John Cardillo’s May 3, 2018 episode dissects Rudy Giuliani’s defense of Trump’s $130K Stormy Daniels reimbursement, calling Mueller’s investigation politically motivated and warning against direct interviews to avoid perjury traps. New Clinton emails allegedly reveal classified leaks to hostile actors, while BSA’s 2019 rebranding—accepting girls into Cub Scouts—is framed as a "far left" push to erase traditional masculinity. Parallels drawn to security clearance suspensions targeting Trump allies, like Pentagon strategist Adam Lovinger, underscore claims of institutional retaliation against the administration, framing resistance as systemic rather than isolated. [Automatically generated summary]
Today and off the cuff declassified, we're going to be talking about Rudy Giuliani's earth-shattering interview with Sean Hannity.
Big League Politics editor-in-chief Patrick Howley joins me to discuss the latest on the Hillary email reveal and the Mueller investigation.
Also, we're going to discuss this really disturbing far-left slide by the Boy Scouts of America or now just the Scouts BSA.
And is the deep state weaponizing against Trump nominees by slowing down their security clearances?
Well, Rudy Giuliani, man, did he change the game last night during his interview with Sean Hannity.
I'm still trying to process this.
I don't know if Giuliani is the most brilliant legal mind next to Alan Dershowitz or he's lost his mind.
I don't know if he's crazy like a fox or just crazy.
If you didn't watch the interview, if you're not seeing the headlines, I know that, you know, I take for granted that most people are paying attention to this.
That's what I do.
Many others have lives and families and they're not news junkies.
So we try to sum it up for you as accurately and comprehensively as humanly possible.
If you haven't seen the interview, Giuliani dropped a bombshell that Donald Trump did in fact reimburse his attorney, Michael Cohen, for $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
Of course, Stormy Daniels is alleging that Donald Trump had an extramarital affair with her while Melania Trump was pregnant with their youngest son, Baron, for a few months before or after Baron was born.
I don't pay enough attention to Stormy Daniels, nor do I care to get into the minutia of the details.
But what Giuliani said that was even more important is that it's not illegal for Trump to do that.
And that's really the crux of this particular segment.
And what the left is trying to make you believe is that Donald Trump, a multi-billionaire with billions, tens of billions of dollars in properties and assets, would have taken money from his campaign to reimburse Michael Cohen, or he funneled money through the campaign to pay Stormy Daniels off.
That would have been moronic and it would have been illegal.
And the reason the left, and I'm going to tell you why I don't think that's the case, the reason the left wants you to believe that narrative is because that's precisely what Hillary Clinton did to pay Fusion GPS, right?
Hillary Clinton funneled the payments, Fusion GPS, that ultimately paid Christopher Steele to create the dossier.
She funneled them through her law firm, Perkins Coe.
That's now provable fact.
So the left has to say, well, Trump did the same with Stormy Daniels.
It's very, very little evidence.
So Donald Trump, rather than Rudy Giuliani, drops a bombshell that Donald Trump did in fact reimburse Michael Cohen.
But Giuliani clarified how he did that.
And what Giuliani said initially, and the exchange with Sean Hannity is very, very interesting.
Giuliani said, quote, about the payment and about the payment that Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels.
Giuliani said, that's what lawyers do all the time.
Giuliani said he does it for his wealthy, high-profile clients.
Lawyers around the country do it.
They do it.
Look, I tell you all the time, when I had my business, I was involved in a lawsuit.
We gave our attorneys, I was very busy.
I was traveling.
I had spent that year.
I did the math on it and I saw my rewards.
Something like 120, 130 nights in hotels.
One particular hotel chain.
And I had, it was a ridiculous amount of points, like 200,000 points from that particular hotel chain.
I got a week's vacation out of it.
I think a 10-day vacation.
I was very, very busy.
I was traveling.
I was on a plane every other day.
And I gave our lawyers in that lawsuit discretion to settle the suit up to a certain dollar amount to pay the settlement if I was unreachable.
And then they would bill our company and we would reimburse our law firm.
It's a very common practice, a very common practice in the legal game.
Now, a lawyer is not going to front money for someone they don't know.
But if they know you're solvent, our attorneys had our banking information.
They knew we were solvent.
They knew we had the means to repay them.
We were always current on our legal fees.
They understood that as a client to keep us as a client, we were paying a good size retainer every month because we dealt with a lot of regulatory issues.
We needed them, that it was smart business for them to advance the money and then they would send us a bill and our CPA would wire them the money.
It's a very common practice in law.
It happens all the time.
It happens all the time.
Now, I'm not saying a law firm, if the tobacco industry has to pay billions upon billions, a law firm isn't fronting that.
But when the amount is $100,000, $200,000 and it's a large law firm with millions in the bank, oftentimes to just get rid of the case, they'll front the money, they'll build a client, the client will reimburse the law firm, and it pretty much goes away.
And that's exactly what happened with Stormy Daniels.
It was a lot cheaper to pay this woman off, even if all of her claims are bogus, than it was to potentially spend hundreds more of thousands in legal fees or damage the Trump organization brand to the tune of millions, 10 millions.
It wasn't worth it.
$130,000, while not a little bit of money in the grand scheme of a multi-billion dollar corporation is a mere pittance.
It's half the salary of a third of the salary of senior level executives.
It's something that you do a cost-benefit analysis on and you pay.
