Sean Hannity Show - Goodbye American Nuclear - March 14th, Hour 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 15, 2024 - Sean Hannity Show

32:44

Goodbye American Nuclear - March 14th, Hour 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart Podcast.
	Well we're coming to your city Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country sound We'll all be tired.
	How then a jail I know.
	And if you want a little bang in your yin-yang, come along.
	My dad, you seven expression.
	Anyway, am I allowed to take any questions?
	You know what this is?
	It wasn't just the money, it wasn't just eight million dollars.
	It was also his ego.
	Pride and money is why he knowingly violated the rules.
	I believe that the terrorist threat level that we're contending with right now is at a whole nother level from an already heightened terrorist threat level that we were seeing even before October 7th.
	Believe it or not, only 235 days left until election day.
	Yeah, we're coming to your city.
	Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
	From coast to coast.
	From border to border.
	From sea to shining sea, Sean Hannity is on.
	All right, thanks, Scott Shannon, and thank you for being with us.
	Hour 2, Sean Hannity Show, toll free on.
	Our number is 800-941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the uh program, uh we are awaiting.
	It's gonna either happen today or tomorrow, at least according to the judge out of Fulton County.
	Uh, the issue of Fonnie Willis and and whether or not she's going to be dismissed, I think as she should be, uh, in this case, uh, for a lot of different reasons.
	Uh, but we're expecting that to happen anytime.
	The judge did dismiss part of Fonnie Willis's case against Donald Trump uh as uh a matter of fact, tossed out six criminal charges in the indictment.
	And uh anyway, the Fulton County Superior Court judge's name is Scott McAfee, and he dismissed six counts against six defendants, three against the former president on the grounds that charges weren't specific enough.
	Uh, but that's only the beginning, of course, of the problems in terms of the ethical or lack of ethics surrounding uh Fonnie Willis and uh her hiring of her boyfriend attorney with no experience.
	Uh let me play for you if I can.
	Uh this is uh Fonnie Willis, a montage of these hearings, some of the highlights that kind of bring this all into focus.
	I probably have some choice words about some of the things that you said that were dishonest within this motion.
	So I don't know that it was a conversation.
	As you know, Mr. Wade is a Southern gentleman.
	Me, not so much.
	I very much want to be here, so I'm not a hospital witness.
	I very much want to be here.
	Not so much that you're hostile, Miss Willis, it'd be an adverse witness.
	Your interests are opposed to Miss Merchants.
	Merchants entered are perfectly are controversial contrary to democracy, Your Honor, not to mine.
	So let's be clear because you've lied in this, let me tell you which one you lied in right here.
	I think you lied right here.
	No, no, no, no.
	This isn't true.
	Judge it is a lie.
	It is a lie.
	I don't need anybody to foot my bills.
	The only man who's ever foot my bills completely is my daddy.
	All right, and you got Fonnie Willis explaining, you know, the these overt acts and uh etc.
	involving racketeering in this indictment, which was always an overreach, and the judge seems to agree with me on this.
	Listen.
	The acts identified as predicate acts or acts of racketeering activity are crimes that are alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the criminal enterprise.
	Acts of racketeering activity are also charged as separate counts in the indictment against those who are alleged to have committed them.
	All right, joining us now to uh delve deeper into this.
	We have our friend Greg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst, New York Times bestselling author, Bill Jacobson, Cornell law professor.
	Uh welcome both of you.
	So we're expecting, you know, some type of ruling on this any minute, maybe today, maybe tomorrow.
	At some point, we're gonna get it this week, according to the judge.
	Uh, but we do have these counts dismiss Greg Jarrett, And then the question is, you know, what will the judge do?
	What should the judge do?
	Well, first of all, the six charges dismissed by the judge were always legally unsound.
	You know, petitioning government officials to take action is not by itself a crime.
	In fact, it's a protected right under the First Amendment.
	Here, Donald Trump and others demanded Georgia officials reexamine the count, challenge electors.
	That's exactly what Democrats did four years earlier, and it's permissible under the Electoral Count Act.
