The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | 12/19/19

Episode Date: December 19, 2019

Chuck Todd's thoughts on President Trump are making Glenn sick. A Democratic representative presents three "unconstestable" facts about impeachment, and of course Glenn and Stu contest. We've also got a side-by-side comparison of Democrats speaking on partisanship back in 1998 and now in 2019. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. This is the Glenbeck program. From Turning Point, USA, in West Palm Beach, Florida, this is the Glenbeck program. And I swear to you, I'm a recovering alcoholic, and normally you could explain this at a convention when you just feel so queasy in the morning. But I went to bed early last night. I haven't done anything. I don't know why, but I'm here. I just, I want to keep, just a, oh boy, keep a trash can handy today because just not really feeling real well.

But I'm, but I'm here. And we'll try to go through the, who boy. Okay, we'll try to go through all of the audio of this sacred, sacred moment. and this really this heavy weight that was around the necks of the Democrats yesterday. And we will start there in 60 seconds. This is the Glenn Beck program. All right, let me tell you about our sponsor. When it comes to buying their first home or managing the mortgage you already have,

navigating the waters can be really tricky, even in our present economy, which is still booming. if you are a fiscally responsible person, please, if you are looking at taking that faith towards owning a home or if you're a homeowner that already has a mortgage, please, please consider the benefit of refinancing your mortgage. And I can't recommend whether you're getting a new mortgage or refying or consolidating. I can't recommend the people at American financing any higher. I know what you're thinking is as complicated. This is a mortgage is going to take forever. I hate all of that. I know that's what they take care of.

It's American financing. They don't work for the banks. They work for you. Ten minutes is less time than you spend on the phone looking at social media every day. And ten minutes will get this started. They'll be able to give you an answer on whether or not they can help you and how much they can help you.

It's American financing at 800-906 2440. It's 800-906 2440. Or, oh, boy. Ooh, hang on. I just... Ooh, I had a wave of... Okay, I'm okay. Okay, I'm okay. It's Americanfinancing.competonnet.

American Financing Corporation, NMLS, 182334, www. www. nmls. Consumer Access.org. Stu, are you there? Yeah, are you okay? Yeah, normally, you know, I wouldn't come in, but I'm, you know, I want to be professional and really do my job today. Well, it's a big news day, obviously. It is a big news day. Yeah.

And you just don't look great. I mean, that's not very kind. But oh, my, oh, hang on. Oh, all right. Yeah. I hate that feeling. You know, you know when you get that place where you're just like, oh, I just wish I would throw up, you know? And do you think it would be better if you just did?

And then once you're doing it, you're like, no, that was a horrible, horrible mistake. And it's the worst moment of your life for about 30 seconds. Yeah. But then at the end, you do actually. feel better usually. Okay. All right. Well, let's let me just, you know, let's play some audio here because maybe that'll, I can get past

things. Let's play some audio here. This is a, this is Chuck Todd talking about the president yesterday and how he feels about the and how he feels about the Constitution. Here's Chuck Todd. You know, I think this is the real challenge with sort of. dealing with this president is that I don't think he really even appreciates the constitution. All right. I don't know if he has this reverence for it that most elected officials in Washington

eventually do end up having a reverence for it. He doesn't seem to sort of understand the founding. I mean, I think one of the fairest criticisms of him by historians is that he doesn't seem to understand the story of America, if you will, and the story of America begins in those pages in the Constitution. So I don't think he really appreciates. I don't think he he reveres it. I think he just is very dismissive. All these are just more silly rules. You know, it's no different than a zoning hearing.

I apologize, America. Ooh. Oh, man. That's one of the most unprofessional things I've ever done. I'm sorry, Stu. What was he saying there about... He was talking about how the president, you know, doesn't really revere the Constitution and...

and he was discussing how you know how Chuck Todd is the type of person who can kind of like make that determination that was largely the

the concept he covered there okay I apologize I didn't do you want to do more audio is that I yeah I don't think I can go on my mind can we listen to what else do we

oh let's listen to Andrew Mitchell on NBC from yesterday about Nancy Pelosi and and and her attire. The seriousness of this as it is being taken by the Democrats as well, reflected symbolically, perhaps in the colors being worn or the lack of colors being worn. Oh, really? The members, the women members choosing to wear dark colors. Nancy Pelosi is a woman of a person of primary colors. You see it. If she's not wearing white, she's wearing bright colors.