So Giuliani said that Trump repaid the money.
Then he explained how.
But what Giuliani said that's most important, that's what I want to talk about.
Giuliani declared that, quote, the payment, quote, is going to turn out to be perfectly legal.
That money was not campaign money.
Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know.
It's not campaign money, no campaign finance violation, end quote.
And that right there, if Giuliani's statement is accurate, and I have zero reason to believe it's not, I believe it's entirely accurate, that right there puts to bed the argument that something illegal transpired in the paying off of Stormy Daniels.
It might not be the most tasteful thing to the sanctimonious or the moral.
I'm sure large portions of the evangelical community will have an issue with a sitting president paying off via his lawyer a porn star, but it's not illegal.
It's not illegal.
A person, a business, can choose to pay for anything they want as long as they're doing something legal.
They can't choose to pay for kilos of cocaine.
But if their attorney chooses to settle a lawsuit and they said to their attorney, the attorney knows they're very, very wealthy and their attorney has blanket discretion to settle in advance funds up to say half a million dollars, in this case, $130,000.
It is perfectly legal.
It is perfectly acceptable.
In fact, it happens around the world hundreds of times.
I would say in the U.S., it's probably happening hundreds of times while we record this segment, while I bring you this segment.
Around the world, probably thousands of times in the length it took me to record this segment.
It is what lawyers do for clients every day of the week.
It is the nature of being an attorney, being an attorney for a wealthy, powerful, notable person.
It's what lawyers in Hollywood do daily, hourly with some clients.
This is not anything improper, not anything illegal.
And if Donald Trump then wrote a check for more wired money from his personal accounts or the Trump organization or a trust, anything but the campaign.
Now, I can tell you, I don't believe for a single solitary second that Donald Trump used campaign money, and I'll tell you why.
I am very, very close to, very personally friendly with, I've done business with three or four of the individuals who were state directors who ran states for the Trump campaign, two of which went up to Trump Tower.
The budgets of the Trump campaign were very, very slim.
Donald Trump believed in zero-based budgets.
In other words, he gives you X amount of dollars.
You estimate you need X amount of dollars.
You spend that money.
You shouldn't have a surplus.
You shouldn't have a deficit.
And one of them told me a story that they had an overall budget for their state and they came in under budget.
Now, he would be happy if you come in under budget, but a zero-based budget would indicate you don't.
But if you came in under budget, he's the happiest guy in the world as a business person.
And every line item was either on budget or slightly under budget.
One line item was slightly over budget, but the entire budget came in well under budget into the tens of thousands of dollars on a program costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So a good percentage of money was saved.
And they said to me, you know, the only thing Donald Trump focused on, we didn't get a pat on the back for being totally under budget or under budget on 19 of 20 line items.
The only thing he focused on was that one line item that was over budget and told them be better prepared.
That's all he focused on, which tells me that Donald Trump was not hiding and funneling money through his campaign to pay off a porn star.
He would have written that check from his personal account because they said he was critical.
I was talking to them about this case and they said to me, there would be nowhere to find the money because he believed in zero-based budgets.
Every dime appropriated by the campaign for the campaign had to be budgeted in advance by those campaign officials working to get him elected.
In other words, the campaign had X millions.
He would go to each of them, say, what do you need?
They'd all have a meeting and every penny would already have been pre-accounted for.
There wouldn't have been an extra $130,000 that could have been hidden for Stormy Daniels.
These are four people.
Two of them are kind of bitter because they didn't get jobs in the administration.
Believe me, if they thought there was a problem, they'd be the first one saying it.
But to a person, they all said, look, you know, we've got our issues.
Some of us are very happy.
Others are not.
Two of them said, we've got our issues with this president.
But one thing we can tell you, the man is fanatical at balancing books.
He never ended up being above board with his books.
He never would have allowed a payment from the campaign to pay for this.
He understood the legal implication.
More importantly, he wanted to win.
He wanted every penny of that campaign money to go toward the campaign.
That's not me being a cheerleader for Donald Trump.
That's me talking to four people who were tasked with managing millions of dollars each on the campaign, telling me their experiences with how Donald Trump budgets.
And so take that, you know, take that in any way you want.
Obviously, I'm not naming them, but they, so you can believe it, you can disbelieve it.
I happen to believe it because I watched them operate during the campaign and I watched them be on very, very trim margins.
So I don't believe that Donald Trump would have done that.
I also don't believe that Donald Trump would have been silly enough to hide money through the campaign, a paltry $130,000.
His plane, his 757, before he was as a candidate, burned more fuel than that on a trip across the country.
A round trip on that plane is burning about that much in gas.
And so this searching is ludicrous, but it's done to cover for Hillary Clinton.
That's all it's about.
Because Hillary did do this.
Now, Trump did take some pot shots, okay?
I'm sorry, Giuliani took some pot shots with regards to certain people around Trump.
And he said, and I don't know if I would have said this.
He said, Hannity asked what might happen if Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, becomes a criminal target.
Giuliani praised Kushner as, quote, a fine man.
You know, he said, this is an interesting comment.
He said, quote, a fine man.
You know that.
But men are disposable.
But a fine woman like Ivanka, come on.
A little bit weird.
A little bit weird.
So Giuliani said that he would, quote, get on his charger, get his charger, and go ride into their offices with a lance meeting Mueller's if they go after Ivanka Trump.
