Off The Cuff Declassified exposes Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley’s accusations against James Comey for lying and leaking classified memos to NYT via Daniel Richmond, undermining Mueller’s legitimacy. The IG report downplayed bias from McCabe, Strzok, and Page—like changing "gross negligence" to "extremely careless"—while House Republicans demand whistleblower names. Immigration debates clash over 2015 cartel "probe kids" claims vs. Nielsen’s 2018 data: 10K unaccompanied minors, 2K separated for safety. Chicago’s fire lieutenant killing Charles Macklin sparks outrage over David Lombardo’s surrender advice amid 38 licensed-shooter incidents in four years, with 7 criminally charged. Spencer Rapone’s "other than honorable" discharge after communist symbols and anti-military slurs at West Point and Fort Drum—backed by Rubio—raises concerns about radicalized personnel, prompting calls for deeper vetting despite free-speech debates. [Automatically generated summary]
Today and off the cuff declassified, we'll analyze yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the IG report.
The immigration debate rages, but there's a lot of bad information out there.
We'll cut through it and give you the facts.
Thug culture in Chicago wants to be able to carjack you without repercussions.
I'm going to tell you all about that.
And the army finally boots a communist cadet.
Yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the IG report in which Inspector General Michael Horowitz and FBI Director Christopher Wray were present and answering questions, we'll get into that fiasco in a second, got off to a great start as Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley basically called former FBI Director...
fired, disgrace FBI director on a book tour, James Comey, a liar.
Chuck Grassley then doubled down on Twitter.
Grassley claims that Comey's attorney said Comey could not present himself before the committee because he was out of the country.
But Grassley correctly noted that James Comey was reading photos from Iowa only a day or two before, and that there was no indication that James Comey was leaving the country.
Grassley went on to say that Comey merely leaving the FBI is not reason enough for him to refuse to testify before the committee.
And I think that the senator is 100% right.
The senator is 100% right.
James Comey purposefully avoided that committee.
Why would he do that?
Well, we learn from Inspector General Michael Horowitz that James Comey is under investigation for leaking information to his friend, of course, the professor at Columbia, who then leaked it to the New York Times.
Now, my basic takeaway from the hearing yesterday is that FBI Director Christopher Wray, I don't know if it's cognizant or if it's just his style, but he seems more than apathetic.
He's arrogant, flippant.
He doesn't seem like he wants to be there.
He doesn't seem like the American people deserve answers.
He keeps making excuses as to why the FBI did nothing wrong.
And I was glad that several senators, Senator Kennedy, put him on notice.
It's ludicrous.
It is ludicrous for both Michael Horowitz and Christopher Wray to say, well, it was a small group of people within the FBI.
Okay?
If it were four or five agents in an Oklahoma field office sending texts about Hillary Clinton, how much they loved her and how much they hated Donald Trump and how they would do all they can to stop Donald Trump, that would be insignificant.
When it was Andrew McCabe, the deputy director, when James Comey was leaking information, when Peter Strzok, the lead investigator on the Hillary Email case, on the General Flynn case, one of Mueller's lead investigators until his texts became public, when it was Lisa Page, an FBI attorney who reported to the director and the deputy director, when those were the few players involved, when it was the top of the FBI, that's a game changer.
How dare Horowitz and Ray downplay that?
How dare they?
It's an insult to the American people.
Now, interestingly, I thought one of the best lines of questioning, one of the most powerful, came from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
I've always been critical of Graham.
Well, I should say always often been.
But lately, Senator Graham's been on the mark.
He was a rabid, a rabid never Trumper in the election, a rabid never Trumper.
But Senator Graham's come around.
He started to see that Trump's policies are working.
More importantly, though, I think Lindsey Graham, while I don't agree with Lindsey Graham's politics, is an honorable enough guy.
He's an Air Force officer, a senior officer in the United States Air Force.
He was a prosecutor for a long time.
He's a defense attorney for a long time.
Lindsey Graham understands how the law works.
He was incredulous.
He basically asked a question that I was hoping someone would ask that I hadn't seen anybody ask.