	So the judge here was saying, Well, what's the underlying crime then?
	Where's the evidence to support it?
	I think uh these were amateur sophomore mistakes, basic stuff you learn in law school, and it underscores the inexperience of Nathan Wade.
	Certainly it's an embarrassment to Fonnie Willis, who was overseeing her lover's work and for which she was paying him a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money.
	The other question, of course, is and we're waiting for this decision.
	Should Willis and Wade be disqualified?
	If you read the code of conduct and the canons of ethics, this Sean is a no-brainer.
	Their sexual relationship, regardless of when it started or ended, uh during a pending case creates a severe conflict of interest.
	It requires disqualification, and if that happens, then under Georgia law, the entire case has to be removed from the Fulton County DA's office, reassigned elsewhere.
	Does that effectively kill the case?
	I think it probably does, because other prosecutors will look at this and say, this ain't a racketeering case.
	Well, let me ask you though about the disqualification issue, which you say is part of Georgia Law.
	Uh what about the fact that there was testimony in this case uh from other people, including uh de form former dear friend of Fonnie Willis's uh about when the nature of this relationship began.
	She said twenty nineteen, Fonnie Willis d you know, dismissed that, said it was a lie.
	Uh don't we have other evidence as well?
	Text messages, uh emails, uh phone records, etc.
	that that corroborate that this relationship started earlier, and the fact that this guy had no experience at all in criminal law was paid an astronomical amount of money, six hundred and fifty-four thousand dollars, uh some of which was spent on a labyrinth vacations and and gifts for Fonnie Willis herself.
	You know, the the testimony that Fonnie Willis and especially Nathan Wade, and of course his former uh law partner, uh Terrence Bradley, I I don't think anybody in the courtroom, including the judge, was buying what they were saying as they tried to minimize it and deny it.
	I think it was an obvious deception.
	I don't think the judge fell for it, but as I say, I don't think it matters when the affair began.
	It happened during the uh pendency of the cases.
	They were uh creating these uh very thin charges against Donald Trump and others.
	And I I just think if you read the canons of ethics, you can't do it.
	It taints the prosecution, automatic disqualification in my judgment.
	Let's get your take if we can, uh, Bill Jacobson.
	Uh I think Greg makes a pretty compelling case.
	Uh and from everything I've seen here, disqualification seems to be the only option, but you know, you never know what a judge is gonna do, do you?
	No, you don't know.
	I mean, certainly it's it's unseemly, this whole prosecution.
	It's based, as Greg indicated, on a really uh incorrect understanding of the conspiracy laws.
	They're it's not illegal to conspire to overturn an election.
	People do it all the time, and that's the fundamental flaw.
	Uh it might be done in illegal ways, but that end result is not in and of itself illegal, and that has tainted the entire case, and then you have this romantic relationship, which I think gives rise to a tainted prosecution, a reason to believe that the defendant is not being entitled to the fair treatment of the law because the prosecutors have a conflict of interest.
	So the whole thing is unseemly, but it started from, you know, an improper consideration of what an unlawful conspiracy is.
	You you people Conspire to do lawful things all the time.
	It's not illegal.
	And that's really the underlying problem with this whole prosecution.
	Did you have a problem with with the whole nature of the relationship and is your interpretation of Georgia law in terms of disqualification that they had a sexual relationship?
	Do you believe that that is valid in your view as a means to disqualify her?
	And if she's disqualified, does that eliminate the charges?
	Well, I I think it it it can be, depending on what facts the judge finds, particularly if he finds that they they were not fully honest in their presentation to the court, that would be another ground to remove.
	But yes, if there is a conflict of interest in the prosecutors, and essentially Donald Trump was prosecuted so that Fanny Willis could feed six hundred thousand dollars to her lover, if that's the reason for this prosecution.
	Certainly taints her being on the case.
	What happens is they're gonna have to essentially start this process over again in a different location.
	There's no way this is going to get to trial before the election.
	And even the fact that we're talking about whether it gets to trial before the election shows how improper this prosecution is, because this is done for political purposes.
