All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2023 - Sean Hannity Show
34:15
Senator Rand Paul - July 11th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Right, hour two, Sean Hannity's show, toll free.
It is 800-941-SEAN if you want to be a part of the program.
Just as a side note before we get started with Senator Rand Paul, who has now put forth a new bill to protect our freedoms called the Freedom of Speech Protection Act.
I'll get to that in a second.
I think it is of note that Senator Rand Paul has a book.
It won't be out until October.
I had an opportunity to get an early, well, pre-publish on a lot of the book.
And, you know, my take on this is here you have Senator Ram Paul, never wanted to shy away from a controversy, especially on the issue of COVID.
He was out front and center.
And when everybody else, you know, was lying to you and putting their heads in the sand.
He was relentless in pursuing truth.
And everybody was being lectured in this country by government officials that don't know a single thing about medicine or science to follow the science, the last thing that any of them ever ended up doing.
And he was one of the few voices that actually knows something about natural immunities.
Also a medical doctor on top of being a senator.
And he would not bow at the altar of Anthony Fauci, told the American people they were being lied to.
Oh, if you get the shot, you'll never get COVID.
You'll never infect anybody else.
Remember, that lie was told over and over and over again, or the lies about the wet markets being the origins of COVID, when in fact it was the NIH through the Eco Health Alliance, our taxpayer money that was funding this Wuhan Virology lab where everybody knew that coronavirus research took place and gain of function research took place.
So his new book is called Deception, the Great COVID Cover-Up.
And Dr. Paul, you know, it does in this book, he lays out all of this and how, you know, this desire for power and groupthink and control literally cost human lives.
And you couldn't even discuss possible therapeutics at a time when we had nothing.
And he exposes how the communist Chinese and our weak complying government officials put politics above real science and then shame people that dared to even ask questions about some of these issues.
Anyway, I just put that out there as a side note because I had an opportunity to look at an early copy of it when it does come out.
We look forward to having Ram Paul back on the program just to talk about that.
He's on today to discuss this new bill protecting our freedoms called the Freedom of Speech Protection Act.
And this has to do, if you might remember, I was away on vacation.
It came out on the 4th of July of all days.
Now, we've been following the case, then started by now Senator, then Attorney General Eric Schmidt in Missouri.
And the judge put an injunction restricting the Biden administration from collaborating with social media companies to censor and suppress constitutionally protected speech like we had in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election.
Anyway, this week, Senator Paul introduced this legislation to prohibit federal employees and contractors from using those positions to censor and attack freedom of speech guaranteed by our First Amendment.
And the bill will impose mandatory severe penalties for those individuals that violate the law.
Senator Ram Paul of Kentucky joins us now.
Senator, how are you?
Thanks, Sean.
Yeah, the interesting thing about this bill, we've been working on it for over a year, but what the bill does actually mirrors, if not identified, is identical to what the court case ended up doing.
And the judge issued an injunction and he said to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, you cannot go over to Twitter.
You can't go over to Facebook and you can't go over there to censor speech.
Well, that's what our bill does.
It prevents it.
And so does Missouri versus Biden.
This is the case that Eric Schmidt brought as Attorney General of Missouri.
Now he's a U.S. Senator.
But if he hadn't brought this case and if the Twitter files hadn't been removed or revealed, we would really not know any of this now.
But what we discovered in the Missouri versus Biden that Eric Schmidt brought is that the government was bullying.
They weren't just saying, hey, please take down this.
They were saying if you don't, we may use antitrust laws to come after your company and break it up.
They're also saying if you don't censor this material, we may take away Section 230, which prevents you or protects you from liability from being sued.
So these government agents came not just saying, take down this information we don't like, take down this idea that the virus came from a lab in China, take down things on Hunter Biden.
They said take it down or else.
And so the court was pretty dramatic.
This injunction, and Biden Whitehouse actually is adhering to it so far, the Biden White House had to cancel FBI meetings with Twitter and Facebook and these other companies because of the court case.
If my legislation passes, it'll then become law.
So this is a big deal.
I think it's the most important free speech legislation we've had in a lifetime.
I agree.
And I can see this headed to the Supreme Court probably sooner rather than later.
If it doesn't, it needs to.
But the Biden administration, they're now asking an appeal court to block the order that limits their contacts with social media.
