on anti-Trump opposition research.
	Bruce Orr did not disclose this major conflict of interest.
	Why not?
	Why didn't he disclose it?
	Did he forget?
	Did it not occur to him that this was a major conflict of interest?
	Did Fusion GPS know who Nellie Orr was?
	I think they probably did.
	Her last name's Orr.
	First question.
	Why did he not disclose that?
	Second question.
	May 2016.
	Low-level staffer George Papadopoulos tells Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that he knows that Russia has dirt on Hillary Clinton.
	Then the Australian diplomat Downer passes this information along to the U.S. Embassy.
	What were the circumstances of that meeting?
	Why was George Papadopoulos meeting with this Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer?
	Who set that up?
	Who invited whom to that meeting?
	What was the meeting about?
	What was the ostensible purpose?
	Maybe George Papadopoulos just liked the cut of Alexander Downer's jib and wanted to have a drink with him.
	Or maybe there was a purpose to that meeting on the part of Downer or on the part of U.S. intelligence services or on the part of U.S. elected officials.
	Maybe that meeting was a setup.
	I'm not saying it was.
	I just don't know.
	What were the circumstances of that meeting?
	That's the second question.
	Third question.
	June 2016.
	The FBI applies for a FISA warrant.
	A FISA warrant is the warrant that you need to surveil and to monitor Americans.
	They want a FISA warrant to monitor four members of the Trump campaign.
	The FISA court judge denied those requests.
	What sequence of events led to that request and why was that request denied?
	You might say, well, they didn't have enough dirt.
	The FISA court judge didn't think they had enough dirt on the Trump campaign people.
	Okay, well, first question, why were they ordering it in the first place?
	Second question, why was it denied?
	And a lot of people don't know this.
	In the history of the FISA court, there have been 40,668 requests as of the end of 2017.
	Do you know how many of those requests were denied?
	Eighty-five.
	Not 8,500 or an 85,000 request denied out of over 40,000 requests that were granted.
	Compared to that, there were only 85 that were denied.
	How come four of those 85 were this particular request to monitor people on the Trump campaign?
	That must have been a pretty weak request.
	That must have been a pretty weak, shaky grounds to monitor those Trump campaign members.
	So if it was so shaky that the FISA court judge would, in a very, very rare instance, not grant the FISA request, why was the request made in the first place?
	Who ordered that request?
	It is virtually impossible to have your Pfizer request denied.
	So who made it?
	What were the circumstances?
	They didn't have good evidence.
	So what was that about?
	Was it political?
	Was it a way simply to monitor the Trump campaign, as it certainly looks like?
	Good question.
	Thank you, Michael.
	Good question.
	Alright, that's the third question.
	Fourth question.
	June 2016.
	The DNC's computer system is hacked.
	Yet, the DNC refuses to allow the FBI to examine the computer systems.
	Why wouldn't the DNC let the FBI examine those systems?
	This was a hack.
	Apparently hacking was a big issue in the 2016 campaign.
	The FBI has been running roughshod over Republicans, over the elected president, over his campaign staffers.
	Why did the DNC refuse to allow the FBI to examine those systems?
	And why did the FBI take no for an answer?
	The FBI has no problem kicking down Paul Manafort's door in the middle of the night, has no problem seizing Jerome Corsi's computer, monitoring his keystrokes.
	So why would they take no for an answer from the DNC?
	And what was the DNC hiding?
	I don't know, but it seems like there are a lot of shady things going on and a lot of rare occurrences.
	Obviously, shady things go on in the federal government, sure, but it seems like these are particularly shady, so shady that they drew the attention of a FISA court judge and so on.
	Sixth question.
	July 2016.
	Peter Strzok opens a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election.
	This investigation ostensibly was spurred by George Papadopoulos' meeting with the Australian diplomat.
	That was July 31st, I believe, 2016.
	15 days later, Peter Strzok texts Lisa Page about the insurance policy in case Trump is elected.
	So you've got Peter Strzok.
	He's not some low-level staffer, not some low-level FBI guy.
	He is the man.
	He is the guy who's opening this counterintelligence investigation.
	Not a criminal investigation, counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling.
	It's apparently based on this bizarre meeting where George Papadopoulos meets with a diplomat.
	The diplomat instantly goes running to U.S. intelligence.
	So what is this insurance policy?