Now, if they do go after Ivanka, which I doubt they will, the whole country will turn on them.
They're going after his daughter, end quote.
I believe that.
I believe if Robert Mueller and team tried to go after Ivanka Trump, then the entire country would turn on them.
And again, Giuliani's quote.
So we talked about how Michael Cohen being reimbursed by Rudy Giuliani from personal or corporate funds, not a crime.
Here's Giuliani's quote again.
He said, quote, if it turns out that regarding to the payment, not if it turns out, he admitted that Trump reimbursed the money.
And he said about that reimbursement, quote, it's going to turn out to be perfectly legal.
The money was not campaign money.
He said to Hannity, sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know.
It's not campaign money, no campaign finance violation.
He's 100% right.
So Hannity then, but they funneled it through the law firm.
Giuliani said, yeah, funneled through the law firm, and then the president repaid it.
Now, that's where I have a problem.
Giuliani never should have used the word funneled.
What he should have said was, no, not funneled, advanced by Cohen or his private client, Donald Trump, or his private client, the Trump organization, then reimbursed by one of those private entities, not the campaign, no finance violation.
Giuliani misspoke.
Hannity then said, oh, I didn't know he did.
Giuliani then backpedaled it a little bit.
And what he said was, let me pull up the quote for you.
Of course, when I do that, my screen freezes, as it always does.
But Giuliani then said that he reimbursed Cohen in a way that was through legal fee, which is also not illegal by any means.
Not illegal by any means.
You can reimburse someone with legal fee.
Prior to that, Giuliani said that, quote, Cohen was his lawyer and had the discretion to settle, as I have had, as I have had for clients ultimately paying for it.
Remember, October 2016 hardly will recall any of that in detail.
I don't remember it clearly either.
He also said that Trump was probably not aware of the payment at the time it was made.
And what the Trump campaign is saying is that the agreement with Stormy Daniels was made to prevent false claims.
Agreement to Stop False Claims00:03:01
And he's right.
I mean, why wouldn't you stop false claims?
Now, what Giuliani said when he walked it back, let me find that quote for you.
He basically said that Trump paid Cohen, quote, over several months by putting him on retainer of $35,000 while he was doing no work for the president.
This was the quote I was looking for before my screen froze.
He said, quote, that's how he's repaying it with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes.
And he said that Trump didn't know the specifics of the payment as far as I know, but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this.
Like I take care of things like this for my clients.
I don't burden them with every single detail that comes along.
And that's the nature of having very wealthy, powerful, well-known clients.
They give you a discretionary budget.
They say if little gnats come flying around with bogus claims, either fight them or settle them.
You figure out which is cheaper and which is less damaging to me.
Send me the bill.
I'll reimburse you.
It's the nature of the beast.
It's the nature of the beast.
Now, the Trump campaign is obviously responding.
Giuliani's false claim.
President Trump put out a series of tweets.
He tweeted this morning, very early this morning, quote, Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties known as a non-disclosure agreement or NDA.
These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth.
In this case, it is in full force and effect and will be used in arbitrations for damages against Ms. Clifford, Stormy Daniels.
The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair.
Despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair prior to its violation by Mrs. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement.
Money from the campaign or campaign contributions played no role in this transaction.
Those are tweets from President Donald Trump that sound very much like they were written by his lawyer and him.
And I think that is a very smart move.
Now, Giuliani also really beat the hell out of James Comey.
He said he had the indignity, he said he knew Comey well, and in light of everything, he had the indignity of having given Comey his first major job at the Department of Justice.
Rudy Giuliani, you remember, was a U.S. attorney in New York.
And he called James Comey a pervert.
Now, one thing is for sure.
This has shaken a lot of trees.
And after Trump's tweets, I like what I'm seeing because this now debunks the entire narrative of a cover-up and of campaign funds being used.
All Donald Trump has to do now is have his attorneys show a bank statement providing payments to Michael Cohen subsequent to Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels and those payments coming from either his personal account or a Trump organization private account.
Shaking the Trump Narrative00:06:50
And it puts that entire line of questioning to bed.
It also paints Robert Mueller and his team in a terrible, terrible light for kicking in Michael Cohen's doors of his offices, homes, and hotel rooms, raiding his files and taking privileged material.
This is really, really starting to amp up, and I'm really happy that we're seeing the president right back.
So much going on with the Robert Mueller investigation.
There's revelation that new Hillary Clinton emails have been found, and Rudy Giuliani's earth-shattering interview on Sean Hannity's show last night.
Here to discuss it all with me is the guy who brought us the story.
He broke the story on new Hillary emails or old Hillary emails recently discovered being found.
Patrick Howley, editor-in-chief of Big League Politics.
Patrick, thanks for being here today.
So much for you and I to discuss.
Really glad you were able to come on the show.
Let's first go to the story that you broke here a week or so ago.
New emails found that belonged to Hillary Clinton, presumably the missing emails.
We're going to see those.
I believe the judge ordered disclosure on September 28th.
Two other disclosures were already ordered by the judge, January 30th.
I'm sorry, January, I believe it was 18th, and March 30th.
What did we learn since you've last been on the show about those January and March releases of Hillary's previously undisclosed emails?
So, Hillary Clinton was discussing classified information on her private non-secure server.
She did this many, many times.
She discussed highly sensitive topics.