She's certainly always, you know, well-appointed, and beautifully arrayed, if you will. She's wearing black. And that is a symbolic expression of how somberly they are taking. Somebody empty. It's Sacramento. It's Sacramento. And you can talk about the politics of it.

It's no question that Nancy Pelosi came to this reluctantly. Yes. Oh, my. I'm not sure if you heard any of that, Glenn, but it was Nancy Pelosi. They were talking about Nancy Pelosi's dress and how importantly symbolic it was, that Nancy dressed in black because she normally dresses in primary colors. Are you okay? Okay.

I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I should want to react at all to the, no, I, I'm, I'm, I should probably help me out, just a bit. Oh, okay. All right. Can somebody give me a toothbrush or something, please? I think the events of last night have proved that we're really living in a topsy-turvy world, and cynicism is rife, and it breeds contempt, and out of contempt comes selfishness and greed. And one of the ways that selfishness and greed manifests themselves now is in... Is in...

Starts with a sea. Congress note, cybercrime. And it's been around for a long time now, but never in such a varied and nefarious form as it is today. That's why you need multiple layers of protection. Ooh, I'm feeling better. These ever-changing threats to your connected devices on online privacy won't block themselves. What you need is new Norton 360 membership.

And it provides multiple layers of protection with a VPN device security. Oh, hang on. Oh, boy. Oh. Oh, sorry, I was just thinking about Nancy Pelosi and what she was wearing yesterday. And now solemn and sincere, that was. Okay, I think it passed. They're going to help with bank grade encryption,

and it'll help keep your information that you send and receive, like logins and passwords, make sure that they're secure in private. This holiday season, give yourself the best online defense. Nobody can prevent all cybercrime, but New Norton 360. is a powerful ally for your cyber safety during the holidays and beyond. Get the gift of up to 50% off with the annual subscription on your first year at norton.com slash Beck. Terms and conditions do apply.

We have 10 seconds, station ID. I don't think we should play anymore. We changed the subject for just a few minutes. I just need to change the subject for just a... Well, I know you didn't really get a chance to comment, though, on the solemn event that Nancy Pelosi. who was discussing in her black outfit. Yeah, let's let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, um, let's, um, let's let's, um, just just change the subject.

Well, I don't want you to, I don't want you to pass without you having a chance to actually address it because he played the whole audio clip and kind of just weren't able to, too, too, too. I'm sorry. I don't know if I, I, I hope. Well, just to review. So Nancy Pelosi was a very solemn, serious event. And the type of event, uh, where she really respects the constitution and she wore black

to, like, almost a, because it was a sad and she was a sad and she was a sad and she. She came at this. Okay, okay, okay. We got to change the... We have to change the subject. We can still talk about Nancy Pelosi here, but let me just... She refused to commit last night

to delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about... Get this, an unfair trial on removing President Trump from office. Senior Democratic aide say the House was very unlikely to take the steps necessary to actually send the articles to the Senate. I have to tell you, if you want to impeach the president, impeach the president. But you have so, no pun intended, trumped everything up.

You have accused him of everything but murder. You continue to say you have the facts, you have the case. And then it turns out you don't have the case. And so you have to come up with an article of impeachment of what was it defying Congress? What was that one, Stu? They have abuse of power and then obstruction of Congress. Obstruction of Congress. Not an obstruction of justice, an obstruction of Congress.

That's not even a thing. if you are a co-equal branch, you can obstruct Congress. You have to take it to the Supreme Court. And that's what Donald Trump was saying. That's what the Republicans were saying. Some of the people who wanted to testify said, I've got one branch telling me to testify. I have another branch that is equal telling me not to testify.

I need the third branch to tell me what to do. if the third branch would have had a chance to rule on it one way or another, then you could say you're obstructing justice if the president didn't move and the court system said he had to. But you don't have obstruction of justice. It doesn't exist with three equal branches. Obstruction of Congress, yeah. And it's interesting. obstruction of Congress. There was one Democrat that voted yes on the abuse of power, but no on obstruction of Congress. There was one singular Democrat.

This is a Soviet-style court. That's what's happening. I try to remember what they called them. They were they were like phone courts, Soviet phone courts, where the judge actually had a phone right next to his bench. And at any time, the phone could ring and the premier. would be on the other end and he's like, he's guilty rule now. Okay, guilty, guilty, guilty, execute now. That's what, that's what this is. And you can tell by the sound effects that are being tested on the stand. I'm sorry, we're backstage right now in West Palm for Turning Point USA. So if any of the dramatic movie, it's because I'm starring in a new film called Shark Nato. and it's happening right now.