	What does that insurance policy have to do with the meeting?
	What does that insurance policy have to do with the investigation?
	The timing is really suspect, and it stinks to high heaven.
	Seventh question.
	In September...
	No, sixth question.
	I don't know.
	I lost count.
	My next question.
	In September, the FBI hires the writer of that infamous Steele dossier, Christopher Steele.
	The point of contact here is Bruce Orr.
	So you got this guy, Christopher Steele.
	He's an ex-intelligence guy in Britain.
	He compiles this dossier on behalf of private clients, on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton and other people.
	And then the FBI hires him.
	And his point of contact there is Bruce Orr, whose wife Nellie Orr is working with Fusion GPS, which ordered the damn dossier in the first place.
	A lot of people sleeping in bed together.
	Well, literally in the case of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and figuratively in the case of Bruce Orr, Nellie Orr, Christopher Steele, and the FBI. At this point, I still think Bruce Orr has not disclosed publicly that his wife is working for Fusion GPS. So they hire him.
	So at this point, they've got Christopher Steele on the payroll.
	Why doesn't Bruce Orr disclose that his wife is working with Fusion GPS? At this point, we can no longer say, oh, he forgot.
	Oh, it slipped his mind.
	I mean, we could never say that anyway, but maybe give him the benefit of the doubt.
	At this point, we certainly cannot say that.
	So why didn't he disclose it?
	What was he trying to hide?
	Then, on October 31st, Mother Jones, the left-wing newspaper, left-wing magazine, breaks the story of the Steele dossier.
	Until this point, until October 31st, we don't know what the Steele dossier is.
	We don't know about the Trump urine-alleged...
	doesn't exist.
	We don't know about any of this.
	This has all been behind closed doors.
	Mother Jones breaks the story on the Steele dossier, October 31st.
	The FBI almost immediately ends its relationship with Christopher Steele.
	Why?
	Was that relationship not above board?
	Was that relationship a little bit of a political hit job, a little too political insidery?
	Is that what that was about?
	If the Christopher Steele relationship, the formal relationship with the FBI, was totally above board, then why did the FBI instantly end it the minute that that became public?
	Timing, again, way too suspect.
	Summer 2017 comes around.
	The Inspector General discovers the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page texts.
	These are the texts between these two FBI agent lovers having an adulterous affair with one another who say, we're going to stop Trump from becoming president.
	We're going to use the power of the state to prevent him from becoming president.
	Only at this point does Mueller remove Strzok and Page from the Russia investigation.
	Now, my question here, we're told Robert Mueller is totally above board.
	He's this unimpeachable guy.
	He's a shark.
	We know he's a shark.
	He's an excellent investigator.
	He's going to go out.
	He's going to find every single thing.
	Are we really then supposed to believe that Robert Mueller didn't know that his lead agent, the top agent on the investigation...
	That he didn't know that that agent had an anti-Trump bias until he saw these texts, until the texts become public because of the Inspector General.
	Bob Mueller is such a good investigator.
	Bob Mueller, former head of the FBI. This guy couldn't discern that there was something going on with his top agent.
	Very hard to believe.
	Really a little too much for credibility.
	Okay, final question.
	December 2017.
	Andy McCabe admits the FBI wiretap of Carter Page would not have been approved if not for the Steele dossier.
	You've got this disgraced FBI agent Andy McCabe admitting the FBI wiretap of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page would not have been approved if not for the Steele dossier.
	Which means that the FBI, using that Steele dossier, colluded with the DNC in the Hillary Clinton campaign, which funded the Steele dossier.
	And it means they colluded with the Russians, by the way, because all of that information that was in the Steele dossier came from the Russians.
	It's the only place it could have come from.
	It means that the DNC, the FBI, Clinton, and the Russians were in bed together to go after Donald Trump.
	Who's investigating that?
	Where's that investigation?
	We know that.
	Andy McCabe, FBI, ex-FBI agent now, admitted that.
	Where is the investigation into that?
	Where is the investigation into those relationships?
	Into the oars, into Fusion GPS. Those investigations seem a lot more pressing than how Paul Manafort was able to buy nice suits in the year 2013.
	Or how Jerome Corsi is going to write another book on some conspiracy.
	That seems a lot more pressing.
	And nobody's going after it, and we should.
	And this is all Republicans should be talking about.
	I mean, listen, the...