This is new information that we glean from these January and March 30th releases that further reinforce that idea, right?
This isn't the old info.
Oh, yes, that's right.
I mean, she did this many, many, many times.
And it's clear that many different foreign hostile actors gained access to her email inbox.
We know that this happened when she visited China, when she was in East Asia.
There was a breach then, and people got into her private email server because there was no firewall protection on it, and it had open doors everywhere.
So, you know, Hillary Clinton is definitely guilty of espionage, also perjury and obstruction of justice, and many other crimes.
And it's time for Jeff Sessions, who we're going to talk more about, to lock her up.
Yeah, okay, so let's go right there.
Perfect segue.
I'm glad you brought up Jeff Sessions.
There are now many people I trust, some people you and I both know for the political and the media world, that were previously calling for Sessions to be fired, are now saying, hey, wait a second.
Maybe there is something happening.
Maybe Sessions is acting on things because the OIG doesn't seem to have been reined in.
I respect them.
I know they're in the know, but I am not convinced because at the end of the day, Patrick, we all fall back on our own experiences.
I look back at my experience in law enforcement.
I have never seen anything handled this tepidly.
What are you hearing?
What do you think?
Well, first of all, Sessions, if he is playing 4D chess, he did go to bet for Rod Rosenstein.
He wanted Rod Rosenstein to be his number two at the Department of Justice.
Rod Rosenstein is terrible, absolutely terrible, completely on the other side, one of the anti-Trump conspirators.
And he is now the one who is refusing to hand over these documents.
After all this time, Rod Rosenstein is in possession of documents about the DOJ investigations going on.
He won't hand them over.
He wants to redact everything.
What does this guy have to hide?
And why do we have to keep putting up with Rod Rosenstein?
Well, part of the reason for that is because Jeff Sessions keeps him there.
So the idea that Jeff Sessions is playing 4D chess, we had a great piece on that, on that theory on our site.
Patrick, I've always hated.
I'm not convinced.
I've always hated.
Not to cut you off, so I want you to keep going.
I've always hated that 4D chess conspiracy theory.
I personally think Jeff Sessions got there.
He was snowed by Rosenstein.
Rosenstein played Sessions, allowed Sessions to believe that he was an honest, ethical actor.
Sessions followed the chain of command, brought Rosenstein into number two.
Rosenstein turned out to be a very bad actor.
Sessions is paralyzed by and unwilling to fight the swamp.
That's how I see this.
Yes, and Sessions lawyer Chuck Cooper in the Russia case is also very tight with Rosenstein.
You know, this is a Washington lawyer kind of fraternity.
Chuck Cooper goes back in Republican politics to Iran-Contra.
He was one of the people who was sitting there at, I believe it was Capitol Grill or Old Ebbett's Grill, actually.
And he saw, you know, secret documents in the Iran counter case.
So, I mean, these people have been in the swamp for a very long time.
It's funny to me, during the campaign, Ted Cruz said privately, and I heard him, you know, well, Jeff's been in Washington too long, referring to Jeff Sessions.
And we all thought, what is this guy talking about?
He's desperate.
Jeff Sessions, of all people?
Well, maybe Ted Cruz was right, it turns out.
I think Ted Cruz was right.
And I think that's exactly what it was.
You know, I was at Horowitz Restoration weekend down here in South Florida.
Back in November, I guess it was.
And Jay Christian Adams, the DOJ whistleblower, gave a speech in which he basically defended Sessions, but kind of admitted Sessions isn't going to do anything.
So we were walking out of the room together and I pulled him aside and I said, Christian, you know, what is, I said, I want to talk to you on the record.
I want to use this on my show.
He said, yeah, fine.
Everything I do is on the record.
I said, did you just really say that Jeff Sessions knows there's a problem and won't act on it?
And he said, yeah.
He said, look, Jeff's an honorable guy, but this problem is so entrenched.
It's so vast, so wide, he's just not going to fight it.
He can't fight it.
Now, I don't know if he meant that he doesn't have the will to fight it, the ability to fight it, compromise, but he was pretty clear that Sessions isn't going to do anything.
He's going to do what he can do.
That means immigration enforcement.
That means, you know, MS-13.
He's fascinated with legal marijuana and civil asset seizure.
But man, when it comes to fighting the bad actors on Team Obama and Team Hillary, he doesn't seem interested or willing at all.
Well, I'll tell you who is interested and willing is Rudy Giuliani.
And we should, that interview last night should be the final nail in the coffin for Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosen.
It should be.
It should be.
Yeah, I did a segment right before you on the nuances of why they are trying to spin this narrative that Trump used campaign funds.
Now, you covered the campaign.
We know a couple of the same people who ran in various aspects of the campaign.
Trump's Personal Finances00:12:54
One of the things they would complain about to me, the campaign, senior campaign staff, maybe out for a drink in D.C. or South Florida, New York, was how Trump was fanatical about his zero-based budgets.
There wouldn't have been an extra $130,000 to pay off Stormy Daniels out of the campaign.
If Trump reimbursed Cohen, which I believe he did, that came out of personal money.
And Patrick, I don't have a problem with a rich guy making a nuisance go away, a false allegation nuisance go away, to the tune of a paltry $130,000 in context.
Well, let's put it in perspective.
Donald Trump made a nuisance go away by paying a porn star $130,000.
Hillary Clinton made a nuisance go away by murdering Seth Rich.
