Michael Horowitz’s DOJ IG report scrutinizes the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, where 97.8% of mass public shootings since 1950—including 63 of 66 incidents from 1998–2018—occurred in gun-free zones, per Dr. John Lott’s data. California and New York’s permit rates skew toward judges, prosecutors, and wealthy donors (e.g., Alameda County’s 0.007%), undermining liberal claims about racial/gender equality. Beck Dory Stein’s memoir reveals Obama-era Air Force One drug culture, while CBS News’ misleading headline on Sarah Sanders highlights media bias. The episode exposes systemic inconsistencies in justice, gun control narratives, and institutional credibility. [Automatically generated summary]
Today and off the cuff declassified, it's Inspector General Report Day, but harsh criticisms and many questions of DOJ still remain.
Dr. John Lott joins me to discuss the latest Second Amendment issues.
A former Obama staffer blows the lid off what she called a party culture complete with drugs on Air Force One.
And did CBS News get caught red-handed spreading fake news?
A tweet by the White House press secretary seems to say yes.
Big day today.
In addition to being President Trump's birthday, happy birthday, Mr. President.
Even bigger news is that Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Department of Justice Inspector General.
Michael Horowitz's long-awaited report will be in our hands today.
We'll be able to read it.
It's going to be hundreds of pages.
And this is something I'm going to be covering very, very much in depth over the next days, probably weeks to come.
The report is expected to be, like I said, hundreds of pages.
But I want to today discuss what's most likely in the report, as well as big problems conservatives seem to have with the Department of Justice.
Now, the report, of course, was looking into and is expected to slam the Department of Justice's handling, most notably the FBI's, specifically James Comey's lead in the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Of course, Hillary having a private server and mishandling classified emails.
Well, conservatives, and credit were due, even some Democrats who were logical and not hyper-partisan to the point of being delusional, were very uncomfortable that a sitting Secretary of State.
Now, a Secretary of State has security clearances pretty much equivalent to that of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the head of the CIA, the head of the NSA.
The State Department works very, very closely with the Oval Office, with the intelligence community.
It's important to note that to understand just how sensitive the intelligence was that Hillary Clinton had access.
Critical to understand that, to understand why so many, so many of us who analyze this, who understand this, so many conservatives, and so many of you who have become very well educated on this, why you're so infuriated with what went on there, with Hillary Clinton not being prosecuted, with Huma Abedeen not being prosecuted, with Cheryl Mills not being prosecuted, with everybody around Hillary,
essentially skating on things that there are many, many people sitting in federal prison for doing.
Most notably, that sailor that President Trump recently pardoned.
All that guy did was take photos of a submarine that were deemed classified to show his family, I think his girlfriend or his wife.
Hey, here's where I work.
And then he's going to delete them.
He was criminally convicted.
Yet what Hillary Clinton did was just far more egregious.
I had a very close friend, his very senior CIA officer, now works with another agency in the Department of Defense.
And I asked him, compare what that sailor did to what Hillary Clinton did.
And he said, what the sailor did was PG-13.
Comparatively, what Hillary Clinton did was triple X-rated.
That's the difference.
He said, that's really the only way I can describe this if you want to understand the sensitivity of what the sailor did as compared to the sensitivity of the information that Hillary Clinton mishandled.
So to a person, anyone who worked inside the process who understands these prosecutions and how all this works, well, they knew they were more than convinced that Hillary Clinton should have been criminally prosecuted, as should have everyone who worked around her.
That was part and parcel to the mishandling of the classified info.
So that's what the Inspector General report is looking into.
Why James Comey handled this investigation in an unprecedented and extraordinary way, not for the good, for the worse.
That's what they were looking into.
So here's a story at NPR, and it says the probe by Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to fault former FBI director James Comey for violating long-standing department guidelines and mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Now, the report is also supposed to slam people like Peter Stroke and Lisa Page.
Andrew McCabe, excuse me, has already been criminally referred over to DOJ.
They expect more to come with that.
McCabe's lawyer has confirmed that McCabe has been criminally referred and that prosecutors might even now consider more criminal charges against Andrew McCabe.
McCabe is fighting back by suing the Department of Justice, saying he wasn't afforded due process to fight his firing.
Now, McCabe, you've seen the lawsuits that Andrew McCabe is involved in the lawsuit.