And it was a question that I've raised on the show and that I've tweeted out.
Gross negligence is a criminal standard, right?
What did Comey say Hillary did?
She was extremely careless.
Lindsey Graham got Michael Horowitz, the DOJ Inspector General, to admit that there is no definition difference between gross negligence and extremely careless, but there's a significant legal difference because the term gross negligence that was in the original report generated on Hillary Clinton is a level of criminal culpability.
If the words Hillary Clinton had been grossly negligent were included in that report, that would then force a criminal referral to the Department of Justice by using the words extremely careless.
Extremely careless is not a legalized standard level of criminal culpability.
In terms of language, they mean the same.
But in legalese, in prosecutorial speak, they're light years apart.
And the changing of grossly negligent to extremely careless was incredibly, incredibly significant, incredibly significant.
And I was very, very glad that Lindsey Graham brought that up.
I was also very glad that Lindsey Graham made the point, and I thought he did it incredibly powerfully in plain speak, no legalese, that how in the world could you expect any reasonable person to believe that the lead investigator on a case who was saying in his texts to his mistress will stop Trump,
who chose not to prosecute Hillary, who presided over an investigation where the report on Hillary had language changed from the criminal standard of grossly negligent to the non-criminal standard of extremely careless.
How in the world can you, the inspector general, generate a report saying you didn't think there was political bias?
And I'm paraphrasing Senator Graham.
Every American could see there was.
Nine-year-olds could see there was if you explained it to them in the way, the very effective way I thought Senator Lindsey Graham explained it to the audience, to America, and the way he questioned Michael Horowitz.
There also, in my opinion, were not enough questions on Peter Strzok.
We found out that Peter Strzok is going to be administratively investigated.
But I don't like that.
I don't like that.
Now, it remains to be seen if Peter Strzok did anything criminal.
I don't believe Peter Strzok did anything criminal, as reprehensible as what Peter Strzok did was.
As I study this, as I analyze this every day for you, many, many times a day, I can't find any criminality on the part of Peter Strzok.
And I don't want to be a hypocrite.
I don't want to say people should be prosecuted who shouldn't.
And I don't want people who should be prosecuted not to be.
Andrew McCabe should be prosecuted.
I believe James Comey should be prosecuted.
Peter Strzok should be fired.
He should be stripped of his pension and benefits.
He should never have credentials, that's a retired from the FBI.
But I see no criminality on his part.
There's no reason for him to be criminally referred to DOJ, just shamed as a political partisan who weaponized his office.
Now, we learned, and here's a story from the Washington Examiner.
We learned, and here's what it says, the Justice Department officer Inspector General is looking into former FBI director James Comey's decision to give his personal memos to a friend outside the government.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified yesterday, quote, we received a referral on that from the FBI.
We are handling that referral, and we will issue a report when the matter is completed.
So it may very well shake out that James Comey is criminally referred for prosecution to the Department of Justice, as he should be, as he should be.
Now, Comey, if you remember this, back in 2017, told Congress that he did release the memos, but as a private citizen.
Now, James Comey, director of the FBI, before that, senior Department of Justice official, knows full well, knows full well that when you leave government service, you cannot divulge classified information.
Your security clearance and the provisions that go along with that about keeping classified and confidential information confidential don't end when you leave the building.
They don't end when you leave the building.
They stay with you for the rest of your life.
The only time, the only time you can release that information is if the information is declassified by the original classifying authority.
And in many of these instances, that would be the president of the United States.
And so I didn't see that happen.
And I don't know what Comey is talking about.
Now, Comey admitted, let me read this to you because they did a good job here at the examiner.
Comey has admitted to giving at least one of his memos with his friend, Daniel Richmond, a former federal prosecutor and current Columbia law school professor, with the hopes he would leak them and put pressure on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election.
So Comey, knowing he rigged the game in the investigation for Hillary or colluded with people to do it, then wanted to hurt Donald Trump even more.
So instead of being a man and getting out in front of it, he decided to go through his buddy leak memos to get Mueller appointed.
Now, Mueller's cham should be shut down.