Look, Hillary Clinton, okay, so that's not proven, right?
I tend to think there's a lot of credence to the theory that Seth Rich was murdered for his political work.
By whom, I don't know.
But I do believe, and I'll tell you why.
I've got friends in DCPD that I know from my law enforcement days.
They told me they worked that area.
They have never once seen a body on the ground in that area that had its wallet and money in the pockets if it was a robbery.
And so they said, hey, we don't know what happened.
And two of these guys were robbery unit for 10 years.
And they said, we've never seen a case handled this way.
We've never seen the heavy-handedness from the federal government on a case.
We've never seen our unit told, don't go out and shake the trees and interview CIs.
And they were told to stand down.
Everything about that case in terms of law enforcement is dirty.
But let's look at something we know Hillary did.
Hillary did funnel money through her law firm Perkins Coy from her campaign to pay Fusion GPS to create the steel dossier.
We know she committed campaign finance fraud.
I think that's why they're spinning it that way for Trump.
Yeah, the Hillary Clinton money laundering scandal is massive, by the way.
There are so many other scandals.
There are so many other crimes and horrible things that she's done that this seems like small potatoes in comparison.
But the fact that she was laundering money through state parties is so highly illegal and indicts so many different state Democratic parties.
We need to investigate that before the midterms.
Yeah, it's like 84 million bucks, right?
And now the DNC, what was it?
The party chairs, I did the story yesterday.
Party chairs of a few states in the Midwest are asking, or the National Committee Men and Committee of Women are asking Hillary Clinton for $1.65 million back that the DNC paid her for her list.
I mean, even the DNC is distancing themselves from Hillary at this point.
Now, Mueller is threatening a grand jury subpoena if Trump doesn't sit down with him.
I don't think Trump should ever sit down with Robert Mueller.
Victoria Tenzing, Joe DiGenova's wife, two of the most gifted federal and national security defense attorneys out there, both say, absolutely not.
Henzing went a step further than DiGenova and said, over my dead body, to paraphrase her, she said, she tells her clients, if you try to talk to federal investigators, I'll stand in the doorway.
You've got to kill me and step over my dead body to do it.
And typically they come back and thank her later on.
I don't think Trump should go anywhere near Mueller.
He should submit written questions, obviously written by his lawyer, signed by him, and leave it at that, and then let Mueller try to subpoena a sitting president after the president complies in that way.
You know, Mueller would do it.
Mueller is a rabid dog.
Mueller really, really is out for blood.
So the idea that Trump should willingly sit down with him is such a horrible idea.
I've talked about this with my friend Roger Stone.
He agrees it's the worst idea ever.
I urge the president, please, please do not do this because the president likes to talk, you know, and not that he's done anything wrong, but Mueller is going to be sitting there with a pencil, making sure that he crosses every T to make sure, to try to get him on some kind of perjury or obstruction of justice charge.
So if he actually does subpoena Trump, well, Trump can just take the fifth.
Who cares at this point?
We all know that this is a farce.
We all support the guy.
So, you know, this thing needs to end.
And Rudy Giuliani was spot on last night talking about how this has gone on way too long and somebody needs to do something.
And it broke my heart when Giuliani was talking about how his biggest regret in life was that he didn't take the attorney general job.
Yeah, he wanted to be secretary of state.
I want to go to Rudy in a second, but something you said was very interesting.
I talked to Wayne Allen Root yesterday.
And, you know, Wayne is an old friend of Donald Trump's, and he was very critical of Obama.
And he's a New York guy.
And I've had Wayne on the show on my old radio show many, many times.
I have to get him.
I was talking about bringing him on this show.
And he's going to be coming on soon.
He's a really interesting guy.
And I said, what would you do?
I said, if you were sitting with Trump and he said, you know, we're old friends, that I would tell Donald, don't go anywhere near Mueller for the simple reason that you and I are both New York guys.
And he said to me, you know, you are too.
He would say to Trump, he said, but we talk too much.
talk too much we're good on-air hosts we're good celebrities we're good at seminars so we're the worst guys in the world that's sitting in front of federal investigators because we try to you know be bb have the puffiest chest in the room We would talk too much and we'd get ourselves into a trap.
And I think Wayne was dead on the mark with that.
And it's exactly what you're saying.
Trump would go in there.
He would try to one-up Mueller.
And in the process, Mueller would say, well, wait a second.
Comey said A, you said B.
I believe Comey, not you.
Ergo, you lied.
I'm charging you with a process crime.
Yep.
Yep.
That's what Mueller's looking to do.
No question about it.
All right, so let's go back to Giuliani because that's really what I wanted to chat with you about.
So much out of that interview.
I had somebody very, very close to the president of the United States tell me we ran into each other socially and they were integral to the campaign and the early days of the transition.
We were talking about all of this about two months ago.
They said to me, Jeff Sessions was our biggest mistake.
We should have gone with Rudy, but Rudy wanted Secretary of State.
And Rudy Giuliani expressed that same frustration last night.
That's where you were going before I just went over to talk about Wayne.
But give me your take on that.
It's very sad because Jeff Sessions has wasted so much of our time and, you know, really put us through so much hardship by recusing himself and this nonsense.
And instead of being able to govern, and he's governing well, but instead of being able to govern full-time, you know, the number one issue has been: is he going to be able to defeat the lying political establishment that is making up a case out of thin air?