	Inner turmoil of whether Donald Trump still likes Jerome Corsi or if he read his book.
	I guess that's sort of interesting coffee shop conversation.
	But the real questions here are all about this Mueller investigation, the prior Russia investigation, how it all came about, and who was behind it.
	Because it stinks to high heaven, and if Republicans are smart, they'll spend a lot of time harping on it.
	Now back to President Trump.
	Back to non-Russia politics.
	I know they're constantly trying to give this whiff of scandal all over the administration.
	That's fine.
	They can keep playing their little scandal games.
	We are going to keep pushing good conservative policy.
	So President Trump has done a very good job, obviously, a lot of conservative policy.
	The one big disappointment thus far has been the wall.
	I want the wall.
	The wall has not been built.
	Build the wall.
	You ran on build the wall.
	Build the wall won you the presidency.
	So build it already.
	President Trump is now threatening a government shutdown if the Congress does not approve funding for the wall.
	Now what happened?
	Congress and the White House have already passed most of the fiscal year 2019 budget.
	Most of that funding has already gone through.
	What's awaiting going through is funding that relates to the State Department, to the Justice Department, and to the Department of Homeland Security.
	The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are the crucial executive agencies that will deal with illegal immigration and that will deal with the wall.
	Democrats don't want to fund the wall.
	Obviously, some Republicans don't want to fund the wall.
	They're going to hold this up.
	They're going to try to make a big issue of it.
	Donald Trump says he's going to shut down the government.
	Now, conservatives get squishy.
	They don't want to shut down the government.
	They're very afraid of all this.
	Shut it down.
	They absolutely should.
	Trump is threatening it.
	Yeah, he should do it.
	He actually said about this, he said, "I don't do anything just for political gain, but I will tell you, politically speaking, this issue is a total winner.
	People look at the border, they look at the rush to the police, they look at the rock throwers and really hurting people, three people, three very brave Border Patrol folks.
	It's a tremendous issue and it's really needed.
	We have to have border security.
	He's absolutely right.
	Even if he did things for political gain, probably people do that sometimes, he should do it.
	It's a big, big winner issue.
	And by the way, the Democrats won the Congress.
	This is our last chance to get border wall funding out of Congress.
	We're not going to get it back.
	Maybe we'll flip the house in 2020, but historically speaking, that's unlikely.
	This is the last chance.
	Why not shut down the government over it?
	Shutting down the government is a win-win for conservatives.
	If we shut it down to try to get good policy, and we get the good policy out of it, that's a win.
	If we shut it down and we fail to get the good policy, hey, at least we shut down the government for a little bit.
	Works for me, because when you shut down the government...
	They only shut down non-essential services, which always raises the question, why do we have non-essential services?
	Why does the government do non-essential things?
	Seems to me maybe we could keep that shut down permanently.
	The rejoinder to this is that if we shut down the government, that's also going to deplete funding for border security right now when you've got the caravan coming through.
	Who cares?
	I know.
	The caravan is a real issue.
	Illegal immigration is a real issue.
	We've got now record high illegal immigration, 2,000 people a day crossing the border.
	2,000 people is a drop in the bucket.
	How long is the government going to be shut down for?
	A day?
	Three days?
	Two weeks?
	Okay.
	Two weeks with 28,000 people?
	We have upwards of 20 million illegal aliens in this country.
	28,000 people.
	To make a point to drive that issue home is nothing.
	I mean, it's a drop in the bucket.
	And by the way, if we shut down the government and then people start pouring over the border, that only helps us politically.
	Because people see how awful that issue is.
	It brings it back to the consciousness.
	And if it works, we get to build the wall.
	That's a win-win.
	This is a no-brainer.
	shut it down.
	We have much more to get to.
	We have got Ivanka Trump's emails.
	Democrats are trying to compare Ivanka to Hillary.
	It's not a great comparison.
	I'm going to be very polite, and I'm not going to tell the jokes that write them.
	No, I'm not going to do it.
	Also, a woman in Texas is trying to castrate her six-year-old son, and John Bolton is right about everything, as is usually the case.
	But before we get to all that, I have got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
	If you're on Facebook and YouTube, I'm shocked you haven't been banned.
	You haven't been kicked off.
	That's good.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	If you're there, thank you very much.
	You help us keep the lights on.
	It's $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
	You get me.