Mueller was only appointed based on an illegal leak, an illegal leak by a fired guy, a guy who now Rod Rosenstein's memo, members of Congress who referred him criminally, referred to Comey criminally, and the Inspector General report all say should have been fired.
Mueller can't find evidence of Russia collusion, right?
So his new pivot, his new trajectory is to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice.
That obstruction of justice, of course, being firing James Comey.
But how can it be obstruction of justice if the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller, members of Congress, and now the DOJ Inspector General all feel James Comey should have been fired?
James Comey is now under a criminal investigation by the DOJ Inspector General for leaking classified information.
Trump's firing him isn't just vindicated.
It's proven to be vital and necessary to national security.
We often talk about the president being able to fire the FBI director for any reason.
I refer back to a 2011 memo generated by Barack Obama's Department of Justice and generated in a very ironic and interesting fashion for a very ironic and interesting reason.
That memo was generated in 2011 by Obama's DOJ when Obama was asking Congress to extend Robert Mueller's tenure a few years as FBI director.
Congress was concerned.
He said, well, we don't want another J. Edgar Hoover situation with an all-powerful director of the FBI.
And the DOJ reassured Congress, don't worry, that'll never happen because the president of the United States at any time for any reason can fire the FBI director.
He doesn't even need a reason.
President can just decide he's not doing a good job.
And it can be a completely subjective and arbitrary feeling of the president of the United States.
So Trump never needed justification to fire Comey.
Rosenstein's letter gave him a second opinion from a ranking member in DOJ.
Members of Congress referring Comey criminally to DOJ backed that up further.
But the OIG report and now this investigation into Comey illegally leaking, as I said, made the firing not only justifiable, which Trump didn't even need, but optically justifiable.
Comey's firing was necessary and vital to national security and the integrity of the FBI and classified information held by the FBI.
It is ludicrous, ludicrous that we're still having a debate as to whether or not James Comey, James Comey's firing was obstruction of justice.
It's simply ludicrous.
Ludicrous.
But Robert Mueller rages on.
Now, Senator Orrin Hatch ripped the FBI and Christopher Wray on an appalling report.
Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah is retiring.
Mitt Romney wants to run for office there.
I think Mitt Romney is an enemy of this president.
I think he wants to be in the Senate so that he can work on impeachment and removal of Donald Trump.
Senator Orrin Hatch said, quote, this is appalling.
And the significance of these findings cannot be overstated.
Wow.
Wow.
The report identifies, this is all from Senator Orin Hatch, the report identifies missteps at every level of the Department of Justice, from our nation's chief federal law enforcement officer to special agents in the field.
Director Wray, I have to say that I was disappointed by your response last week to the Inspector General report.
Well, let's remember who that small number of employees was, because Ray, in his press conference last week, as I said earlier in this segment, kept saying, well, it's a small number of employees.
But as Senator Orrin Hatch points out, this wasn't five agents at an Oklahoma field office, Director Ray.
He says, so let's not pretend like this was some one-off problem.
There is a serious problem with the culture at FBI headquarters.
Senator Kennedy's Concerns00:04:02
And he's right.
And Christopher Wray has instilled zero confidence in the American people.
Christopher Wray has instilled zero confidence in the American people.
Now, Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, oppressed the Department of Justice.
And Senator John Kennedy said to, I believe it was Inspector General Michael Horowitz, he asked him if he believed in the tooth fairy, in the tooth fairy.
It was an epic exchange.
Let me read it to you.
He says to Michael Horowitz general, meaning Inspector General, do you believe in the tooth fairy?
And Horowitz said, nope.
Senator Kennedy said, do you believe in Easter Bunny?
And Inspector General Michael Horowitz said, nope.
Kennedy said, do you believe that Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes?
And Horowitz said, not based on what I've read.
Then Senator Kennedy said, do you honestly believe that the American people are going to look at this report and look at those emails and not believe there was bias and people acting on bias and that the fix was in at the FBI?
Horowitz then engaged in what I believe to be a whitewash.
I completely understand the concerns, Senator, and that's why we've laid all this out here.