My question is, and you referred to Section 230, that's liability protection.
Now, for example, news organizations can be held liable for things that they put out in terms of news stories, but these sites are supposed to be sites where information is shared.
It's not supposed to be content providers.
There's a big distinction.
The liability protections they have is a huge advantage.
And yet they're deciding what can and cannot be put up on a site based on politics and based on meetings in this particular case with an administration and basically surrogates of the president of the United States.
And they're using the FBI to do it.
So when Section 230 came about in the beginning, they envisioned something like Facebook as a bulletin board.
You would post stuff and other people would see it.
There wouldn't be an intermediary.
There wouldn't be publishing decisions or editing decisions.
So there is a really robust debate going on.
If Facebook is not just letting you post messages and they are actually coming in and editing those and only allowing certain messages, are they different than a posting board, different than a message board?
The reason 230 came about is because if I go on Facebook and say I don't like Sean Hannity, we don't want everybody suing back and forth over people making complaints about each other on Facebook.
But if they are going to become a publisher, they're going to become like a newspaper, do they take on the trappings of traditional media and therefore subject themselves to liability?
It's a real debate, and we've been having this debate.
But the thing that is without question is that we have no limitations on the regulations we can put on government.
The FBI was created by Congress.
The FBI can be regulated by Congress.
The FBI has shown themselves to be political animals, to be very biased, to be bigoted, to be very anti-Trump.
The FBI needs to have regulations.
And the first regulation we're going to make is not partisan on any kind of constitutionally protected speech.
So the things that are not constitutionally protected are illegal things or inciting immediate violence.
Other than that, whether you have an opinion on whether or not kids need to be vaccinated, whether kids need to be wearing masks, whether natural immunity from COVID works, those are opinions.
And you can base and back them up with scientific facts.
But the American public can sort that out.
And that's the way it works in a free country.
It's in China.
It's in Russia.
It's in controlled totalitarian countries where they control speech.
And the most disturbing and probably one of the most disappointing things is the left used to be good on the First Amendment, and yet there are very few voices on the left saying, oh, gosh, this is horrible with the FBI telling us what speech we can.
Well, that's even worse than that because they've wanted to institutionalize it through these disinformation boards.
You're exactly right.
Our bill actually permanently makes it impossible for them to put forward the disinformation board.
That thing that came forward a few months ago, and not surprisingly, that woman they nominated is already speaking out against our bill and speaking out against the Missouri versus Biden verdict.
So these are people who don't believe in the First Amendment.
And we need to make sure that it's actually, these are the reactionaries.
The new reactionaries in our world are actually people on the left who used to defend the First Amendment, now don't care.
They want only speech that they find acceptable.
So I was approached a while back by a very nice gentleman, somebody that I know and admire.
And there were people that I know that are part of, let's just say, one of these platforms to be a part owner of this and asked if I had any interest in being a part owner of this.
And I thought about it, and I saw the benefits of it.
I really believe in it.
I believe in freedom of speech.
But, you know, whether I owned, let's say I owned one or 2% of the company, and people go on these sites and they post things that I would find defensive, racist, or misogynistic, whatever it happened to be, why do I, I just concluded that I'd get 100% of the blame for what other people post unbeknownst to me, and I just didn't want any part of it.
Yeah, I think it's difficult.
And this is one of the difficult things about speech.
And you have a, and obviously you have your own freedom of will to decide what you are willing to do, what kind of abuse you're willing to take.
But the one thing about speech is, is that even bad speech is protected, and particularly speech that's difficult or unpopular is protected.
And you say, well, why would we want to protect that?
You want to protect it because sometimes even a scientific opinion can be unpopular.
In 2020, when I said that if you've been infected by COVID, in all likelihood you have immunity and that you're going to protect others by having already had the immunity, that was an important thing to say, but that was considered to be disinformation.
It turned out I was right.
Turned out that being infected actually was better than the vaccine at preventing you from being infected and preventing you from being seriously ill.
But we can't let government prevent that speech from occurring.
Quick break more with Senator Ram Paul, great state of Kentucky on the other side.
Your calls, the other news of the day at the bottom of the half hour.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
We continue with Senator Ram Paul, who is with us.
He has now introduced a brand new bill called the Free Speech Protection Act, and it deals with restrictions from any government official collaborating with social media companies to censor or suppress constitutionally protected speech.