I mean, this, Rush Limbaugh says, this is crushing the spirit of our country.
And maybe that's the point is to crush the spirit of our country, to send the message that no matter how patriotic you are, no matter what a good citizen you are, it doesn't matter because the people in charge can lie.
The people in charge can manipulate the facts and they can always get you because they're in charge.
And I think that's the message that they're trying to send to each and every one of us.
I think you're right.
And I think I'll further that.
I think this is Deep State saying to America, how dare you think you get a right to choose your president?
How dare you believe that you can unseat our selected primary choices?
We give you two choices that we approve of, that the deep state, the entrenched bureaucracy, approves of.
How dare you go outside of those two choices and rock the system?
I truly believe that's Mueller's agenda.
Look, Michael Caputo, who had been put through hell for no reason whatsoever, a former advisor to Trump, came on the campaign after the Republican primary in New York, left when Manafort came on as chairman.
Unfortunately, Manafort was a disaster, and many good people left when Manafort was there because he wanted Trump to be more established, quite frankly.
But Caputo lashed out the Senate Intelligence Committee, and now he's talking to the media, and he's saying that he went into this thing believing that Mueller was impartial and fair.
He no longer believes that.
He believes that they want to scalp.
They're going to get a scalp.
But that's what's so problematic here, Patrick.
The criminal justice system, the criminal justice system, is supposed to operate in this way.
A crime occurs, and you try to find the person who committed it.
It's not, we've got a person.
Let's investigate that person until we find a crime.
And if we can't find a crime, let's put them into as many traps as possible to get a bogus process crime like we did on General Flynn.
That's what's fundamentally wrong here.
But if you fire Mueller now, they're going to move for impeachment.
The neocons, the rhinos, and the Dems are going to move to impeach.
Yep.
Yep, absolutely.
So, you know, they think they've got us in a trap whereby President Trump can't do anything to defend himself or they'll get him on a process crime or this obstruction of justice idea.
If he tries to defend himself, they'll try to make a case for obstruction of justice no matter what he does.
They are using the legal system in a very dangerous, dishonest way that is hurting our republic, quite frankly.
And what we need to do is we need to go on offense, like Rudy said.
And we need to get rid of Rod Rosenstein.
It came out last night, by the way, that Rod Rosenstein was with Mueller when Mueller interviewed to be Donald Trump's FBI director.
First of all, how is it not a conflict of interest that Trump passes Mueller over for a job and then Mueller comes back as the special counsel?
How is it not a conflict of interest?
Exactly.
Not to cut you off.
How is it not a conflict of interest that Mueller and Comey work together?
How is it not a conflict of interest that Rosenstein and Mueller worked together?
We're in that interview together and then Rosenstein picks Mueller, the guy that wasn't hired to be the special counsel, inviting the guy who didn't, investigating the guy who didn't hire him and who fired his buddy.
Nothing about this, nothing about this is proper.
Not to mention the fact that Paul Manafort was using Wilmer Hale law firm to represent him at the time that Mueller started investigating Manafort.
And Mueller was a partner at Wilmer Hale.
So anything he got from that period of the investigation can immediately be discounted for attorney client privilege and various other things as well.
It's the most bizarre, improper investigation I've ever seen in my life, unless, unless Trump really does have some intricate endgame and all the pieces are falling into place.
Otherwise, otherwise, this was gross incompetence up till this point on the part of Trump's attorneys.
I couldn't be happier that John Dowd and Ty Cobb are gone.
I think John Dowd and Ty Cobb were gutless.
I think they were terrified of Mueller.
They deferred to everything Mueller did.
They deferred to everything Mueller said.
Giuliani came out of the gate punching.
And then Ty Cobb, the day after he resigns, goes and does an interview on ABC News praising Mueller.
I mean, what did he do there for nearly a year?
You know, Ty Cobb, I like the mustache.
I like the baseball.
Well, his mustache.
I hope his mustache is still in the White House.
Only he left.
I think it's hanging out in Bolton's office.
It feels comfortable over there.
His mustache is the new head lawyer on the team.
Listen, seriously, what the hell was Cobb doing?
You did nothing.
All you did was praise Mueller, praise Mueller, praise Mueller.
And then after you leave, you do an ABC interview praising Mueller again?
I mean, what is the end game there?
Ty Cobb's a Jeb Bush guy.
You know, a lot of these people infiltrate and they really do have dual allegiances.
I think Ty Cobb is one of them.
Yeah, I do.
I think Ty Cobb.
You know what I found with lawyers?
Defense lawyers, even civil defense lawyers, know they have to exist with these other counsels.
They know criminal defense lawyers know they have to exist with these prosecutors.
So they only go so far, but for a few, the Victoria Tenzings, the Jody Janovas.
Many of them, like Cobb and Dowd, will only go so far.
They'll only rock the boat so much because they know that once they're done with that client, they've got to exist with another client.
A guy like Mueller goes back into the private sector.
He's a few million dollar a year guy.
He can easily bring them in as a partner, make them very wealthy, as long as they didn't rock the boat too much.
I don't think Trump got adequate representation from Dowd and Cobb.
We're running out of time.
Patrick, last word to you.
John, I think that it is a big regret that Rudy Giuliani did not become the Attorney General.
And I think what this underscores more than anything is the need for President Donald Trump to go on offense.