And many people are confusing that.
They think he's already fighting his criminal charges.
No, that process hasn't even begun.
He's been referred, but he hasn't been formally charged yet.
What McCabe is suing, McCabe is suing about his job, about being fired by the FBI.
What he's essentially saying is, I was never given a chance to look at the information against me so that I could have appealed my firing in an administrative proceeding.
But I spoke to people inside the FBI and they told me the FBI doesn't have really an administrative appeals process.
When you're at the level of McCabe, really any agent, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, can pretty much fire you for any cause.
And what they told me was the Inspector General submitting a report to the powers that be at the Department of Justice saying that Andrew McCabe, an FBI special agent, a deputy director of the FBI, lying to federal investigators three times under oath was more than sufficient cause.
In fact, they said it necessitated his firing.
It had to be done.
So they felt, as did a couple of legal experts in employment law, federal employment law, all felt that McCabe doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
But we'll see.
The courts have been doing weird things because when the Inspector General released that earlier statement that McCabe lied to them under oath three times, they pretty much took the wind out of any lawsuit sales Andrew McCabe might have.
Again, the deputy director of the FBI was putting people in jail for lying to federal investigators under oath, lying to federal investigators under oath.
And they all felt that it was the most cut and dry case they'd ever seen of a justifiable firing at the FBI.
So too for Comey, because of his mishandling of the case, because of Rod Rosenstein's memo, and now because of what's expected to come from this OIG report, Comey, of course, has already been criminally referred to DOJ by members of Congress as well, specifically members of the Freedom Caucus and the House Intelligence Committee.
We're going to get into many, many problems the House Intelligence Committee is having with the DOJ in just a bit.
But we know what the report is about.
We've heard all the names, Peter Stroke, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, James Comey.
The list goes on.
Now, Jeff Sessions, who has been very, very quiet, and I think that it is long past time for a new attorney general.
I think Jeff Sessions is weak.
He's ineffective.
I think he has become subordinate to Rod Rosenstein.
Jeff Sessions has apparently surrendered the Department of Justice.
And that is a, well, that's a tragic, tragic thing.
Now, Jeff Sessions, though, did speak up on the OIG report.
It reads encouragingly, but let me tell you my problem.
Now, he did an interview with The Hill, and Jeff Sessions said that Comey made, quote, a big mistake that belied a serious breach of discipline.
Sessions also made it clear, I'm reading from the Hill, that he is open to firing more employees if the Justice Department Inspector General's soon-to-be-released report, well, coming today, warrants it.
Now, Sessions says, quote, said, quote, I think it will be a lengthy report and a careful report.
I think it will help us better fix any problems that we have and reassure the American people that some of the concerns that have been raised are not true.
If anyone else shows up in this report to have done something that requires termination, we will do so.
Now, that to me reads like a whitewash.
That reads like a whitewash.
Reassure the American people that some of the concerns that have been raised are not true.
If this report does not excoriate, eviscerate Loretta Lynch, the then attorney general, for a private meeting on a private jet with Bill Clinton, her former boss, who just happened to be a president, but more importantly for that meeting, was the husband of a suspect under criminal investigation by Lynch's DOJ.
If she's not excoriated, if her disbarment isn't recommended in this report, then this report is whitewashed, which many conservatives feel because the report has been held back.
The report has been held back.
And many people, including myself, feel that it has been held back to be redacted and sanitized.
Now, the House Intelligence Committee has been requesting additional documents from the Department of Justice, most notably Rod Rosenstein.
Rod Rosenstein has repeatedly blocked the Department of Justice.
He's been very uncooperative.
Many of us, self-included, feel that Rosenstein is either has some kind of intimidation control over Jeff Sessions or is just younger and more energetic.
But it always seems to be that whenever enough evidence pops up for Rosenstein to be removed from his position, his good buddy Robert Mueller leaks something that disables the White House from taking action.
It seems to many that Rosenstein and Mueller have taken control of FBI, that Jeff Sessions of DOJ, that Jeff Sessions is very weak and he's subordinate to them now.
And it's a terrible, terrible thing for the United States.
Now, those comments of Sessions, we're going to reassure you that nothing else went on.
I feel that what this report's going to do is disappoint many of us beyond belief.
Going to have a couple of people fired, justify Comey's firing.
Nobody's going to be prosecuted.