So what is the answer when it comes to the, let's just take the issue of somebody overtly racist, you know, a Nazi Klan member just saying horrible, vicious, nasty, evil things, not advocating violence.
If you believe in free speech, do you have to accept that that kind of speech is going to be part of an open forum like that?
Or can you have standards?
The good news is that type of speech is so unpopular.
That type of bigotry and bias is so frowned upon that no company out there allows that kind of speech to occur.
I mean, well, maybe some do, but I would say most companies do have rules.
And so my bill doesn't stop Twitter from saying you can't call people terrible racist names and you can't imply that certain, you know, think bad things about certain races versus others.
But the thing is, is for the most part, the marketplace takes care of those things.
Are there some oddball parts of the internet where you can go and get involved with racist comment?
Sure, you can.
But what you probably find is those are rare as opposed to most of the mainstream locations that you go to actually don't want that.
And then most people, like you said, you don't want to be associated with the owner.
But I, even as a user, I'm careful as a political figure which ones I join.
There's a lot of different sites.
And sometimes I choose not to be on a site, even though I support speech of all kinds, even the ability to say bad things.
I don't want my name associated with that website if they've got bad things on it.
So these choices are made.
But the good news is we now live in a world where it's incredibly unpopular and goes against all market principles to be a racist.
That's a good statement for a positive advance in our civilization.
You know, what's interesting is I often talk about the fact I love comedians.
I love Dave Chappelle.
I love Chris Rock.
I think these guys are funny.
And people get so offended by them.
And the reality is nobody's forcing you to go see their show or watch their special on Netflix.
You choose to watch it.
And you have to have a certain attitude and understanding that any good comedian is going to be irreverent, iconoclastic, and bombastic and say things that are totally inappropriate just for kicks and giggles.
And if he can't handle it or don't like it, don't go.
Don't watch it.
Also, why you have to be careful in what you ban, because when you think about humor, most humor is a generalization about people.
It can be about their race, their religion, their height, where they went to school, whether from the south, whether from the north, whether they're from a certain country.
It is about generalizations, and it is about making fun of people.
But, you know, if we disallow making fun of people, if we disallow humor, you know, it becomes kind of a rotten world.
But that's just the slippery slope to disallowing opinions on a variety of other things.
And I tell people all the time, this began with climate change.
The predicate for what they did under COVID was climate change.
There are news organizations that will not let me on the air if I say that I'm uncertain how much of climate change is man and how much of it is nature and that we should continue to explore that.
Even that sort of centrist position is disallowed by most of the three networks.
They won't allow me on a Sunday program to say that.
But then it went to COVID, where I wasn't allowed to go on major network TV because I said when you've been infected, you now have a significant degree of protection and that children didn't need to be vaccinated, particularly children who've already been infected.
When are they going to apologize to you for not allowing you being right and they being wrong?
When are they going to apologize?
You know one thing I never did, Senator?
I refused, and there was a lot of pressure put on me to tell people what to do when it came to COVID, whether to get vaccinated or not.
And I said, I am not a doctor, and I'm not going to play one on radio or TV.
Anyway, I do look forward to your book.
It's going to be out in early October.
In my view, it's going to be a huge hit.
And it is called Deception, the Great COVID Cover-Up.
I can't wait to get this in everybody's hands because it's eye-opening in ways you can't even imagine.
Senator, great to have you.
Thanks, John.
Hi, 25 before the top of the hour.
Toll-free, our numbers, 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, there were very interesting hearings.
I don't like to watch golf that much.
It just is too slow for me.
I'm more of an ice hockey viewer myself.
Baseball gets a little slow also.
However, when you see great golfers, sometimes it's a big tournament.
Maybe it's the Masters or one of the PGA tournament, whatever it happens to be.
Anyway, it's sometimes fun to watch, especially on a Sunday, and the leaderboard is closed, and it's kind of fun.
So you've had this development of what's called Live Golf.
This is backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund.
And then a year later, the PGA, which has been so outspoken against Live Golf, and they were able to peel away some of the top golfers in the game, Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson and many, many others.
And they were excoriated by many of their PGA colleagues for doing so.
Anyway, so the CEO of the PGA, guy by the name of Ron Price, was being grilled by Josh Hawley today.