And that's why we found that it impacts the credibility of the handling and the investigation.
And what we say here is not as Senator Crapel mentioned, which is that there was no bias, but rather when we were asked to look at was whether the specific, what we were asked to look at was whether the specific decisions we reviewed were affected by bias.
And those particular decisions here were, that we're talking about, were decisions made mostly by the prosecutors, not by any of the individuals you just indicated there.
And where there was that concern, which was in October, where Agent Stroke was in fact a decision maker, it's precisely why we found the concern we found.
The problem in Horowitz's answer is that also in the IG report, we saw very similar Trump hating, we'll take care of him texts from unidentified attorneys at the Department of Justice.
So now a group of hate eight House Republican, hate, I hate the report, a group of eight House Republicans is asking DOJ Inspector Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, to give them the names of the FBI employees and others who were not identified in the report.
This is very, very important because we can't have the Inspector General saying, well, we were concerned about Stroke, but he didn't make the final decisions.
That's why we found no bias.
We found no bias because the people who made the final decisions didn't text things that were biased.
But we don't know that, though, right?
Because there were other texts from unidentified parties.
We need to know who those parties were.
We need to know where they sat in the food chain of this investigation.
That's all very, very relevant and critical information.
Now, I'm hoping that today's House Oversight Committee hearing, where you have a much tougher group of people than you do in the Senate, is going to get to the bottom of some of that.
I don't feel it will.
I'm encouragingly awaiting the Inspector General's report on Comey's mishandling of the classified info.
I hope that results in a criminal referral.
everything we found out now really does reinforce my desire for the White House to appoint a second special counsel.
The immigration debate continues to rage, but there's a problem.
A lot of misinformation is the problem.
Tremendous, tremendous misinformation.
Now, look, we've been speaking about this.
Both sides are hysterical, right?
Misinformation About Separated Children00:05:59
Both sides are hysterical and acting ridiculously.
The neocon Republicans are acting very stupid, criticizing Trump, and the Democrats are conflating facts.
Let me say this.
Nobody wants to see little kids crying at the border.
Nobody wants to see kids in shelters sobbing, calling for mommy, calling for daddy.
That imagery is heartbreaking, but it is not the fault of the United States government.
Now, yesterday, I read you some data from the Washington Post, a story from 2015, where 78% of the kids under 17 or 18 were being used by the cartels.
That's where the White House is dropping the ball.
So yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen came out and doubled down.
She said, look, we don't have a policy of separating children and their families.
We simply don't.
He's right about that.
She also made a very important revelation.
Very, very important.
Secretary Nielsen explained that of the 12,000 children being held in HHS facilities, Health and Human Services, 10,000 of them were unaccompanied minors at the border.
The 2,000 that were separatees, separated from their parents, when you read the facts, when you get away from the spin, were removed for one of three reasons.
And we talked about it yesterday.
The authorities felt they were in danger.
A custodial or parental relationship between the child and the adult they were with could not be established.
It couldn't be proven whether that person was the parent or the legal custodial guardian or the adult they were with, be it the parent or legal custodial guardian, if it was, was subject to a criminal proceeding.
You can't send the kid to jail.
You can't leave the kid with somebody that may be a human trafficker.
And if the kid is malnourished or abused, you can't leave the kid with the adult.
It's exactly, like I said yesterday, the same as what domestic law enforcement does every single day.
But let's focus on the other number.
Secretary Nielsen told us that 10,000 of the 12,000 were unaccompanied at the border.
What the White House and DHS is doing a horrible job messaging on is that a vast, vast number, to use Secretary Nielsen's words, a vast, vast, of that 10,000 were probe kids.
In other words, these kids are being used as probes by the drug cartels for smuggling or the coyotes, the human traffickers, to test our border security, to test what would happen if an underage person came into the U.S. Would they be sent back?
Would they be incarcerated?
Would they be detained?
Would they be let go?
So the Democrats and the neocons and everybody hysterical over some photos from 2014 and some out-of-context video.
What they're actually arguing for, be known to some, unbeknownst to others, is to send these children back to the cartels and the coyotes when right now 10,000 of them are safely in HHS shelters.