	They they could have done this two years ago and we would know the result in all of these cases, with the exception of Mar-a-Lago, could have been brought two years ago, and we'd be done with this process.
	So I think she should be removed.
	I think the case should be dropped in Georgia.
	I think it's based on an incorrect uh theory that you know trying to overturn an election is illegal.
	If they were particular people who did things, if somebody broke into a computer system, prosecute that person.
	But that's not Donald Trump's responsibility unless they can prove that he was aware of it, which they haven't even alleged so far.
	Do you see Greg Jarrett any possible perjury charges, any charges against Fonnie Willis herself as a result of all this based on what we have heard, the testimony we've heard and the evidence presented?
	Well, I think Nathan Wade is in serious jeopardy because he quite obviously lied in his divorce case when he answered under oath interrogatories, denying any affair, and then of course admitted on the stand that he was having an affair uh during the course of his marriage.
	But he his attitude was, well, I'm entirely lie because my marriage didn't really count since it was a broken marriage.
	That that is not going to fly in any court of law based on perjury charges.
	As for, you know, Fonnie Willis, I mean, she's she's in serious jeopardy with two other investigations looking into not just this, but other improprieties in her own office, some of which she was directly involved.
	And if the reporting is accurate, there are employees in her office who hate her so much, they're lining up to testify against her with some fairly compelling evidence.
	Uh and so, you know, in the end, she could lose her job.
	Quick break more with our legal panel, Greg Jarrett and Bill Jacobson, then we'll get to your calls coming up 800, 941 Sean, our number as we continue.
	We continued now examining the new developments in the Fonnie Willis case as we expect the judge to rule uh any second, any day now.
	Uh, but anyway, we continue with Greg Jarrett and Bill Jacobson are with us.
	Let me ask this.
	There are a number of people in this case surrounding this case that were charged in this case that ended up making plea deals.
	Now, many people may not know this.
	Why do people make plea deals?
	Because if the plea deal results in, for example, no jail time, well, then a defendant has an option, even if they believe in their innocence, and they they now have to determine whether or not they want to risk being exonerated at the cost of possibly ending up in jail at the end of the process, and they're offered a deal that says, okay, you agree to testify, you agree to apologize to the people of Georgia, uh, but you won't experience any jail time.
	That will not be part of the punishment.
	Now, even if they believe they're innocent, they might take that deal to avoid any risk of of maybe going to jail because it's a crapshoot before any jury.
	What about all those people, Greg Jarrett?
	Well, those uh people could ask uh based on the findings of The judge uh that their plea deals be vacated and their sentences uh vacated.
	And you're absolutely right, Sean.
	I mean, look, some of these people didn't have the money to spend, you know, half a million dollars uh in defense fees, and if they're offered a sweetheart deal of you you cop to a lesser offense with probation, uh and and you avoid the jeopardy of prison.
	I mean, uh that that's a pretty good deal, and I think that's why it's even if you didn't even if you believe and know in your heart you did nothing wrong, you might take that option, correct?
	Innocent people do that all the time.
	Yeah.
	What's your take, Bill?
	I agree.
	I mean, it's I think they might have a tough time withdrawing their pleas.
	I'd have to double check what the Georgia standard is.
	Uh because somebody else is not being prosecuted, may not be a ground to withdraw your own plea, so they may have problems there.
	But let's face it, the process is is the punishment in these cases.
	It's going to ruin people financially.
	Uh, and even if they're found not guilty, they're they're done.
	They're done financially.
	So they co every day in this country, prosecutors coerce guilty pleas from people who are not guilty because the alternative is either ruining your life financially or potentially getting a bad jury verdict and spending time in prison.
	But that that happens all the time.
	It's really one of the great travesties of our system, but it is the reality, and we should ignore it acknowledge the reality.
	Yeah, I would think so.
	Now, uh uh, let's say that the judge uh removes Fonnie Willis from the case.
	Uh Mr. Jacobson, do you believe that this case then would have to go, you know, back to square one and start at the beginning and perhaps even in a new venue?