And Hawley makes a great point.
Now, they said, well, we went to you in Congress.
We were asking you to help us with this.
And what did you want us to do?
He asked.
Well, anything that Congress could do within its power to help preserve the PGA and this American institution.
And then Hawley comes back with, but this is before you agreed to take a billion dollars from the same people that you were lobbying against a year ago.
Listen.
Let's talk a little bit about your lobbying activity as it relates to the Saudi deal.
Public reports say that you paid lobbyists last year in one quarter, just one quarter of the year, six figures or more as to lobby Congress on the Saudi Golf League proposals.
What was that related to?
Senator, we went to members of Congress as we faced a very threat to our existence to make them aware of what the Public Investment Fund was attempting to do through its operations of the Live Golf series.
And so make Congress aware and ask for what?
What did you want this body to do?
Senator, anything that Congress could do within its power to help preserve an American institution.
But this is before you agreed to take a billion dollars from the same people that you were lobbying against a year ago.
Senator, we faced the choice.
One was to allow professional golf to be taken over and operated by the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The second was to allow the PGA Tour to continue to lead it in accordance with our mission and our values for the benefit of our players and charity.
All right.
So what does this mean?
Here's the underlying story that nobody will ever talk about.
Linda, you tell me if I'm wrong here.
You know, Saudi Arabia is rich because of oil.
They're rich because of energy.
Now that Joe Biden has been president and implemented his Green New Deal strategy and stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, but of course granting Vladimir Putin a waiver for Nord Stream 2 and put up obstacle after obstacle for energy, domestic energy production, that's coal, oil, and gas.
We have hundreds and hundreds of years worth of energy resources, fossil fuel resource sources, gas, oil, coal, and we're not tapping into it.
So we, as a country, under this, you know, what I call the climate alarmist religious cult, we have unilaterally disarmed ourselves and are now at the mercy of energy, other energy-rich companies.
We're the richest, but other energy-rich countries that they can, with the lower production that is out there and available, because we have taken ourselves out of the production game, that dramatically increases the prices, which is why you pay well over a dollar more per gallon under Joe Biden even now than you were paying under Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, when he was president, the average price of gasoline never went over $3 his entire presidency, not one time.
And he wasn't tapping and depleting our strategic petroleum reserves either in the process, the way Joe Biden did, because he viewed it as a national emergency, the 2022 midterm elections, and he did it to artificially reduce the price of oil at the pump in the lead up to that election.
And to my knowledge, they have not replenished the strategic petroleum reserves.
So this is the deeper story here, because if America had a half a brain, we would be doing what the Saudis are doing.
And that's the story behind the PGA and the Saudi government's ability to buy the PGA, basically, and to pay all these golfers.
Well, what sport are they going to choose next?
Are they going to go after the NFL?
Because if they do, they're the ones that will have enough money to buy that also.
Or Major League Baseball or the NBA or the NHL.
Who knows what the next sporting craze may take over their fancy.
But the reality is, I don't like this deal.
I don't like America being, you know, these are self-inflicted problems that we are causing here.
And it's so unnecessary.
By the way, one other side note.
It was in the Washington Examiner that the Biden administration has quietly begun filling in small portions of the unfenced areas on the southern border where they abruptly had halted the Trump era projects after the president wagered a brutal campaign condemning the idea of a wall.
Remember, Biden halted the remaining 300 miles of wall construction the minute he took office in January of 2021.
What a shocker.
It doesn't shock me at all.
Linda, do you ever take Liam to the beach?
I try not to.
You try not to.
We're actually going this weekend.
Okay, so there's a study that came out.
More than half the nation's beaches are contaminated with poop and sewage, making their waters unsafe to swim in, according to a report from Environment America.
The group found 55% of more than 3,100 beaches they tested had at least one day where fecal contamination reached potentially unsafe levels, surpassing the EPA's benchmark for beach advisories and closures.
Even more disgusting, American shores are polluted with human and animal waste dumped into the ocean from sewage overflows, factory farms, industrial livestock operations.
Texas beaches were among the worst in the nation with 90% of the 61 beaches tested at unsanitary levels.
By the way, an article in the New York Post today: 57% of New York beaches are contaminated.
Does that change anybody's mind?
And people make fun of me.
What did I say?
I said, I'm never going in that water.