This debate has just gotten dumb, partially because the White House communications team is not doing a very good job of explaining it.
Secretary Nielsen over at Homeland Security is doing an okay job, but they're leaving out the criminal element.
The criminal element that was the catalyst for the kids coming.
That's incredibly disturbing and problematic.
Very, very disturbing and problematic.
Look, no one, again, no one wants to rip a kid from their parents' arms.
We talked about it yesterday.
If you come legally to this country to a port of entry or point of entry and you say, I'm seeking asylum, your child won't be taken.
But if you're coming across the Rio Grande in the dead of night and we can't prove the kid is yours or the kid is all banged up or you've got a warrant or an ice detainer from when you were in the country the last time or the last five times ago, you're going to lose your kid.
We're not hiding that.
We're not hiding it.
You know, immigration is a tough issue.
Criminal justice in general is a tough issue, but immigration is a tough issue because dealing with little kids, right?
Law enforcement, I've said this to you on the show when we discussed police involved shooting, things of that nature.
Law enforcement rarely looks pleasant.
Law enforcement rarely sounds pleasant because the police are typically interacting with you when things went sideways.
It could be something as tragic as a murder or a rape.
It could be something as you know, innocuous as a broken window or a prowler that didn't break into your home.
But it's usually for something negative.
You never call 911 to say, hey, I'm having a great day.
Send the police over.
Things couldn't be better.
Why don't you send a cop?
It just doesn't work that way.
So when you're interacting with the police, it's typically for something negative that happened, whether to you or if you're being arrested by you, right?
So law enforcement's never going to look pleasant.
So it's very easy to go into these shelters and take these videos and take these photos and play this audio.
And the whole country goes, oh my God, Trump's a Nazi.
He's a white supremacist.
He hates children.
He's ripping them from the arms of their brown Latin American parents.
That's not the case.
We're simply doing what law enforcement has always done.
Just that in this case, in this instance, on this issue, the left is actually doing a good messaging job.
Public Sentiment Shifts?00:06:32
They've made the debate about separate children.
What needs to happen is the White House and the Department of Homeland Security need to show each case.
You know, child, and don't name them their kids, protect their identity.
Unidentified minor one, part of the border admitted they were sent to the border by the Santa Loa cartel.
Unidentified minor two, part of the border in an HHS facility admitted that they were sent by human traffickers to penetrate our border defenses.
In unaccompanied minor three, and so on and so on and so on, and put up big charts and say to the Democrats, yes or no, Nancy Pelosi, yes or no, Gerald Nadler, yes or no, Chuck Schumer.
Do you want us to send these children back to these adults?
Because they're not the parents.
Do you want us to send these kids back to their parents in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, who sold them to the human traffickers?
Do you want that?
We'll do it.
But we want you on record saying you want it.
We're going to turn it over to you and you own it.
And that's where the White House and DHS are making a very, very big mistake.
Let Democrats own this issue if they want to own this issue.
If Democrats, neocons, liberals, libertarians want to pick this hill to die on, let them.
Let them.
If they truly want to be the party, the movement, the ideologies, the people who argue to send kids back to drug cartels and human traffickers, let's play ball.
But they don't.
They're not thinking that far ahead, right?
They're not thinking that far ahead.
No, this is a good optic.
Screaming, crying children, Trump is evil.
And that's it.
And look, I got to commend them.
I've got to commend the Democratic strategists.
It's a good strategy.
It's working.
It's working.
American public sentiment is turning against.
American public sentiment is turning against the, I have a study here against the Trump administration on this one because the Trump administration is not messaging.
Poll, Americans overwhelmingly blast family separations at border.
This from a newsmax piece.
It's a Quinnipiac University poll.
American voters oppose 66% to 27% Donald Trump's zero tolerance policy involving the separating of families.
The survey conducted among 905 voters nationwide from June 14th to 17th also found Republican voters support the separation policy 55 to 35, but are the only listed party, gender, education, age, or racial group to agree with it.
Voters also support 79 to 15% allowing immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, so-called dreamers, to remain and ultimately apply for citizenship.