Oh my gosh, the sharks are coming! Okay. So you're just going to have to put up with this in the background. They are running. This is ridiculous now. It's funny, though. It makes it seem like you're making a really important speech. It does.

Like the aliens have invaded and you're about to inspire Randy Quaid to stop them. Right. I think this is my walkout music tonight. I'm giving a speech. I told them to make me sound like, like almost a god. And I think they've done a pretty good job of it, quite honestly. Okay, good.

Now, the Democrats, to have Nancy Pelosi, everything they've accused Donald Trump of, they have done themselves. They accused him of colluding with a foreign government to influence our election. They did that in Ukraine. How do we know? We have it on tape. we have a recording made of the guy who is the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau,

which was run by the Obama administration and Spooky Dude himself. And it was the State Department's little toy over in the Ukraine that told them what they could prosecute and what they couldn't. So we have the head guy on tape at a bar talking to somebody, saying, yes, this is what I did to throw election for Hillary. We worked together and we did these things. Convicted, two convictions in Ukrainian court for tampering with the U.S. election. So they say they colluded, Donald Trump colluded? Well, no, the Mueller report showed.

No, he didn't collude. And more on the Mueller report as that comes out. I'll tell you about this here in a few minutes. So they colluded. Then, what else did they say? Abused power. Just to destroy his opponent in 2020. Okay, let's say that's true.

Let's say that's true. But when you know how the FBI, under the Obama administration, and with members of the DOJ, State Department, CIA, and what they brought to the FISA court. What is that? Is that not trying to smear and destroy their political opponent in 2020?

The Democrats have done this for the last three and a half years. They have used their power and their offices to destroy a man. They know they're not going to be able to beat. Instead of actually listening to the people and giving the people a good, good option. They've run this socialist thing that is so out of touch with America. They have praised anybody who spits on the flag. They have praised anybody who is teaching that our founders are old,

white, racist slave owners. They have preached that the Constitution is an old dusty document that cannot possibly relate to our times. wait a minute and now you're preaching the exact opposite they've conspired with the FBI the State Department with the aid of the Oval Office under Obama with the help of Hillary for

President and the DNC to smear, accuse, lie literally forged documents submitted to a court illegally obtained FISA warrants they have spent millions of your tax dollars as funding for this

I believe secret anti-Trump operation. They used official government resources to fraudulently accuse, smear, and destroy their 2020 opponent. They have used their offices to coordinate radicals, NGOs, foreign governments, universities, unions, and the vast majority of the press, as dare I say it, co-conspirators in a relentless campaign against a sitting duly elected president, of the United States, who, by the way, if I might remind you, I was not for. I still don't like many things this president does. I don't, personally, I really don't agree with him. I really appreciate some of his policies. I try to call it as I see it. I really thought, really thought collusion with Russia was a real possibility.

It didn't happen. They have taken their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which this is going to be an important and scary one and quite dramatic, you can tell, because the music is starting again, I think. Oh, good. Maybe the call is coming from in the house. I don't. Oh, boy.

So let me read it this way. The members of our U.S. Congress. have used their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which explicitly states in its preamble that the government should promote domestic tranquility. Has your Congress done that? Are members of the U.S. House promoting domestic tranquility and bringing us closer together as a nation? Or are they doing the exact? opposite of promoting tranquility in every possible way and every possible opportunity.

I say you let the music stand. I think you let the music speak for itself. I think that's God. I'm not sitting backstage while they're just trying out different things. No, no, no. If you're hearing music, it's coming from God because I don't hear any music. They have done the exact opposite in promoting tranquility. And they've done it every possible way at every possible opportunity. One of the things, they claimed in 2016 that Donald Trump would destroy the faith of the American people in our free and fair elections, claiming everything from an unprecedented attack on our most sacred institutions to an act of hostility approaching sabotage that we would only expect from a foreign agent. Yet they themselves claimed that the election was stolen right after the election and that

Trump was an illegitimate president, that he was somehow or another, a foreign agent. Is anyone going to be held responsible for any of this? You want the trial, you impeached him. Let the trial happen. This is an unconstitutional act. You are not promoting domestic tranquility, period. Back in a minute. So do we have the ABC reporter that says this is the first impeachment upon, you know, that has gone right down party lines? Do we have that ABC reporter? Can you play that, please, for me? A divided country indeed.