It's going to say nobody else did anything wrong.
Let's put the matter to bed.
Because I believe that's what Sessions and Rosenstein want.
But guys like Devin Nunez over in the House aren't laying down on this.
Now, you remember there were reports of a closed-door meeting back in January between members of the House Intel Committee, most notably the chairman, Devin Nunez, and Rod Rosenstein, in which Nunez alleges that Rosenstein threatened the committee and its staffers with investigation, subpoenas, et cetera, if they kept pressing.
Well, the committee did its job, its oversight job of DOJ and others, and it kept pressing.
So one staffer, now staffers are coming out.
Let me read you a tweet from Representative Matt Gates, a Florida congressman on the Intel Committee, somebody who has been very, very vocal in demanding documents from DOJ, in wanting to know what's really going on here, not wanting to just read this potentially whitewashed OIG report.
Representative Gates tweeted yesterday, the DOJ's intimidation and stonewalling tactics have gone too far.
I've heard firsthand from congressional staff following threats delivered by Deputy A.G. Rosenstein, staff has literally been scared to the point of physically shaking in my office out of concern for their family.
That is unacceptable.
Well, Fox News ran a story yesterday.
GOP Paul's Paul's politician Slam Rosenstein says staff shaking in fear over threats.
And of course, referring to the text, the tweet I just read you from Representative Matt Gates of Florida.
One staffer said Rosenstein launched a, quote, sustained personal attack against a congressional staffer in retaliation for vigorous oversight and called the threats, quote, downright chilling.
The DOJ and FBI, of course, have disputed the characterizations of the meeting with the DOJ official, telling Fox News that officials in the room describe the characterization of events as false.
Further, the official said that when Rosenstein returns to the United States from a work trip, quote, he will request that the House general counsel conduct an internal investigation of these congressional staffers' conduct.
Now, Jeff Sessions, who many of us do not trust, backed Rod Rosenstein.
But I don't see any reason, any reason for congressional staffers who don't make a lot of money, who have to exist in D.C., who have to go on to work in other agencies.
I don't see any reason for them to lie.
In contrast, I look at today's Department of Justice.
Mueller keeps getting admonished by judges for playing fast and loose with exculpatory evidence.
Rosenstein, who appointed him, being accused of threatening congressional staffers.
Historically unprecedented move of the FBI number one and number two being fired and potentially criminally referred.
You don't see any of these scandals in the House Intel Committee.
You don't see any of these allegations leveled at the committee staffers.
No.
The credibility lies with these committee staffers, not with the Department of Justice and the FBI, not with Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and company.
Not at all.
Now, Sessions said, quote, in defending Rosenstein, I'm confident that Deputy Rosenstein, 28 years in the Department of Justice, did not improperly threaten anyone on that occasion, but we do believe that we have tried to be cooperative with them and made progress.
In fact, have had some good relationship with top members of Congress.
Gang of Eight Concerns00:03:16
But again, reading from Fox News, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio said he was flabbergasted by Sessions' comments.
He said, quote, I mean, what is the Attorney General saying?
He said, and today we learned in Catherine's report, meaning Catherine Herridge of Fox News, that Rod Rosenstein was threatening members of the House Intelligence Committee for doing their job, for trying to get answers for the American people.
And the Attorney General says, that's okay.
We're doing just fine.
Representative Mark Meadows, Representative Mark Meadows, jumped in.
He says he doesn't know what Sessions is talking about.
And he went on to say that Sessions doesn't know what he's talking about himself.
This is beyond bad.
Jeff Sessions needs to go.
And when you see the accusations by Chairman Nunez for the FBI, accusations of obstruction of justice, they're pretty clear-cut.
Congress is saying we need these documents.
We're entitled to these documents.
We're clear to see these documents.
The deadline is this day and this time.
And DOJ basically says, go to hell.
You're not getting them.
That's obstruction of justice.
Now, Chairman Nunez, this is from the Daily Signal, is accusing in a letter the agency of obstruction of justice and using, quote, an array of tactics to withhold the documents.
He writes, DOJ continues to obfuscate and delay its production using an array of tactics, such as incorrectly categorizing the requested documents of Gang of Eight-level material in order to limit access.
Of course, the Gang of Eight being the bipartisan group of eight House members, members of Congress.