	My understanding in Georgia, it could not be done in that same office.
	And I think the the I forget what his formal title is, but the person who has control over prosecutors in Georgia has said that he will appoint somebody, but he would wait until the appeals process on you know works itself out if she's removed from the case.
	So it's not gonna happen anytime soon.
	They're gonna have to redo this in another jurisdiction in Georgia.
	And then if it's another jurisdiction in that jurisdiction, they could determine uh they have no desire to pursue this.
	I think they could.
	I don't think they can take away that prosecutorial discretion in another jurisdiction.
	So it is possible this case will go away.
	But let's face it, this case is motivated from the prosecution side by the November 2024 election.
	Once we're beyond that, that motivation goes away.
	And so who knows whether a prosecutor down there, even somebody who's politically motivated, would want to pursue it, you know, in January of next year, or would even attempt to pursue it if they could against a sitting president.
	Yeah, after if this cluster, I'm not sure anybody would.
	Uh anyway, Bill Jacobson, thank you.
	Uh Greg Jarrett always appreciate you being with us, sir.
	The radio show, the mainstream media loves to hate.
	This is the Sean Hannity Show.
	All right, 25 to the top of the hour, 800, 941 Sean.
	If you want to be a part of the program, we got a lot of breaking news.
	John Solomon joins us in a minute.
	Look, if you're a homeowner, you need to know this.
	Your title is online.
	Everybody's title is online.
	And unfortunately, uh the cyber thieves and crooks around the world, they are targeting you, American homeowners, and they will steal your title online.
	You won't even know about it, and then they start taking out loans based on the equity in your home, or they could actually sell your home right out from underneath you.
	That happened to a family in Sarasota.
	Thankfully, they had home title lock.
	They caught a cyber thief in New York trying to sell their property on a popular real estate website.
	Now the thief was able to fraudulently change the title, but home title lock detected it, and they work with the homeowner and quickly put the title back in their name.
	Imagine what would have happened if their title was was not being monitored.
	Look, you can't let this happen.
	For most people, their home is their biggest source of of equity.
	You want to protect it.
	It's simple to do.
	Just go to Home Title Lock.com, and if you use the promo code Sean S. E. A. N, they will send you a complete title scan of your home's title, verify it's in your name, and your first thirty days of triple lock home title protection is free.
	That's Home Title Lock dot com.
	Promo code Sean S. E. A. N. HometitLock dot com promo code Sean S. E. A. N. Do it today.
	Our friend uh John Solomon, just the news dot com, founder, editor in chief, investigative reporter is back with us.
	Oh, you got a lot of breaking news, I see.
	Hunter Biden's partners aiding uh Chinese bid to corner the nuclear energy market with U.S. tech.
	Uh okay.
	That sounds like a national security threat to me.
	Explain.
	In fact, today I've been talking to a lot of national security experts who've raised enormous alarm.
	Fred Flights, I just got off the phone with a few minutes ago, former chief of staff to the National Security Council.
	So uh in 2014, China was caught.
	Its military was caught trying to hack into Westinghouse, the premier maker of nuclear reactors in the world.
	Uh and uh at that time, Westinghouse had developed a brand new reactor that was the envy of the world.
	It's called the AP 1000, small footprint, huge energy output.
	It was revolutionizing the uh nuclear industry industry.
	Uh, and here is China wanting to get their hands on it.
	They're caught hacking.
	They're caught trying to go into Westinghouse and steal the plans.
	They're indicted by the Obama Justice Department.
	Eric Holder crowed at the time as attorney general.
	This is a major indictment.
	Not eighteen months later, not even eighteen months later.
	Hunter Biden and his business partners are talking with the uh company that most would like to acquire this technology, CESC China.
	We've talked about it.
	That's that's a big Chinese oil conglomerate energy conglomerate.
	They are, and as we know, that was the one that maybe the big guy was gonna get 10% of.
	It's the one that Joe Biden meets with the Chinese executives at the Four Seasons Hotel.
	We've known a lot about their gas interest.
	They were trying to buy natural gas interests in the United States and help China get our natural gas from out from under our feet.