	You get the Andrew Klavan Show.
	You get the Ben Shapiro Show.
	You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
	You get to, oh, get your mailbag questions in.
	We'll be doing that tomorrow.
	You get to ask questions in the conversation.
	That's coming up.
	You get a lot of stuff.
	Most importantly, you get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	And that is very important.
	Look, the Mueller investigation is scary.
	He's going after Trump.
	The Democrats are all going after Trump.
	Trump is going after...
	It's a little scary.
	But when that Mueller investigation comes back and they don't get anything, they got nothing on them, oh, you're going to be glad you have that Tumblr.
	You're going to need that Tumblr.
	Go to dailywire.com.
	We'll be right back.
	Oh no, they've got us now.
	Oh, you know the Democrats, they get so excited on every little stupid issue.
	They think, oh, we've got you now.
	They wear those shirts, they say, it's Mueller time.
	Cool, cool guy.
	Yeah, look great.
	Yeah, we got him.
	This is the end of the Trump presidency.
	How many times have they said this is the end of the Trump presidency?
	For about four times a day since November 9th, 2016.
	Now they're saying that Ivanka Trump, who is not only Trump's daughter but a staffer in the White House, is guilty of the same thing Hillary Clinton's guilty of because she used her personal email account to carry on some government business.
	Here's Ivanka explaining herself.
	I have to ask you about your emails.
	It has come to light that early in the administration you used your private email for White House business.
	Your father had taken Hillary Clinton to task for this, so how did you wind up in a similar situation?
	Well, there really is no equivalency.
	All of my emails that relate to any form of government work, which was mainly scheduling and logistics and managing the fact that I have a home life and a work life, are all part of the public record.
	They're all stored on the White House system.
	So everything has been preserved.
	Everything's been archived.
	There just is no equivalency between the two things.
	There is no comparison.
	There actually is no equivalency.
	I think the left maybe genuinely thinks there is, but it's because they never understood the Hillary Clinton scandal in the first place.
	The Hillary Clinton scandal is not that she used her personal email account sometimes to send emails.
	Virtually everybody does that in the government.
	Donald Trump uses his cell phone sometimes.
	When he shouldn't use his cell phone, he carries it on him.
	People are worried that people can listen in.
	Colin Powell did this.
	He used a private email account.
	John Kerry used a private email account.
	But we didn't go after all of those guys in the way that we went after Hillary Clinton.
	Why?
	Because the email account itself is not the problem.
	If Hillary were using a Gmail account even, that wouldn't really be the problem.
	The problem is not that Hillary was using a private email account.
	It's that she was using a private email server.
	When she was appointed Secretary of State, she set up a private email server in her home that would store all of those emails.
	Why would she go to the trouble of doing that?
	It was a completely unsecured server.
	The emails would have been much safer on government servers.
	She did it to avoid public disclosure laws.
	She did it to avoid federal record-keeping laws.
	She did it to burn the records of whatever business dealings she was doing while she was Secretary of State.
	And what business dealings was she doing?
	Well, we know a few of them.
	We know that the Saudi regime gave her at least $10 million, maybe $25 million.
	When she was Secretary of State, that's a bribe.
	That is pay for play.
	They gave money to that foundation.
	Why did they do it?
	Because the Saudi royal family is so charitable, out of the goodness of their heart.
	Saudi Arabia, the greatest exporter of radical Islamic terrorism in the world.
	Saudi Arabia, the royal family that just chopped up that Islamist guy in Turkey, that cut him up while he was alive.
	I don't think that they're the sweetest, most charitable people in the world.
	They were paying to play.
	They were bribing the Secretary of State.
	So, what else was going on?
	We know that Hillary Clinton was involved in approving the sale of uranium to Russian interests while she was Secretary of State, while her foundation, her slush fund, was receiving a ton of money from those very interests.
	What else?
	What else was she doing?
	We don't know, because not only did she avoid record-keeping laws and federal record laws, she then burned the server.
	She bleached it.
	She completely wiped it so that nobody could get in there and look at those emails.
	By the way, you can never permanently delete anything.
	It's very hard to actually delete files.
	So another question, we've been told that maybe there are some copies of the emails, maybe there aren't.
	Why aren't we getting those emails?
	Why aren't we digging that up?
	We really probably should be digging that up.
	And she would joke about it.
	She was so flippant.