Such Congress by DOJ is unacceptable because the Gang of Eight is a legal fiction that has no basis outside of the confines of presidential approval and reporting of covert action.
Gang of Eight is the leaders of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, as well as Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi.
And those are the eight.
But they're just a congressionally created group.
They don't have any legally binding authority.
The House Intel Committee, the Senate Intel Committee are the binding authorities.
They should be getting this information.
And then to prove that Rosenstein, in his attempt to prove that he didn't threaten House members, well, he's asked the House General Counsel to investigate committee staff.
This is very, very, very troubling.
Very, very troubling.
And I am going to read this report in depth.
But right now, I don't have any confidence that this report is going to tell us what really happened.
Right now, I and many others find this report to be a whitewash, to be a whitewash.
And I feel that the report was delayed that the concerns of Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows and Devin Nunez, those conservative congressmen who have been all over DOJ and FBI about what we're calling ObamaGate or Spygate.
Mass Shootings and Gun Ownership00:15:22
I think their concerns, Representative Matt Gates, are very, very well founded.
It is long past time for President Donald Trump to now step in.
We need a set.
Every day, it seems like the left is pushing more mass hysteria.
Using terms like mass shooting assault weapon.
And many of us on the right, many of us who are pro-Second Amendment try to debunk these, but few people do it better than my next guest, someone you've seen on the program many, many times, Dr. John Lott.
Dr. Lott, of course, runs the Crime Prevention Research Center, and he's one of the most preeminent researchers and strategists, really, on gun crime in the United States.
Today, Dr. Lott joins me now.
John, great to see you.
Good to talk to you again.
Always a pleasure.
So, you have some new data on the site on the Crime Prevention Research Center site.
I encourage the audience, if you have not been to Dr. Lott's site, it's www.crimersearch.org.
It is literally a wealth of information.
My go-to resource for all things Second Amendment when I bring you those segments on the show.
So it's very interesting data.
The title of this piece is updated.
Mass published shootings keep occurring in gun-free zones.
97.8% of these attacks happen in gun-free zones since 1950.
And this is relatively recent data.
This is from the end of May, really.
So, Dr. Lott, let's first explain what is a gun, what is a mass shooting?
How does the FBI or the criminological community define a mass shooting?
Well, for about 30 years, the traditional definition for the FBI was four or more people killed in a public place, not involving some gang fight or some other crime like a robbery, to try to get at those types of cases that rivet us on the news.
You know, a school shooting or a shooting in a mall or a movie theater where the point of the attack is to try to go and kill as many people as possible.
Now, there's a difference between a mass shooting and a mass public shooting.
And mass shooting may involve a shooting inside a home, may involve gang fights.
In fact, the vast majority of them are.
And those are important.
Gang shootings, no one tries to minimize those, but the causes and solutions for gang fights are a lot different than the causes and solutions for why you have these mass public shootings where somebody goes into a school or a church or somebody place and just trying to kill people.
Right.
And I'm glad you brought that up because we had a very tragic incident.
I think you saw it down here in Florida and Orlando a few days back.
A guy took four little children hostage, killed them, killed himself after it was almost a 24-hour standoff with police.
So that would be considered a mass shooting, obviously not a mass public shooting.
Which data set would that be included in?
Well, where did it occur?
Did it occur in a home?
It occurred in an apartment in Orlando, Florida.
Yeah.
Well, then it would have been included as a mass shooting as opposed to a mass public shooting.
Right, right.
So those are defined differently.
Now, within Dr. Lott's report, there is a spreadsheet, and I have the spreadsheet open.
I really encourage everyone in the audience to go to crime research.org and look up this study because you and you essentially listed every mass public shooting from 1998 through April 30th, 2018.
This is hyper-recent data.
You break down the year of the state, the city, the locality, the perpetrator, total people killed, whether or not it was a gun-free zone.
So this is indisputable research.
This is black and white.
This is not anecdotal.
You have literally how many incidents listed, David.
There are 66 incidents listed.
And your conclusion is that 97.8% of these are occurring in gun-free zones.
Well, those are just part of the 97.8% goes back to 1950.
Right.
But did this data set comport with the overall number?
Yeah, it's pretty close.
Wow.
Wow.
So is this conclusive proof, in your opinion?
You've probably done more research on this than anyone.