	But here they were trying to help them secretly buy Westinghouse.
	All right, China got caught trying to hack their way into it.
	Now they're gonna try a more legitimate means.
	They're gonna do a lead capture.
	They're gonna see if Hunter Biden with his family and name can help secretly acquire Westinghouse.
	In fact, the plan is very detailed.
	We have a copy of the plan.
	It was recently turned over to Congress in the impeachment in Curtain.
	And it says, hey, we're gonna try to hide this.
	There's gonna be cutouts, and people won't be able to tell it's China, but we'll get it done.
	And when it's done, China will have a monopoly.
	They will have a quote uh China will be able to quote unquote control.
	That's the word Hunter Biden and his business partners use, the nuclear energy market for years to come.
	Our single largest political geo uh geopolitical adversary in the world, and there is Hunter Biden trying to get them the crown jewel of our nuclear energy technology, something that was built with American innovation.
	Uh, and there they are trying to facilitate that.
	That's what these new documents show.
	It is alarming.
	Almost every person I've talked to today said they are even more disgusted than ever before with Biden family grifting that was going on.
	You talk about in your investigative piece that some of the evidence about CEFC's pursuit of Westinghouse was secured from the laptop from hell of Hunter Biden, abandoned as we all know.
	And and then you talk about the the relationship that Hunter had been developing with this Chinese conglomerate.
	Now, remember it was CEFC.
	That that goes to the WhatsApp message.
	I'm sitting here with my father.
	Uh you didn't produce what you promised.
	Uh between everybody he knows, my ability to hold the grudge, you're gonna regret it.
	How many days later did they get a uh a wire transfer to one of their accounts, John?
	What and how much was it?
	Yeah, three million dollars just a few days later, when uh uh there is actually it's five million after the threat, three million right after Joe Biden met with him.
	They get a total of eight million in a very short period of time in 2017.
	But what's most important about that is at that moment Joe Biden is no longer the vice president.
	What's important to know is that those payments in Hunter Biden's mind, in the partner's mind, because this has come out in the testimony, was actually for the work that Hunter Biden and his family was doing while Joe was still in office.
	They couldn't take the money from China then, it would be too obvious.
	So they deferred the payments, but they got the work done.
	We've been always asking, well, what work was going on in 15 and 16?
	Now we know a big part of this work was they were trying to help China.
	The sitting vice president's son was trying to help China buy away, secret away, the most important nuclear energy technology, an American company had developed an over generation.
	That is what they were getting paid for.
	So in 2017, the payout comes, the dirty work was being done in 2015 and 16.
	That's what these documents showed.
	Do we know if they were successful?
	For example, they were uh okay, they were not.
	Why not?
	Because uh it was just too obvious of uh too many flaws, right?
	This was gonna have to go through a Cypheus review, uh, which is the uh committee on uh foreign investment in the United States, it was going to certainly raise red flags there.
	Uh and so it just doesn't get as far as I mean it could happen.
	I mean, if you go back to Hillary Clinton, they did if you talk about the the materials to build nuclear weapons, uh of which we only have a very limited amount of uh correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the wasn't the Clinton weren't the Clintons involved in that big deal uh dealing with Canadian businessmen that were really funneling a lot of this information, uranium to to uh Putin and Russia?
	You you you capture this so perfectly uh because it's a ten-year, and this is what I wrote my book, Fallout.
	For ten years, Democrats were trying to help our two largest geopolitical adversaries in the world, the two people that most wanted to throw in the United States as a superpower of the world, Russia and China, both trying to help them get a leg up in the nuclear markets.
	Why would uh patriotic Americans want to help our enemies get a geopolitical advantage in the area?
	What one of the most important parts of geopolitical strategy, energy.
	They were trying to put us at a disadvantage in energy to our two biggest enemies.
	Hillary Clinton does it with Bill Clinton and the foundation and uranium on, and then Hunter Biden comes along, and here he is trying to help Westinghouse and also uh if they can't get Westing household, they're trying to help them buy a whole bunch of natural gas assets so that they can be sucked out from under our feet, take our energy and throw it over to China so they can burn it.