Now, I'm going to dig into the crosstabs with you in a second and show you the poll was weighted to the Dems, but American voters opposed 58 to 39% building a wall along the border.
Not true.
The only listed groups support the wall are Republicans and white voters with no college degree.
You can start to see the sample here is skewed, but this poll is making news.
The Trump administration has been too aggressive in deporting illegals, 50% of voters say.
13% say the administration has not been aggressive enough, and 33% say the administration has been acting appropriately.
Illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay and eventually apply for citizenship.
67% of American voters say no.
Another 8% say they should be allowed to stay but not become citizens.
19% say they should be forced to leave.
Among Republicans, 48% say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, while 9% say they should be allowed to stay but not become citizens.
36% say they should be forced to leave.
Legal immigration of the U.S. should be increased, 30% of American voters say.
17% say it should be decreased.
49% say it should be kept the same.
But let's dig into the crosstabs of this poll.
Let's look specifically.
Now, here we go.
And here's the problem.
Of those sampled, only 26% were Republican, 31% Democrat, 39% Independent, and 5% other.
And therein lies the problem.
Therein lies the problem.
Because I guarantee you, a vast portion of those identifying as independent are hard left.
The Democratic Party is too conservative for them.
This poll is not weighted properly to identify the American electorate or to survey the American electorate.
And that's the problem with polls.
But now you have this poll being touted as proof that Americans are against Trump's policy.
But the problem is the people that will vote for Donald Trump in 2020 don't care about these polls.
That's the problem for Democrats.
And so while the White House is messaging terribly and Homeland Security is messaging poorly, at the end of the day, none of it will matter.
You didn't think I was going to go there, did you?
It simply won't matter.
Because people who vote for Donald Trump will vote for Donald Trump understand what he's doing here.
Immigration is a tough issue.
Very tough issue.
A sad issue.
It's a tough issue.
We need to take a hard line on it.
A hard line that'll often look bad.
A hard line that won't seem pleasant.
And that's what Trump and the Trump administration are doing right now.
They're taking that hard line.
Now, look, again, I said it.
Nobody wants to separate little kids from their families.
But Democrats throwing out talking point and these skewed polls where they have a gross oversample of left-leaning independents do no justice.
Americans see through this.
Americans know that 67% of their neighbors don't want illegal immigrants to become citizens or whatever that number was.
Americans know that.
What was that number again?
Let's see.
Illegal immigrants.
Yeah, 67%, this poll is claiming of Americans are saying that illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay and eventually apply for citizenship.
Simply not true.
Simply not true.
Concealed Weapons License Debunked00:10:09
And it's simply ludicrous that they would try to sell this to him.
I think the Trump administration needs to do exactly what it's doing to solve the immigration problem.
We need to get our border wall.
We need to close catch and release loopholes.
We need to close chain migration loopholes.
We need to explain to the bad guys and even to the illegals who aren't bad guys, who are just coming here, that your kids and that kids and your kids are no longer insurance policies and get out of jail free cards.
They're not, it won't be anymore.
We need to get tough on this issue.
Very, very tough on this issue.
I think the Trump administration's on the right track.
They need to do a bit better job with their messaging.
But if they do that, I think they're going to win this one in a much bigger way than anyone ever, ever thought they would.
Sometimes I read a story or watch a story from a mainstream media outlet and I can't believe I'm not reading TheOnion.com or watching some parody from Saturday Night Live.
This from the Chicago Tribune.
When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they're pulling off in your car?
Yeah, this is a piece in the Chicago Tribune that essentially wants carjackers armed, by the way.
We're going to get to that from someone who claims to be a firearm instructor, wants you to essentially just give an armed carjacker your vehicle and let them go, even if you're armed.
It is mind-blowingly stupid.
Here's how they start the story.
Janique Walker knows the cost of a split second.
Her younger brother, 17-year-old Charles Macklin, was killed while trying to steal a Jeep from a Chicago fire lieutenant on the West Side last August.
The lieutenant had left the Jeep running and Macklin jumped behind the wheel.