	She was asked by a journalist.
	Shockingly, a journalist asked her a tough question.
	And they said, did you wipe your server?
	And she said, ha ha ha, what?
	Wipe it like with a cloth?
	No, wipe it like with bleach bits so that you can cover up the evidence of your corruption and the bribes that you took when you were in our government.
	That's what it was.
	The issue is the pay for play.
	The issue is the corruption.
	The issue is trying to hide from the American people.
	Ivanka's emails sent on whatever server they were sent on are all there.
	We can find them.
	You can file your Freedom of Information Act request, and you will be able to get those emails.
	Try filing a FOIA request for Hillary Clinton's emails.
	Get back to me when you got them.
	Let me know how that turns out.
	In Texas, a mother is trying to castrate her six-year-old son.
	This is a truly horrific story, really awful child abuse, and a bizarre situation.
	So this woman in Texas is forcing her six-year-old son to pretend to be a girl.
	I guess the mother and father are separated.
	So when the child, when the son is with the mother, the mother insists that the son identifies as a girl.
	Six years old.
	When I was six years old, I was Batman.
	Six years old, the son identifies as a girl, so now she's forcing him to be like a girl.
	Where it gets a little weird.
	Because I have no doubt that a six-year-old kid has delusions.
	We've all had delusions.
	But when the kid is with the father, the father is saying that the son insists on dressing like a boy and going by male pronouns and being a boy.
	So who's telling the truth?
	You never know, and it takes two to tango.
	You never know if the mother or father is telling the truth.
	But we know that the mother is dressing this little boy as a girl and enrolled him in school as Luna at age five, five or six.
	According to the father, quote, the boy violently refuses to wear girls' clothes at my home and identifies as a boy.
	So in this situation, you've got a six-year-old boy.
	The mother says he's really a girl.
	The father says he's really a boy.
	How do you think the courts are going to come down on this?
	Oh, they might take away the father's custody rights to the kid and the rights to ever see that kid again.
	Of course, because we're in 2018, because reality doesn't exist anymore.
	That's what's happening.
	The father is being accused of child abuse for refusing to call the boy a girl.
	But the boy doesn't want to be called a girl, apparently.
	The father is legally barred from discussing sexuality and gender with his own son.
	And when the son is at his house, he has to offer the son boys' clothing and girls' clothing.
	Now, again, this is where it gets a little weird.
	When the son is at the father's house, apparently, the son always chooses the boys' clothing.
	He doesn't want to be dressed up like a girl.
	But the father still can't discuss it with him.
	If he discusses it with him, he could lose custody of his son.
	Or lose any visiting rights to his son, rather.
	Where is this all coming from?
	The mother is forcing the little boy to go see an activist, political activist, therapist, who is encouraging the boy to pretend to be a girl.
	And so, is the boy, what is it?
	Is it the mother is totally coercing the boy to put on a dress sometimes?
	Maybe.
	Is it that the activist therapist is encouraging the boy to identify as a girl?
	Yeah, maybe, probably.
	But how do we decide?
	How do we know what the reality is here?
	There's only one guide to the reality, which is, the boy is a boy.
	He is not a girl.
	Period.
	That's it.
	That's how we know the Father's right.
	We don't know what the boy says to the father.
	We don't know what the boy says to the mother.
	We don't know any of that.
	The way that we know that the father is 100% right and the mother and this horrible therapist are 100% wrong is that the boy is a boy and not a girl.
	The way that we know that this father should have full custody of his son 100% of the time, and then this mother and therapist should be in prison or in mental institutions, is that the boy is a boy.
	What do the mother and the therapist want to do?
	They want to shoot him full of hormones, prevent him from going through puberty, and ruin his life.
	That is horrific.
	That should be a crime.
	These people should be sent to prison for a long time, at least.
	Or a mental institution, because you'd have to be insane to try to castrate a six-year-old boy and turn him into a girl.
	He isn't a boy.
	He is a girl.
	This is a big issue in our culture.
	We make fun of this transgenderism ideology.
	We don't make fun of the people who suffer from it, and a grown man thinks he's a woman.
	We don't make fun of him.
	We have compassion for him.
	But we make fun of the ideology because it's patently absurd.
	We know that men are not women.
	We know that women are not men.
	We know that there is such a thing as sexual difference.