We have been on defense for no reason.
These people are liars.
These people are manipulating the facts.
They are making this up out of whole cloth.
This is like 1984.
And we are tired of having to defend ourselves from fiction.
It is time to point out the truth to the American people and to go on offense.
Rudy Giuliani needs to lead the way.
Manipulating Boy Scouts?00:09:34
And President Donald Trump needs to follow Rudy's advice because Rudy has his back.
I couldn't agree more.
Patrick Howley, editor-in-chief, big league politics.
Always a pleasure to have you on.
You're going to keep us updated on what's going on with these Hillary emails, right?
As always.
As soon as you find something new, send me a text.
I'll bring you right back on.
Awesome.
Thanks, John.
It feels like every institution from my childhood is being eradicated by the far left.
I'm sure you've seen the story, but we're going to go deep into it.
The Boy Scouts of America are dropping.
Ready for this?
The word boy from their name.
Yeah.
Well, Boy Scouts' chief scout executive, Mike Serbah, is saying it's only about the new Scout Me In program.
The Boy Scouts, starting in, let's see, when are they going to do this?
They're going to be called Scouts BSA in February of 2019.
The umbrella organization will retain its name, Boy Scouts of America.
The term Cub Scouts for kids seven to 10 years old is gender neutral and will go unchanged.
However, Boy Scouts, which runs for kids 11, 17, then you get Eagle Scouts, will have the name changed to Scouts BSA in February.
Cub Scouts will formally start accepting girls this summer.
But Sarbaugh, a chief scout executive, said more than 3,000 girls nationwide are already enrolled in BSA's early adopter program and are participating in Cub Scouts ahead of the full launch this year.
Why?
We have the Girl Scouts.
We've got the Brownies.
We've got the Girl Scouts.
This is an attempt by the far left to destroy traditionalism, to eradicate the concept of masculinity.
I brought you a story a few shows ago about the University of Texas considering masculinity a disorder.
Well, this really plays into that.
Now, the Boy Scouts of America has had a membership drain.
They claimed 2.3 million members down from 2.6 million five years ago.
That's basically over a 10% loss of memory, almost a 15% membership loss over five years.
Pretty considerable to drop 3% of your members yearly.
And that considers, that includes rather, the venturing and sea scouting programs.
The latter, Sea Scouting, I'd heard about it, don't know much about it, allows membership up to 21 years of age.
In its peak years, the Scouts Boy Scouts had 4 million members.
Now, Boy Scouts of America is saying that this is all about giving families the ease of having male and female children enrolled in one program so parents don't have to run all over the place.
Well, the Girl Scouts aren't happy about this because this is poaching their membership.
And rightfully so.
Why would they be happy about this?
But this is not about that at all.
This is about normalizing transgender children, normalizing these far-left weirdo parents who, if their son at four years old picks up a pink teddy bear because it's a cute little teddy bear, they say, oh, little Atticus is obviously gender neutral.
Let's let him wear a dress while he plays baseball.
It is akin to child abuse, and that's the traditional conservative in me.
It's ridiculous.
Let them make the decision as an adult, but these people who force their children in transgenderism, I find that reprehensible.
I also find it very unsettling that now they want to force this on other people's kids.
The other thing that bothers me is that the left, the hypocritical left, hates the 1%, right?
The left despises the 1% unless it's the 1% of people in the country who consider themselves transgender, gender androgynous, what have you.
Then that 1%, that 1% should set policy for all others.
If it's the wealthy 1%, we should crush them and we should enact policies for the 99%.
But if it's the 1% of transgenders or gender-neutral people or gender ambiguous people, well, then all policy for the other 99% should be set based on their agenda, their emotional wants and needs.
I am so sick of this nonsense.
I'm so sick of it.
Taking the boys out of the Boy Scouts is disgraceful.
Now, you know what they're going to do?
This is just the first step in that slow creep left, right?
It's going to be this.
Then the multicultural, not multicultural, but the alternative lifestyle curriculum will creep into the Boy Scouts.
The curriculum about toxic masculinity.
Let's not go camping and fishing as Boy Scouts.
Let's also go to ballet and let's also go to a lecture on transgenderism given by a gay rights activist who at one point said that pedophilia is not a mental disorder and shouldn't even be criminalized.
You know, that's what's going to wind up happening here.
I know I sound like I'm over the top, but this is the slow creep.
This is the slow creep towards normalizing alternative lifestyles of 1% for the other 99%.
This is the slow creep toward eradicating masculinity.
The Boy Scouts, by taking a young guy, a boy, camping and fishing, is teaching them two basic elements needed for manhood.
The providing of food and shelter.
You go to fish, you're providing food.
You learn how to stake your tent.
It's shelter.
You have to complete a series of tasks.
I was a Cub Scout.
I was a Boy Scout.
It teaches you responsibility.
It teaches you work ethic.
It teaches you competition.
Right?
Teaches you how to compete against other Boy Scouts, how to win that medal before they do.
The left hates all that.
They despise that.
They want to take that away.
They want to eradicate that.
And what better way to do it?
What better way to do it than to take the boy out of Boy Scout?
Now, there is precedent on a way to do this in a less destructive way.
The Boys and Girls Clubs of America used to be just the Boys Clubs of America.
They merged boys and girls clubs so that parents who have kids of both genders can drop them at one facility.