The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, get out.
According to a police report, when Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver's side window, hitting the teen in the chest.
Macklin's last words were, sorry, bro.
According to the police report, the teen died on the pavement.
He did not have a gun on him.
The lieutenant had a concealed carry license.
He wasn't charged.
All right.
Wasn't charged.
A Chicago PD.
Chicago PD spokesman Langford said, quote, that was investigated by us and we found no violation of any rules.
Police didn't arrest.
State Attorney's Office found no reason to charge.
There was no, oh, I'm sorry.
This is a fire department spokesman.
There was no wrongdoing as far as the fire department is concerned.
Now, now.
That was from fire department, Chicago Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford.
Are these people nuts?
He didn't have a gun, but he was behind the wheel of a ton and a half Jeep.
The fire lieutenant stepped in front of his own vehicle that was being carjacked, said stop, and the guy began to pull toward him.
So he let around go.
A totally justifiable shooting because a bullet from a handgun weighs 124 grains.
A Jeep weighs about 3,000 pounds.
Ridiculous.
So the sister has been organizing protests and started a Facebook page and she wants justice for her brother, the carjacker.
Her brother, the carjacker, who got shot carjacking somebody's apparently the victim in this case.
When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they're pulling off in your car?
Even if he did that, if he did steal that car, you've got insurance.
Let him go to jail.
I would rather had a call to go bail him out of jail than they get a phone call that he's dead.
But what if he and his friends got all hopped up on drugs, took that 3,000-pound Jeep for a ride and killed a family?
What if he ran over the fire lieutenant?
We'll never know.
Because the fire lieutenant legally, legally stopped a crime.
Now, there's another guy in here that I have no use for, David Lombardo.
This guy's a moron, a moron.
A concealed carrying instructor said he has trained more than 7,000 people to get state licenses, said, this is my favorite.
He would let an armed carjacker take his car.
This guy should have his licensure pulled, his certification pulled, because he's telling his students that they should assume the guy pointing a gun at them won't kill them.
He said, quote, you want my car?
You can have it.
And I'll hand over a credit card for gas too.
I'm not going to defend a car with a gun.
That's what insurance is for.
I'll get a better one.
What a moron.
What a moron teaching people their concealed weapons license classes.
Does this moron understand how many people have been executed for no reason subsequent to a robbery because the robber doesn't want to leave a victim?
And he's telling them to just hand it over and not use their firearm to protect themselves.
Sickening.
Absolutely sickening.
Sickening.
Thug culture.
Let's call this what it is.
Thug culture, thug culture wants to be allowed to carjack you without repercussions.
Liberals in Chicago are helping them, as is the Chicago Tribune.
Now, the Illinois State Police backed up the fire lieutenant.
Backed up the fire lieutenant.
So the Chicago Tribune did another profile.
Shootings by concealed carry license holders, including homeowners, security guards, and store clerks.
38 shootings, one threatening incident in 265,000 Illinois residents who have the concealed weapons license.
About 2% of the state's adult population.
Many of these are what you'd expect.
An armed assailant.
And once concealed weapons license holder was charged, he opened fire on gangbangers, though no witness reported seeing them.
Armed assailant.
One man with his concealed weapons license used his gun to scare them away.
Attackers beating people.
He was one was an accidental discharge.
Most of these, though, are people stopping either accidental discharges or they're hurting themselves, maybe because they're trained by an idiot like that guy Lombardo.
But most of these are either armed assailants committing robberies or other attacks and or threatening people or things like that nature.
Or somebody, so either the concealed license holder was the victim or they were intervening to help someone else being attacked, robbed, something of that nature.
The vast majority of the 38, the vast majority of the 38.
But Chicago is charging concealed weapons license holders more than most other places are.
It's telling me the training is poor.
But 38 incidents over the course of, let's see, they start the reporting in June, and this goes back to about a year, actually about a year.
Oh, it's going way back.
So this goes back to 2015.
I'm sorry, April of 2014.
So in the last four years, there have been 38 concealed carry license holders in Illinois.