	We make fun of that and it's very funny and we can laugh about it.
	But, you know, the rubber meets the road when you're talking about a little six-year-old boy whose life is being ruined because of a horrific criminal mother and criminal...
	Gender ideologue therapist who are trying to shoot him up full of hormones and castrate him.
	Absolutely outrageous.
	And this is the logical conclusion of a culture and of a society that indulge in delusion.
	Because here's what happens.
	This is how we get to this point.
	We are walking down the street.
	You know, we're in 2018.
	Everybody's just really cool.
	And if it feels good, do it.
	And, you know, I just feel like this, man.
	And I feel like this.
	Okay.
	We're here.
	And then we all know somebody who...
	I know a couple people who have gender confusion.
	And they say, I'm confused about my gender.
	I'm a man, but I feel like a woman.
	I'm really a woman on the inside.
	And our first instinct is to have compassion for our friend.
	We say, oh, gosh, well...
	He says, can you please call me a woman?
	Can you please use the female pronouns?
	And we say, well, I really like my friend and I don't want to be mean to him.
	And if he's asking me to do him a favor, I'll do him the favor.
	So on this personal level, I will call my male friend a woman.
	Because that seems like the polite thing to do.
	It seems like the polite thing.
	Okay, maybe it is polite.
	Maybe it is nice.
	But it's not compassionate.
	Because when you indulge in that delusion, you accept the premise that is not true, that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man.
	And when you accept that premise, then why can't an 18-year-old?
	Physically mutilate himself.
	A confused, psychologically afflicted 18-year-old boy.
	Why can't he mutilate himself to more closely resemble a woman?
	Even though that surgery, that mutilation, will have no effect on his anxiety, on his depression, on his likelihood of suicide.
	It'll have no effect whatsoever.
	Even though many people who undergo that surgery have deep regret afterward.
	A writer, Walt Heyer, is writing about this right now in The Federalist.
	Why not?
	Why can't that 18-year-old do it?
	And if an 18-year-old can do it, why can't a 16-year-old do it?
	Actually, though, what if we could prevent puberty altogether and the development of secondary sex characteristics?
	Then, probably, it would be much better for people who have gender confusion, right?
	Probably, it would reduce their rates of anxiety and risk of suicide.
	I mean, it doesn't.
	There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that delaying puberty or blocking puberty altogether reduces rates of anxiety or depression or likelihood of suicide in people with gender confusion.
	Zilch.
	Zero scientific evidence.
	But, you know, probably that's true.
	So shouldn't we do it?
	Shouldn't we indulge in the insane delusions of six-year-old children and then have our six-year-old children encourage them to mutilate their bodies and ruin their lives?
	Make a big spectacle of it.
	And then rob them of their fathers because their father says that the boy is a boy and allows the boy who says he's a boy to be a boy.
	That's how we get to that point.
	And it's not a far leap.
	So then when the left says that the right is being uncompassionate, that we're not being kind to transgender people, you know, it's not kind to shoot up six-year-old kids with a bunch of hormones and ruin their lives and mutilate their bodies and confuse them and rob them of their fathers.
	That's not kind either.
	So if we're talking about kind and compassionate and nice, let's be clear there.
	Now, the left-wing people who want to indulge in this gender ideology, I think most of them have good intentions.
	Some of them have bad intentions.
	Some of them are true ideologues who want to abolish gender altogether for their own political purposes.
	Most of them, I think, have very good intentions.
	They want to be nice to people.
	Okay, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
	And if mutilating a little boy and confusing a little boy and robbing him of his father because you don't want to allow him to be a boy, you'd rather him be a girl and wear dresses.
	If that isn't right down the path to the very center of hell, I don't know what is.
	I want to end on a good note today, and I want to talk about how great John Bolton is.
	John Bolton was in a press conference yesterday, and he was asked about the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.
	Remember Jamal Khashoggi?
	He is that Islamist Muslim Brotherhood apologist who was a Saudi regime insider, and then he came to America and wrote a couple columns for the Washington Post, and the left are pretending that he is a journalist, and he was killed in a Turkish embassy by the Saudi government.
	John Bolton is asked about this killing, about why he's not outraged, why we're not ending our relationship with Saudi Arabia, why he hasn't listened to the audio tape.
	And John Bolton just gives us a little beautiful glimmer of sanity.
	Here he is.
	So let me take the question of the tape first.