But the activities are things that boys would like to do and girls would like to do.
And sometimes there's crossover.
So the boys and girl scouts could have gotten together and said, hey, let's make it the boys and girl scouts of America and have joint meetings.
We would have been okay with that.
This is not what their agenda is, though.
Their agenda is transgenderism.
Their agenda is to say to boys, it's horrible to be a male.
You should be ashamed of yourself to be a little boy, you budding rapist, you budding misogynist, you budding xenophobe.
Being a boy is toxic.
Being a girl, well, if you're a girl and you think you're only a girl, that's pretty toxic too.
This is a far left, and I mean radical, far left, alternative lifestyle creep into a very traditional American institution, the Boy Scouts of America.
We shouldn't allow this.
We shouldn't allow this.
Look, there was a lot of hysteria a few years back with gay scout leaders.
Now, I don't understand why you would have to force gay scout leaders into the Boy Scouts.
I don't get it.
But it's not about being a gay scout leader.
If a scout leader comes into the Boy Scouts and they don't have children that are also in the Boy Scouts in that troop, be that scout leader gay or straight, I would be a little concerned.
Maybe it's the cop in me.
I would be a little concerned with why some random man wants to take a bunch of young boys hunting, camping and fishing.
God forbid the Boy Scouts are allowed to shoot rifles anymore.
The whole lot of them will go to jail.
And that we've taken that incredibly fun activity away from little boys for the most part.
Some scout troops still do it in the Midwest and all, but scout troops in bigger cities don't.
It's terrible, terrible.
I loved going to the rifle ring.
Loved it.
Still do.
It's awesome.
But of course, we have to take that away from kids.
Whole other segment.
I would be very suspicious if some random, I don't have children, but if I did, some random grown man without any kids in the troop wanted to take a bunch of young boys on a camping trip away from their parents for the weekend.
And if the other scout leader was also a single man, just the whole thing is weird, all right, who had no kids in the troop.
I have friends who are scout leaders now, but they have kids.
The two guys I know, one has one son in the troop, the other has two sons in the troop.
The other dads whose sons are in the troops are the other scout leaders.
They're on the trip.
That's normal.
That's healthy.
Some random man, no matter their sexual orientation with no kids there, that is not.
That is not healthy.
And there's something fundamentally, fundamentally wrong with that.
And I would caution, I would caution parents about keeping their kids in the Boy Scouts of America.
Quite frankly, I think these parents should pull their kids out of the scouts' BSA as soon as humanly possible.
Pentagon's Political Retaliation00:04:07
The deep state, those entrenched bureaucrats, hysterical Donald Trump won the election, will stop at nothing, nothing to halt his agenda.
They tried to crush him in the primary.
They tried to crush him in the general election.
They tried to use a special counsel and are still trying to use a special counsel to bring down his administration.
They're trying to use porn stars with bogus allegations.
They're trying everything.
If they can't take Trump out, they can't end his presidency.
Well, they're going to do everything they can to stall his agenda.
A news story from Fox News holds a lot of water to me.
It's entitled, Deep State Has Weaponized Security Clearances Against Trump, Conservative Pentagon Officials Lawyer Says.
And this lawyer, National Security Attorney Sean Begley, wrote that his client, Adam Lovinger, is just one example.
This is from the Fox News story of the ongoing war against Trump appointees.
Lovinger served for more than a decade as a Pentagon strategist before being tapped to become an analyst for the National Security Council.
Now, this charge comes less than a month after Senator Rampaul revealed that two romantically linked FBI officials, Peter Stroke and Lisa Page, still have their security clearances.
And people are calling this a power grab.
According to the attorney Bigley, the Pentagon cited only, quote, specious and constantly evolving claims of misconduct, end quote, against his client to justify the punishment of suspending his security clearance, causing him to lose the National Security Council post.
Now, they've failed to provide, the government has failed to provide any specific evidence for their claims.
And Lovinger, this guy who's worked honorably in the Department of Defense, who was supposed to go over to the NSC, remains on administrative leave.
His attorney writes, quote, one of Mr. Lovinger's alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly, was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took about an airplane for reading.
So what they're saying is that they had marked it, classified enough for him not to bring on an aircraft, but that was improper.
Lawyer goes on to say, quote, in Mr. Lovinger's case, those weaponizing the security clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as unfit to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department security adjudications chief who persisted in advancing the false allegations.
They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small, but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power.
I believe this.
I believe this because I'm hearing it from many, many people.
I watched two friends of mine, federal agents with stellar careers, who made their political affiliations known.
They were big Trump supporters, big conservatives.
They're in federal law enforcement agencies, embattled one.
They made their political affiliations known.
And for the first time in their multi-decade careers, days in one case and a week after in another case, they were pulled in to have their security clearances reevaluated for no specific reason whatsoever.
I believe it's retaliation for being a Trump supporter.
I truly do.
These people are unhinged.
These people are unhinged.
This case appears to have some legs.
As I'm reading information on this case, it appears to have legs.
This guy appears to be being punished because he's a Trump supporter, because he was invited on to the NSC.
We're seeing Trump's appointees stalled in Congress.
We're seeing many, many people have their security clearance investigation stalled, halted, delayed for inexplicable reasons.
And it makes sense, right?
If you can't take Trump out on bogus allegations of collusion, if you can't Can't take him out on bogus allegations of obstruction of justice.