I said, I'm never going in there.
I mean, I have to be honest with you.
We don't go in the water.
I mean, I have no desire to go in.
I have no desire to have any part of, you know, the nastiness and the sandiness, and then how you feel afterwards.
And, you know, this public comment.
The nastiness, the sandiness.
That's gross.
I'm with you.
I can't stand it.
I don't mind the boardwalk.
There's a lot of cool things for the kiddos on the boardwalk, but beyond that, I'm good.
I even like it there.
It's too hot there.
Anyway, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
Well, you do, if you get a nice ocean breeze, that could be very refreshing.
But I like to look at the ocean.
I like the sound of the ocean, but I prefer to hear it and see it from the comfort of an air-conditioned room or maybe, you know, with an overhang sitting on a porch somewhere.
Listen, that's how I feel about nature.
I like to look at it through a window.
That's all.
At all times.
I'm not into bugs in nature and dirt.
Rob in Tennessee, what's up, Rob?
How are you?
Fine, sir.
How is it going?
Going good, sir.
What's on your mind today?
Well, I have a question about the DOJ and Statue of Limitations.
I'm all ears.
Go.
If I withheld evidence from the DOJ regarding a crime past the Statue of Limitations and I submitted it after the Statue of Limitations, would they come after me?
If the Statute of Limitations passes, the odds are heavily in your favor that they would not be successful in any effort to push it back.
Okay.
There might be extenuating circumstances legally if there was a certain obstruction that could be proven, but it's even that that's a very, very high bar to reach.
And this is the point that the six whistleblowers in the IRS are making about Hunter Biden.
You know, while they were, you know, twiddling their thumbs and letting the clock run out.
Well, he only got hit with 2017 and 2018 tax issues that they're claiming are misdemeanors, but other big tax years where a ton of money was owed, they knew about before the statute of limitations passed, and they did nothing about it.
And that's something we pointed out often.
Anyway, I hope that answers your question, my friend.
800-941-Sean is our number.
Kevin, Kansas, next Sean Hannity Show.
How are you, sir?
I'm fine.
Thank you.
How are you?
I'm good.
What's going on?
Well, I have a question I had for a long time.
The FISA courts were presented with false information, outright lies that the FBI knew were lies.
You had Peter Schrock and Comey and Black presenting this as evidence to the FISA courts.
And the FISA courts issued their ruling and allowed the FBI and whoever else to investigate private citizens that were associated with the Trump campaign.
And now those judges or judge or judges know that that information was false.
Why haven't they spoken up as your question?
And why hasn't the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who's in charge of appointing FISA court justice justices?
That would be John Roberts.
Why hasn't he done anything about it?
But it's even worse than you're laying out here.
Remember, the FBI sent their agents in early October of 2016 all the way to Great Britain to meet with a guy by the name of Christopher Steele.
It was Christopher Steele's dirty dossier.
It was Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director, that said without that Christopher Steele dirty Russian misinformation dossier that Hillary paid for, they never would have had the FISA warrants approved.
So the FBI agents came back.
They couldn't give the million-dollar bounty to Christopher Steele to corroborate any aspect of it.
Now even the Durham report says none of it was true.
And they used it not once, but four separate times.
They lied to FISA court judges.
Three of those warrants were signed by James Comey himself and nobody was held accountable.
If you lie to a judge, if I lie to a judge or anyone listening to this show lies to a judge, and not just any judge here, we're talking about a warrant to lie.
It says at the top of a FISA application, verified.
The information was unverifiable, and the information has since been debunked.
And you're asking me why none of these people have been held accountable?
I can only tell you is because the system is corrupt.
The deep state is real.
The Department of Justice is weaponized.
The FBI similarly is politicized and weaponized.
And if we don't fix these institutions, we'll never get back equal justice and equal application of our laws.
You can see it in the case of Trump in the documents, for example.
It's just that that's low-hanging fruit stuff.
Okay.
Anyway, Kevin, I appreciate the call, buddy.
All right, quick break.
More of your calls coming up 800-941-Sean, our number.
Then later, Brian Harrison, state legislator from Texas.
We'll dig deep.
It's now day nine of the Biden White House cocaine disaster and now political reporting that the culprit or Culprits are unlikely to be found according to law enforcement sources.
Really?
Why?