I'm assuming most of these in Chicago and around Chicago out of 200 and I think I said 56,000 concealed weapons license.
So very, yeah, 260, 265,000.
So the number is very, very low.
It would be telling me is that Illinois concealed license holders, like every other concealed license holder in the United States or the vast majority, vast majority, are very responsible people.
And the vast majority of those who use their guns, sure, there are the incidents of people misusing them.
But over four years, here, over four years, there have only been one.
Let's see, I'm going to tell you how many concealed weapons license holders were charged.
Two, three, four, five, six, seven.
Let's see what else we got here.
Seven.
Yep, we're back in 2015.
We're at seven.
Yep.
So over the last four years and three months, the police in Illinois only charged seven of the 265,000 people who have concealed weapons licenses with misusing the firearms.
Seven.
out of 265,000 people.
Another 31 people use those weapons.
About 30 or 29 or 32 were accidental discharges.
They drew the gun.
They shot themselves in the hand or the foot.
So I think it was 29 of those 260,000 used their weapons, used their weapons legally and appropriately to help themselves, to stop an attack on themselves or someone else.
Two accidental discharges shot themselves.
It happens.
And seven charged criminally with misusing their firearm.
I'd say those numbers bode incredibly well for the restraint and adherence to law by concealed weapons licenses.
I think that bodes very, very well.
And I think this data from Chicago, I'm sure it's driving the liberals nuts.
I'm sure it's driving the liberals nuts.
This data from Chicago is going to add a lot of weight to the debate for national concealed carrier reciprocity.
And it's going to add a lot of weight to the debate in states like New York and California that still don't have statewide Maryland, New Jersey, statewide issuance of concealed weapons licenses.
Finally, we've got some resolution in a case that should have been resolved a while back.
Resolution At West Point00:02:42
You remember this guy, a West Point graduate, a guy named Spencer Rapone, commissioned as an officer in the United States military, who in a photo had his cadet cap on his chest with the inside turned to the camera.
And in that was written, communism will win.
Communism will win.
He was also wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt underneath his military uniform, making a communism fist in that photo with communism will win on the hat.
However, he is now no longer part of the U.S. military after top brass, this is from Fox News, at Fort Drum's 10th Mountain Division accepted his resignation on Monday after an earlier warning for conduct unbecoming an officer.
He's leaving the military with an other than honorable discharge.
Now, last year, an Army statement, a West Point statement, reads, quote, Second Lieutenant Rapone's actions in no way reflect the values of the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army.
This guy was an open advocate of communism.
There were photos of him giving the finger to the sign at Fort Drum in the U.S. Army.
He was advocating when the Army investigated him.
He was found to be advocating for socialist revolution, disparaging high-level military officers and U.S. officials.
The Army says it took appropriate action, but he remained unabashed.
And like I said, this past Monday showed him giving a finger to the sign at Fort Drum, captioned one final salute.
And then he asked for soldiers to lay down their arms.
It was ridiculous.
Now, Senator Marco Rubio, Marco Rubio, a guy I've been critical of, was actually great on this issue.
He said, quote, while in uniform, Spencer Rapone advocated for communism and political violence and expressed support and sympathies for enemies of the United States.
I'm glad to see that they have given him an other than honorable discharge.
Now, military experts are saying, according to Fox, that it's rare for an officer out of West Point to be given that other than honorable discharge status.
That opens the opportunity for the military to seek money back from him for the education he was given at West Point.
That's about a half a million dollar education because he couldn't then fulfill his subsequent military commitment.
Five years, that was his service obligation to repay the military.
And he said, I knew there could be repercussions.
He's becoming a prominent far-left advocate who will be speaking at a socialism conference next month.
He said, quote, of course, my military career is dead in the water.
On the other hand, many people reached out and showed me support.
There are a lot of veterans, both active duty and not, that feel like I do.
Active Duty Repercussions00:00:15
Well, what needs to happen is a sweeping investigation into those who are active duty, those who are reserved.
If they're severed military, retired military, let them believe what they want.
If they want to be socialists, that's on them.
But if they're in the United States Armed Forces, there needs to be a thorough investigation.