	No, I haven't listened to it.
	And I guess I should ask you, why do you think I should?
	What do you think I'll learn from it?
	How many in this room speak Arabic?
	Well, you want me to listen to it?
	What am I going to learn from, I mean, if they were speaking Korean, I wouldn't learn any more from it either.
	Well, then I can read a transcript, too.
	So you don't think it's important to hear that as a national security officer?
	I'm just trying to make the point that everybody who says, why don't you listen to the tape, unless you speak Arabic, what are you going to get from it?
	The President has spoken to our position on this issue.
	He's spoken very clearly, and that is our position.
	Tell me the other questions.
	Ms. Tina Haspel from sharing information with members of Congress.
	Absolutely right.
	What a ridiculous question.
	They say, have you listened to the audio tape of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi?
	Apparently the Turks were bugging the embassy or something.
	So we've got the audio tape.
	And he says, well, what would I learn from that?
	That's the real question he's asking.
	He's sort of telling a little joke and saying, I don't speak Arabic.
	But the broader question is, what would I learn from that audio tape that I wouldn't already know?
	And they say, well, it was a brutal killing.
	You say, yeah, uh-huh.
	Well, it was used as an outrage, and for some reason it's Trump's fault, and we should blow up our relationship with Saudi Arabia, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	What happened?
	Because the media narrative is that the Saudi government, this is what they want you to believe, the Saudi government killed, murdered in cold blood while he was alive, cut him up.
	An American resident, they want you to believe resident is the same as citizen, an American resident who's a journalist, who just wants democracy and liberalization, and they cut him up in cold blood, and this should be an out, we should go to war with Saudi Arabia.
	That's what they want you to believe.
	What really happened?
	He's not a journalist.
	I guess technically he's a journalist in that he wrote some things for the Washington Post.
	He wrote some things for different newspapers.
	His actual career, Jamal Khashoggi, was as a Saudi regime insider.
	And unfortunately for him, a different part of the Saudi royal family than he was allied with has come up.
	And he's a big critic of the current Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman.
	Why is he criticizing him?
	He thinks that Mohammed bin Salman is too easy toward Israel.
	That he's too pro-Israel.
	He wishes that the Saudi government were more anti-Israel.
	Because since he was a teenage boy, Jamal Khashoggi was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical organization in the Middle East that would wreak absolute havoc on the Saudi kingdom and on the entire region.
	So he was a regime insider.
	He worked for the regime.
	He was a spy.
	He's all these things.
	He hung out with Osama bin Laden in the 80s.
	There's a photo of him holding an RPG in Afghanistan.
	He wept.
	He admitted this.
	He wept over the death of Osama bin Laden when U.S. forces killed him.
	He's an Islamist.
	He's an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood.
	And he was killed by rival forces in the Middle East, the Saudi royal government.
	Okay, is that to say it's a good thing that they cut him up while he was alive, that they assassinated this guy who was undermining the regime?
	No, I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying it's par for the course.
	Saudi Arabia does stuff like this all the time.
	All of these Islamist governments do.
	They constantly are killing political opponents, doing horrific things.
	There's a part of Saudi Arabia that's called Chop Chop Square because they behead people there.
	Yeah, what's unusual about this?
	The reason that they're trying to make a story out of it is because they want to go after Donald Trump.
	They want to pretend that it's Donald Trump's fault.
	There's nothing new here.
	What's the lesson?
	People have been getting very upset because I've been saying this is not a story.
	And they say, how dare you?
	He was a person.
	Have compassion.
	What do you think?
	You think it's okay?
	No.
	My conclusion is if you pal around with Islamists, bad things are going to happen.
	That's what you can learn.
	You don't need to listen to the tape of him being murdered.
	You don't need to listen to the tape of him talking about how much he liked Osama bin Laden.
	You don't need to listen.
	Here's what you need to know.
	If you pal around with Islamists, bad things are going to happen.
	That's a fact check.
	True.
	I want Snopes to fact check that.
	Okay, that's our show today.
	I'll be speaking tonight at Embry-Riddle.
	I'm here, still in Florida, and then I'll be flying back soon.
	So if you're in town, come check it out.
	We're going to have a lot of fun.
	Otherwise, I will see you tomorrow.
	Get your mailbag questions in.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Senia Villareal.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Jim Nickel.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