	That is what Hunter Biden was doing.
	Uh, and of course, it follows the grift that the Clinton family and many others in the Democratic Party did with Russia a few years earlier.
	Well, and this goes to the heart.
	Why why are they looking for criminal referrals?
	I mean, now with Ken Buck just saying bye-bye and abandoning Republicans, he was useless anyway, but you know, their margin is so slim in the House that the likelihood of getting the impeachment of Biden has been reduced, but James Comer has kind of pivoted to the idea, well, criminal charges are going to be brought up against them.
	You've also been breaking a lot of stories as it relates to the January 6th committee.
	Uh isn't it amazing that apparently files just happened to disappear?
	Isn't it amazing that certain testimony uh was not brought to the attention of the American people?
	Uh for example, such a big deal was made over the testimony of of a young woman that worked with Meadows about uh how oh, she knew that Donald Trump tried to commandeer the steering wheel on January 6th from the Secret Service, and yet the January 6th committee, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't they interview uh this guy, Mr. Ornado, and didn't he say that never happened?
	More importantly, Ornado was the deputy chief of staff for operations, so he knew what went on that day, but they actually interviewed the Secret Service driver, the man that was in the vehicle, and he said President Trump never lunged across the seat.
	He never got a hold of my steering wheel.
	He never choked the guy next to me.
	Oh, by the way, he wouldn't have been able to because there was a glass and steel plate that kept the vice the president protected.
	He couldn't get through that.
	They had first hand witness accounts saying it didn't happen, and they gave credit instead.
	They hid that and they gave credit instead to uh third hand hearsay account of Cassidy Hutchinson.
	Just think how deceptive that is to the American people.
	It feels like Russia collusion all the time.
	Well, but they they uh they hired a Hollywood producer, they put this in prime time, and there's certain exculpatory evidence they purposely kept away from the American people.
	Do we know if we gotten all of the files that they tried to hide, eliminate, delete, whatever they tried to do with them?
	Oh, you ask a great question because I just interviewed uh Congressman Barry Laudermill.
	He's the man that's been digging up all this evidence.
	He says they still are missing significant pieces of evidence.
	They still don't have things that were shipped off to the Biden administration to hide.
	They still don't have the passwords for a lot of the accounts that locked documents that the January 6th committee has, and no one seems to be willing to give them that.
	He said last night, this is a big moment.
	Keep an eye on this development.
	He is preparing possible criminal referrals of members of the January 6th staff in their staff January 6th lawmakers and staff possible.
	Would that would that include people like Liz Cheney, who chaired the committee, co-chaired it?
	He said he's gonna name names later, but he did say something very important.
	He said, I do not believe, based on what we've now learned from the documents that Benny Thompson, the Democratic chairman, ran this committee.
	He said, I believe Liz Cheney was calling the shots and Benny Thompson was going along for the ride.
	And he pointed out something very important.
	Liz Cheney was the lawmaker in the uh interview with the Secret Service driver.
	So when the Secret Service driver said Donald Trump never crashed through there, he didn't take my steering wheel, he didn't do anything like that.
	Liz Cheney was the one lawmaker in that interview.
	She knew what the committee was about to say, put on the stand, put into their final report.
	It wasn't true.
	And I think Liz Cheney's going to have a big bullseye around her as Barry Lauder goes around getting the rest of his evidence.
	He says there are two possibilities criminal referrals or ethics and censor censure uh emotions in Congress to punish these people who uh misled the American people.
	We were taken for a ride.
	Quick break, we'll come back more with investigative reporter, editor in chief, just the news.com, more with John Solomon.
	All right, we continue now with investigative reporter, founder, editor in chief, just the news.com, John Solomon is with us.
	I mean, the whole narrative that Donald Trump somehow uh was uh involved in an insurrection that that is contradicted.
	Uh I have the tape of my interview with President Trump, uh Chris Miller, the acting uh secretary of defense, Cash Patella's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was Trump's chief of staff, and you have confirmed the issue.