I don't want to use platitudes or hyperbole like gun-free zones kill.
But wouldn't you argue that this is conclusive proof that a bad guy wants a soft target?
That a bad guy is less inclined to attack an armed hard target.
Well, it's part of the evidence.
You have other types of evidence, too.
I mean, one is just the statements from these killers, where they, when we do find diaries or other statements that they've made to people, where they've explained why they go and pick the targets that they do.
And, you know, these guys may be crazy in some sense, but they're not stupid.
They try to go to those places where they know victims aren't going to be able to go and defend themselves.
And you see cases where even if there are police at a place who are in uniform, the police are the first people who are killed.
But you also see it to the extent that these mass shootings do occur, how overwhelmingly, time after time, these killers pick those tiny areas in these right-to-carry states where people aren't allowed to go and defend themselves.
So, I mean, you may have, you live in Florida and you can carry your permanent concealed handgun, you know, pretty much everywhere.
You know, there's a few places that you're not allowed to carry.
I'll tell you, John, one of those, one of the places I can't, and I'm always very concerned when I go, is a stadium.
If I go to a football game or a baseball game or a concert, I can't have it there.
And that's always been, now, granted, there's a police presence, but we both know.
I mean, I was also, huh, cops can't be everywhere.
And back to another point you made, though, I've always, one of the cases I've always used as an example of picking a soft target is the Charleston shooting with Dylan Roof, of course, going into an African-American church, a black church, and murdering these people as they worship.
And I always said, if this guy weren't specifically looking for a soft target, I mean, it was just a racially motivated killing, why didn't he go onto a street corner where there were black gangbangers?
Because they were armed and they'd probably have shot back and killed him, was always my thought process on that.
Well, in fact, we have statements that Dylan Roof had made to his compatriots about why he picked the church.
His original target was supposedly going to be Charleston College.
But that he had checked into it and he realized that they had armed guards that were there.
Wow.
And he had taken that into account and deciding not to go after that target.
Now, doesn't this also comport with research from the book that really put your brand on the map, More Guns, Less Crime, and where you looked at inmates who had committed crimes, and didn't they overwhelmingly suggest that they would pick unarmed locations to rob or mug or armed people to rob mug, et cetera?
That factored into their thought process as well.
Right.
Well, there's actually a study by two criminologists, Wright and Rossi, where they went and did that survey.
And you just find overwhelmingly that criminals take it into account.
Some evidence that I have in More Guns, Less Crime, is to look at something called hot burglaries or residential robberies.
These are burglaries that occur while the residents are in the dwelling.
And what you find is that you can look across countries, and the rate that that occurs is very closely related to whether the gun ownership rate in different places.
So in the United States, you may have about 11 to 13 percent of burglaries occur while the residents are in the dwelling.
In a country like the UK, for example, about 60 percent of the robberies or burglaries occur while the residents are in the dwelling in the home.
Because the bad guys are less concerned about being shot by the homeowner.
Exactly.
I mean, there have been surveys by places like RAND in the United States or other places in these other countries.
And they'll go and ask them, how long do you spend casing a home?
Why do you spend the amount of time that you do?
And American burglars spend about twice as long casing a home before they break in compared to their British counterparts, for example.
And the reason that they give is that they're what you just said, that they're worried about being shot.
Their British counterparts aren't concerned.
So Britain has a burglary rate twice the burglary rate of the United States.
John, let me not to interrupt, but I would assume that they would also be factoring in the police, right?
Because the British police are by and large unarmed.
And I worked, well, my former partner, actually, when he was promoted, ran a burglary unit.
So I went over with him for a little while.
And we learned that they would case the homes for both reasons.
Now, my evidence is anecdotal, but I interviewed the bad guys.
One, to see if the homeowner was armed or in any way, even with a butcher knife.
And two, to see when the police rolled down that street because they factored in the police.
I would assume that in the UK, the bad guys are a little less afraid of the police because they can't shoot back.
Yeah, well, I mean, you can find statements from some American police who have served, have gone over and become police officers in Britain, actually, who have talked about how different their experience had been.
You know, in the United States, American police run towards the crime.
In Britain, it's not uncommon to have the British police run away from the crime when shots are being fired.
Yeah, no, it's unfortunate that they don't, culturally, they still won't make that shift toward armed police.
And I'm always shocked at how many in the populace there don't want it.