And it's worth noting that this is the first impeachment of the three that is like this, that is absolutely almost rock solid along party lines. People may not remember that in the Clinton impeachment, four articles. of impeachment were sent to the floor by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee. Two of them failed in the Republican-controlled House. People made up their own minds individually. This is absolute partisanship right down the line here. Absolute partisanship. This is from a member of the press who were unindicted co-conspirators, in my opinion.

So this is a member of the press saying that, and that is exactly what happened. Fulsey Gabbard, she actually came out and said, look, I'd vote for censure or something. I think something happened. But this is, I want to vote for something. But I also have seen how ridiculous and unfair this whole thing has been. I can't vote for this. So she abstained. You also had, what, two other Democrats?

It was a four? How many Democrats? So you had two Democrats that voted with the Republicans. You had one Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, who voted present. And you had a fourth Democrat who split, who said, yes, I'm impeaching on abuse of power, but not on obstruction of Congress. Which totally makes sense. Totally makes sense. In some ways.

Abuse of power is at least a legitimately impeachable offense if you do it, right? The question is whether Trump did it. Obstruction of Congress is not an impeachable offense, even if you do. it. It's just a made-up nonsense. The president not listening to Congress and saying, no, I

have a right as an executive branch is required by the Constitution. It's required. If they wanted the answer, they should have taken him to court, but they wouldn't do that. And so it's, what we have have is direct partisanship.

And if, if you look at the Federalist paper 65. Federalist 65. James Madison talks about this, talks about what this is going to become. And listen to what he says.

This is, I mean, I find this to be kind of amazing. This is, yeah, it's Hamilton and Federalist 65, as you mentioned. In many cases, impeachment will connect itself with the preexisting factions and will enlist all of their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other. And in such cases, there will always. be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. I mean, is that not where we are exactly? Right. And people are claiming that this is that all of these facts are there. There are no

uncontested facts. It's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of whether you see the president, as a bad guy that can do no right or as a guy that might have done something but didn't in this case. Listen to this. Yesterday, who was it, Stu, that was speaking and gave their presser and said, you know, there are uncontested facts, uncontested facts. And she wanted to go over them. Do we have that? Yeah, Karen Bass, there's a three-part thing here.

And she's talking about the facts are uncontested. She has three facts. I wanted to see if you could contest them in any way, because I know I couldn't. They're uncontested. Karen Bess, she's a Democrat from California. Let me look. The facts are uncontested. Fact one.

Uncontested. The president abused the power of his office by attempting to shake down the president of a country that has been our ally. Trump wanted President Zelensky of the Ukraine to dig up, to make up dirt on Vice President Biden because he sees him as the biggest threat to his reelection. Okay. Boy, that's a hard one to contest. No, the president was looking into corruption in the Ukraine, which is exactly what the last president was also apparently doing

when he was using and abusing the Anti-Corruption Bureau and actually transmitting information to the U.S. and to the press to discredit Donald Trump, that those two people went to prison or were sentenced to prison and convicted in a court of law in the Ukraine. But what we think happened was that the president said, hey, I want to know about these things. And by the way, there's $8 billion of ours that is missing. We want you to reopen all of these investigations. And one of those happens to be on Hunter Biden. Now, you could say that he is just trying to shake down and dig up and told him to make up details.

But you have no proof of that. None. That's your reading of that. Right. So I can contest it. Half the country contests. And I don't even know, making up dirt is almost like a, not even accused. I mean, that's just like, he's just.

No. She's just taking it to the 10th level. No. And calling it unconstitutional. People were, people last night were saying, bribery, bribery, bribery. Well, that was something that the Democrats were saying. But you'll notice that's not one of the charges. Nope.

Because they don't have any evidence of it. It doesn't fit. So all of these charges that you have heard, this just hearsay, rumor, conspiracy theories, all of it in an echo chamber between the House and the, co-conspirators in the press. There's no facts there. Well, maybe you just didn't know about fact number two. Listen to this uncontested one.

Fact two, Trump wanted Zelensky to go before the press and announce an investigation of Biden, hoping the mere announcement would create doubt about Biden and strengthen Trump's hand in the 2020 election. Now, okay, so may I contest? Please. Please do. Okay. the president did say he wanted Zelensky to make an announcement that he was investigating all of the things that he was talking about.