I want to remind you: if you are getting notices from the IRS, you still have not taken my advice and call my friends at rushtaxresolution.com.
You need to.
What are you waiting for?
Every day you put it off, the penalties and interest.
It's going to make everything worse.
Pick up the phone, call Rush Tax Resolution.
They're open right now, A-plus rated by the Better Business Bureau.
They are the best at what they do, the only company I trust and recommend.
And many listeners over the years have taken my advice.
They've called Rush Tax Resolution, and now their tax nightmares are over.
You know, one listener, Jake, owed over $150,000, and RushtaxResolution.com, they settled with the IRS for $1,500.
They're good at what they do.
Don't do this on your own.
Anyway, not everyone qualifies for the IRS forgiveness program, but Rush Tax Resolution will let you know upfront and for free what kind of relief you would qualify for.
And get this.
They'll only take your case if they know they can help you.
Anyway, you can call them right now at 800-299-8077, 800-299-8077.
They'll give you a free consultation.
They won't take your case unless they know they can help.
Or go to the website, rushtaxresolution.com.
The final hour of the Sean Hannity Show is up next.
On for Sean's conservative solutions.
Thanks for our busy poems.
Let's say hi to Phillip in California.
Phillip, you're next.
Glad you called the Sean Hannity Show.
What's on your mind?
Hey, Hannity, thanks for taking my call.
How you doing?
I'm good.
What's going on?
You know, you have access to guys that I'll never be able to speak to.
And I wish that I'd have an opportunity.
And I wish that you would talk to Trump, talk to DeSantis, the Republican candidates, and just say, hey, look, what's going on is bigger than you and your personal egos.
Trump's going to be the nominee.
Everybody, let's get behind this guy.
Trump, you know, give these guys DeSantis.
Give him a vice presidency.
These guys, an office, you know, something in office, and let's take the Democrats down because if we don't, this country is not going to be, you know, the America we wake up to in 2020.
Let me ask you a question.
What makes you think I don't talk to these people?
Don't you think I do a pretty good job of staying informed and putting people on radio and TV?
Excuse me for assuming that you don't, but I wish that somebody would just point blank take Trump.
Get together with DeSantis, make him your guy.
You guys run together, run a strong ticket.
You be the muscle.
You got four years.
You have nothing to lose.
Go on there, clean house, DeSantis, you get the next eight, and you can do something to change the country.
But let me carry and be the muscle to clean these dirty guys up.
Let me ask you why you think they'd listen to me.
Because you have their ear.
I mean, they're not going to listen to a guy like me.
You know, I'm a guy who lives in California.
They probably think I, you know, that, you know, we're, we're, you know, we're all Newsome supporters.
We're not.
But you have their ear.
They're going to listen to you.
And if you just say, hey, this average American just said, hey, look, this is what Americans want.
Right now in the polls, Trump's killing everybody.
Why, you know, Chris Christie's, you know, jumping and hey, you know, I'm going to be the savior.
That guy doesn't have a chance in hell.
So, you know, why split the party up?
Why not solidify it?
And you know what?
You got to take the gloves off.
Trump and these guys need to fire every single one of their advisors and get guys that are going to get in there and they're going to play dirty with the Democrats.
And right now, you're bringing a gentleman to a poker game that's played in the back alley in Chicago somewhere, and it just doesn't work.
Well, I don't reveal my sources.
Let's just say I've had many conversations with many people about a lot of these issues, and it's all part of the process of being an informed host for you every day.
If I had my way, I wish they weren't fighting so early.
I know it's inevitable in any primary if the primary gets close.
I think it would be in everybody's best interest if they got along.
Chris Christie is nothing but a blowhard, a big mouth that left office with a 14% approval rating.
But as far as I'm concerned, he'll just die on the vine going on Morning Joe and George Stephanopoulos and fake news CNN.
I have no interest in ever interviewing Chris Christie.
He's a blowhard.
He's a waste of time.
He's a single issue guy.
He's just doing the work of the Democrats in this campaign.
And his agenda makes me sick.
Why isn't he going after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's heart?
But all I can say is this, this process will play out the way it's going to play out.
I can't impact or change that process.
I wish I could.
Trust me, I wish people would listen to me more.
They don't.
I don't know.
It took a long time to get my kids to start listening to me.
▲
Export Selection