Now, one, you have another graph here, a pie chart.
Percentage of shootings in gun-free zones between 1998 and December 2015.
There were only three, only, I should say, 3.8% of mass public shootings occurred where guns were permitted.
4%, 96.2% happened where guns were not allowed.
I just, I don't understand, though, how the anti-gunners can still look at this data and discard it and call for gun-free zones.
It baffles me.
Right.
Well, people like Bloomberg's Every Town and other groups, they want to define these things differently.
So, for example, the two big things that they go and look at is one, where police are allowed to carry guns.
They don't want to define those as gun-free zones, even if civilians are banned.
And to me, it seems like there's a huge difference between the two types of cases.
Police who are in uniform have an extremely difficult job when they're trying to guard against these types of terrorist types of attacks.
If you're an attacker, you have a huge strategic advantage when the only person that's armed is in uniform.
It's a very dangerous job.
Those killers will go and target those individuals and kill them first because they know if they killed the officer there, then they pretty much have free reign for going and attacking other people.
Yeah.
And you know, John, that's one of the yesterday on the show.
I had a very good friend of mine.
He's a criminologist, Dr. Adam Dobrin.
And he frequently uses your work in his classes.
He teaches at a university here in Florida.
And he's also a reserve police officer, deputy.
And we often talk about this.
He's been a good friend of mine for years, why we legally would support open carry, the concept of open carry, carrying your handgun, not concealed, but personally would never do it.
As two guys with streets would never do it because you're the first person a bad guy is going to take out.
I've always liked the element of surprise.
And it happened to me.
A quick anecdotal story.
I was, my partner, we thought he broke his ankle.
He didn't.
He was in the emergency room.
I was in uniform.
I ran to buy food at a Wendy's restaurant in Washington Heights and Manhattan.
Bad, bad neighborhood.
We were working a parade detail, and I walked in as the place was being held up.
And the guy swung what I thought was a game.
I drew my gun.
He swung toward me.
I drew my gun.
Then he started crying and dropped his gun.
He was a kid with a fake gun.
But had he been a real bad guy with a loaded weapon, he definitely would have had the advantage.
I was far enough away where, you know, accuracy might have been a problem with the people in the restaurant.
But let me tell you, I was walking into his domain at that point in uniform.
And it put me at a significant disadvantage.
So I can tell you that's absolutely accurate.
Look, when you can identify the only person who may be able to go and stop a criminal or a terrorist, there's several strategic advantages that the killer has in that case.
He can either kill the officer first, he can wait for the officer to leave the scene before he attacks, or he can go and pick some other target where he doesn't see an officer present there.
And it's simply impossible to go and have an officer guarding all possible targets.
So, you know, after you'd have terrorist attacks in Paris in early 2015, you know, the solution from the French president was to put 10,000 troops on the streets.
Right.
Well, when you're talking about a city of 2.3 million people, and obviously not all 10,000 troops are on the streets at any point in time.
Sure, sure.
You know, it's simply impossible to go and guard all the possible targets that are there.
That all you may do is cause the criminal either do one of those three things first, either wait for them to leave, kill them first, or pick one of the other targets that aren't being guarded.
And it's a huge strategic advantage that these killers have.
And you're exactly right that having concealed carry takes away those strategic advantages that these killers have.
Well, it does.
And I'm glad you brought up Paris because I've always used this example on the show with regards to New York, right?
So I was a member of the NYPD, largest department in the country, but you've got a city of eight to nine million people, a department of 35,000 sworn, but only about, I don't know, six to seven thousand of those cops are ever on the street at any given time.
Cops on Call00:04:03
I mean, many of them are supervisors who work inside and don't go on patrol.
Others are detectives and investigative units.
And other people are on vacation or home sleeping, right?
Or it's not their regular day off.
And so you only have, and some days you only have on the weekends when certain details, even if they're uniformed, have time off.
You may only have 3,000 or 4,000 cops on the street for a city of 8 or 9 million.
So you point out here that people outside of California and New York, places, so California, New York, of course, very difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun.
Now, some counties, the more rural counties in California, rural counties in New York, it's easier.
Judges can give you the license in New York, or in California, the sheriffs are more inclined to issue.
So it's a May issue situation.
But outside of those states, 8.5% of adults have a license to carry a concealed handgun.