	The other person in the room was General Milley.
	Uh I have four of the five saying that in fact in the days leading up to January sixth, uh that that they were concerned about the potential of some people maybe having ulterior motives and and could be possibly involved in violence, and Donald Trump was willing to approve ten thousand guard troops.
	Uh Lester Holt talked about, even reported on MBC that they had actionable intelligence.
	Then you have the Capitol Police Chief's son who wrote a book.
	You interviewed him, I've interviewed him, I've read the book, you've read the book, and he originally didn't want troops, uh, but then in the uh the final days leading up to January sixth, he saw the actionable intelligence and was begging everybody for guard troops, but in writing, Muriel Bowser, who would have needed to approve it, uh said no.
	Never mind.
	We don't know what Nancy Pelosi did or didn't do.
	Yeah, so did they not withhold that information from the American people and lie about it?
	Liz Cheney was in a Twitter fight with uh or an ex-fight with Mark Levin.
	Yeah, and she actually said, Well, Chris Miller testified to this.
	Well, that's not what Chris Miller told me.
	I've got it on tape.
	That's not what he actually testified to.
	They used a very narrow question to kind of lock him into something that was misleading.
	The listen, there's no doubt the offer was made.
	How do we know?
	Very early on in the in the January 6th investigation that I began in 2021, we got a hold of a document.
	It's the Capitol Police document.
	It's the timeline of what happened for the five days leading up.
	The Capitol Police recorded in writing.
	The pen uh the Trump Pentagon called us on the morning of January third and offered us troops and said, if you want them, just send the request and we'll get it going now.
	And we turned it down.
	The Capitol Police turned it down.
	That is that verifies not only Chief Sun, who you interviewed and did a great job getting out, it verifies the timeline that Chris Miller and uh General Milley uh said.
	And then we now know Tony Ornado, the man you mentioned a couple minutes ago, he actually not only was in the meeting with Miller, Milley, and Trump.
	When Trump said, Do whatever it takes, uh, I'm authorizing troops, go up to 10,000, whatever you need.
	The next day he sat in a meeting with the mayor of DC, Mayor Bowser, and said, You can have up to 10,000.
	They discussed the 10,000 number directly with the mayor uh of the District of Columbia.
	All of that was sitting in uh the purview of the committee and they kept it from the American public.
	Why?
	Because if Donald Trump ordered 10,000 troops to the January 6th, he would have been silly trying to carry out an insurrection that day.
	He would have armed the ability to put it down.
	They couldn't let that fact get out there because it undercut the narrative that they wanted to have.
	Well, it may also explain deep down inside why Trump has never been charged with insurrection, because they know all of this will come out.
	Maybe that explains it all.
	And then, of course, you have the people that are screaming the loudest that that this election about is about democracy and peril, the very people that support the idea that that one single elected official can determine Trump uh tried guilty uh and and punished by taking him off the ballot of uh for something he was never charged with, let alone convicted of insurrection.
	Yeah.
	Uh listen, the uh you you said it right.
	They hired a Hollywood uh producer and they contrived the evidence to create fiction and then sell it uh uh as a nonfiction story to the American people.
	The one problem is American people are too smart to fall for it.
	We they've been through Russia collusion, they've been through Hunter Biden laptop, been through Ukraine impeachment one.
	I think now people are tired of being lied to, and uh this election lot will be which party has been telling us the truth the most.
	I think that's gonna be a big thing on the ballot come November.
	All right, John Solomon, JustinNews.com.
	Great work on all of these stories, as per usual.
	Uh thank you, sir, for sharing your hard work with us, and we're gonna stay on the issue and report that which the mob, the media will always ignore.
	The sad thing is is they're never gonna get the story out.
	Unfortunately, many people will never hear that there were the Secret Service driver said, No, it never happened.
	Donald Trump never tried to commandeer the vehicle because that was the common belief, and they peddled the lie that they know was false, and they need to be held accountable for it.
	Anyway, thank you, John Solomon, 800-941-Shawn, our number if you want to be a part of the program.

▲