Here in Florida, last number was we have 1.9 million concealed weapons licenses issued.
But these numbers are staggering.
So I want the audience to think about this.
Outside of California, 8.5%, except for New York, 8.5% of adults who can legally carry are licensed to carry.
In Alameda County, California, there were only 85 people with concealed handgun permits at the end of 2011 out of a population of 1.2 million, a rate of 0.007%.
And as you know, those with permits were mainly judges, prosecutors, and wealthy businessmen.
In September 2011, there were only 240 permits in all of Los Angeles County with a population of about 7.6 million adults for a rate of 0.0032%.
And of those 240 permits, most went to judges and reserve deputies, who coincidentally tend to be big campaign donors to the sheriffs.
10% of permit holders were on Sheriff Lee Baca's quote-unquote gift list.
In addition, the attack, oh, okay, so you referenced an attack.
In Orange County, a Mayissu County, there were only 551 people with permits with an adult population of 2.26 million, a rate of 0.02%.
Again, mainly judges, prosecutors, and wealthy businessmen.
So the privileged elite in these Mayissu states and counties are considered more worthy of personal protection than are the average working people.
Right.
Well, and you see it in other ways you can break down the data.
I actually got the list of all the 240 concealed carry permit holders in Los Angeles County.
And, you know, what you find is that only about 6% are black, only about 6% are 6.5% are Hispanic, about the same percent female.
Obviously, about half the population in the county is Hispanic.
You know, females obviously make a path about half the percent.
And so it's incredibly disproportionate to the population and demographic breakdown of the county, which is which would indicate that this is for the wealthy, elite political donors or those who are very well connected.
Right.
And the irony is you have Democrats claiming that they care about women and minorities and what have you.
And yet, when they have this discretion and they control the process there over who gets the concealed carry permit, it's basically not only wealthy and well, politically well-connected individuals, but it's basically wealthy white males who end up being the only ones who get it.
As if and you compare it nationally, nationally, women make up about almost a third of concealed carry permit holders.
But in Los Angeles County, they just make up over 6%.
Wow.
A fraction, a fraction of a fraction.
Dr. John Lott, Crime Prevention Research Center, this is outstanding data.
Sarah Sanders: Trump Admin Contrast00:09:30
I want to do a segment next week with you just on that.
Let's dig into those numbers and how it debunks the liberal narrative in those places about racial and gender equality.
John, it's always an absolute pleasure to have you.
Thanks.
Thanks for having me on, Jim.
We can always see that Obama's White House was undisciplined, full of young morons, people like Ben Rhodes.
But now, a story from the Daily Mail is pretty interesting.
A former Obama staffer, a girl, a younger woman who was Obama's stenographer, said that Obama's Air Force One was like summer camp on steroids.
And she revealed how Xanax and Ambien on long flights made awkward hookups with colleagues, funny and bizarre.
The woman is named Beck Dory Stein.
And she talks about how traveling with President Obama and his press pool was like, he said, summer camp on steroids.
Writing a memoir from Corner of the Oval, and she was the stenographer in the Oval Office.
You know, her book contains many anecdotes, but she apparently got the job by answering a Craigslist ad and wound up having this affair with a member of Obama's staff.
But what really struck me was how the lack of discipline on Air Force One was and just how poor discipline was on Air Force One under Obama.
She says, quote, no one deserves to be this lucky, she wrote about a core group of staffers who flew around the world on Air Force One together.
She felt she wasn't a good job for a job at a Washington think tank, but after being a teacher, she was tutoring at Sidwell Friends School, which is a very elite public school in Washington, D.C. Kids of many presidents have gone there.
She answered a Craigslist ad and got a job in the White House, got a job in the White House.
And she was on Air Force One all the time.
And what she writes is just mind-blowing as to how it seemed nobody in the Obama White House cared, how there was a very apathetic approach.
And it's, I just, I can't even believe some of what I'm writing about the here's what, here's what she says.
On her first trip, she found herself in $500 a night hotel rooms with breathtaking views of Cabo San Lucas before continuing to Costa Rica at Zenien Laos.
She listened to old-timer boozy party animals tell stories about different administrations, presidents, and international incidents they've witnessed.
From George H.W. Bush puking on the prime minister of Japan, Reagan in Rome falling asleep in front of the Pope, Monica Lewinsky 9-11, and Hurricane Katrina.
Pinched me because how has this seen my real life? She wrote.
And talks about her trips overseas.
Now, I was particularly just shocked by this.
She describes experiencing, quote, the best sleepover party ever.
This is on Air Force One, where everyone took their drug of choice on long flights, Thanata, Xanax, or Ambien, which made any, quote, awkward intimacy with colleagues suddenly just funny and bizarre, end quote.
I can tell you, you know that I speak to people in the Trump administration, the discipline in the Trump White House and on Air Force One, because Trump doesn't drink.
This would never, never be tolerated in the Trump administration by Chief of Staff General Kelly or by Trump's Secret Service detail.
Never.
Never.
Heading for Delhi in India, where the president met the prime minister, she was warned about destitution, the starving children in the streets, begging mothers and thin dogs lying waiting for death and piles of trash everywhere.
But no one on this trip saw any of that.
They were always protected from seeing the poverty in these countries and instead saw a glossy two-dimensional Disney World version while motorcating manicured streets.
Well, because Obama wanted to also portray that.
Obama wanted to portray that.
But I just, this is really indicative, really indicative of the Obama administration, how the entire staff saw it as a party, how Obama saw it as a party, how Michelle Obama's family flew around on Air Force One.
Very, very disturbing, very disturbing to read.
And of course, she stayed on with, She stayed on with the Trump administration, or which she describes as the insane clown posse.
And she insults, this is an Obama person, and the White House executive parking lot now filled with Porsches and Maseratis instead of Priuses and Chevies.
What was once a joy has become a walking nightmare.
I'm now a stenographer in the Trump administration.
So she was a far leftist who thought that taking drugs and having indiscriminate sex on Air Force One, a taxpayer-funded aircraft, was just great and amazing.
But now that she's working in a patriotic administration that puts discipline in place, it's a quote-unquote walking nightmare.
I hope General Kelly reads this and this moron is fired immediately.
But even more importantly, I'm glad she wrote this because it shows the contrast of how Obama treated and respected America and how the Trump administration treats and respects America.
If you want to know what fake news is, look no further than CBS.
It appears that CBS News was literally caught red-handed printing fake news.
So they run a headline yesterday, Sarah Sanders and Raj Shah planning to depart the White House.
Of course, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah.
They write, two of the most visible members of the Trump administration are planning their departures, the latest sign of upheaval at a White House marked by turmoil.
Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah are both heading for the exits, according to sources inside the White House and close to the administration.
Anonymous sources.
Sarah Sanders then tweets.
This is the best part.
CBS Nudes includes the Sarah Sanders tweet in their article.
Sarah Sanders tweeted, the CBS News knows something I don't about my plans and my future.
I was at my daughter's year-end kindergarten event and they ran a story about my plans to leave the White House without even talking to me.
I love my job and I'm honored to work for POTUS.
So let's break this down.
CBS News runs the story but doesn't ask the subject of the story, instead relying on anonymous sources, but then includes the subject of the story's tweet debunking the story, yet still runs a headline, Sarah Sanders, Raj Shah planning to depart the White House.
Not Sarah Sanders dispels rumors, debunks rumors, denies rumors that she's planning to leave the White House.
I mean, this is literally, literally the definition of fake news.
So CBS, so it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
So let me see, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
About 14, 15 paragraphs of them explaining why, why Americans should listen to an anonymous source, but disregard the on-the-record tweet and statement of the press secretary who says she doesn't know what they're talking about and has no plans to leave the White House.
Now, others have said that Sarah Sanders may want to leave the White House by the end of the year as well.
Look, it's an exhausting 24-7 job and she's the mother of young children.
If she did leave, you know, that would be understandable.
She wants to go to a network at a big paying job.
But for CBS to run this story, to run this story, and then they start throwing in stats.
Turnover during Mr. Trump's first year in office was 34%, nearly four times higher than turnover during the first year of the Obama administration.
Yeah, because a bunch of Obama holdovers got booted out.
They tried to stay around to sabotage the Trump administration and it didn't work.
But really, this is the epitome, the very definition of fake news.
And when you read something like this with the clickbait headline and 15 paragraphs or so trying to justify their story, despite an on the record denial by the subject of the story, well, if that doesn't explain why Americans No longer trust the media.