We should point out though quickly before you move on off that point. That was what Sondland said. And he's as far as I know, the only person who has actual some knowledge in his mind at least that this was the thing that actually was needed. In fact, other people have come out since his testimony. and said that is not what they actually wanted. They did not want an investigation. And in fact, the officials in Ukraine have also confirmed that. So that one, I mean, is certainly contested by the people involved in it.

Hang on. The Ukrainians did say that they were going to make an announcement, but they didn't think that it was required by Trump. Well, they talked about going on CNN. Is that what you're talking about? The interview, they were going to go on CNN. They lately have been saying, we were just going on. CNN and there was a scheduling issue. So they are denying it now, of course. Right. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, the Sondland thing was Sondland said that I told them that this is conditional. You have to do these things

or the president is just not going to give you this money. And the Ukrainian said, no, that was never our understanding. Sondland never said that to us. We were going to make an announcement, but it was a scheduling thing. We just didn't make the announcement. But we never thought it was, we had to. And beyond this point, even if it is true, here's the real problem. The real problem is if I have $8 billion before I give you anything else, because the president said in the springtime, I don't trust them, they're all dirty, I don't care who they are, I want nothing to do with Ukraine. So if he has that attitude going in, you know what, before I give you any money, I want to see that you're serious about ending corruption.

So go ahead, make some announcements. I'm not going to take you on your word because, as he said in the phone call, I think some of the people around you are part of the problem. I think you still have people around you that are part of the problem. As it turns out, the president was right on that. So how is that hurting anything? How is that not in our national interest? contested. You could read it either way.

Do you want fact number three, are you afraid of it? You're afraid of these facts. You're afraid of them. Well, I would. She has me on the rope so far. So far, you're in big trouble. Big trouble. She said they were uncontested. And I mean, sure, you contested both of them. And so, by the way, not only is multiple pieces of testimony, but also half the country are contesting them. But you can't contest this third one. This is where she puts you away.

Right. And, okay. All right. Here is fact three from Karen Bass. Fact three. Trump obstructed Congress by engaging in a cover-up. Trump has refused to comply with congressional subpoenas and has blocked current and past employees from testifying before congressional committees.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government and one of our central responsibilities is to provide oversight and investigation of the administration. The very checks and balances the framers built into the Constitution so no one branch would have untouched. check power. Interesting. The House of Representatives has no choice but to vote and pass articles of impeachment because President Trump has abused his power and obstructed the ability of Congress from performing our constitutional duty. Okay. All right. Okay. First of all, can everyone agree

that this is a partisan vote? That's all this is. Partisan. We know it. They voted. Not a Republican voted for it. In fact, some Democrats, the only thing partisan or nonpartisan was the vote against this impeachment. All right. So she said it right there, and I think I can contest it. She said that they are co-equal branches. Okay. So when you're a co-equal, for instance, you and your wife, you're co-equals, right?

You're doing your house together. Co-equal. If there is something that you cannot agree on, your wife, nor you can say, We're doing it my way without becoming a monster, a dictator. Now, you can negotiate that, or you can take that to a marriage counselor or to a divorce court. That's how you would have to solve it. Now, Congress cannot tell a co-equal branch what to do. otherwise you would have the co-equal branch, the co-equal branch telling the other branch,

you're going to do this or I'm going to put you in jail. You can't do that. The president has a right and President Clinton, President Obama, president from presidents throughout history have done exactly what President Trump did. You even have White House. people saying, I have one branch telling me one thing, another branch telling me the other. What do you need? The third branch.

Two against one. The third branch is then required to settle the argument between the two branches. It's a brilliant system of checks and balances. But Congress doesn't know how to balance. All they know how to do is write checks. That's their only understanding of anything called checks. I mean, to summarize your point here, I think I can do it rather eloquently here, Glenn, if I may. Yes.

The very checks and balances the framers built into the Constitution so no one would have unchecked power. That's a quote from her accusation, but that is actually the defense of why they wouldn't do it. If they're a branch that has their own ability to say no to you, that's what. what they're doing. And as you point out, it's been established and reestablished through nine different presidencies, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They have both said they do not have to let these people testify. It's insane. It's insane. And that's why they didn't want to take it to court, because they know they'd lose. Look, they have, this is why they had to falsify the FBI falsified documents to get it to the Pfizer report. The, the president.

court. Why? Because they knew they didn't have the evidence if they dealt honestly. Why didn't they take this to the court? Because the court has already ruled on this over and over again, and they didn't have any compelling evidence. None. Yeah, I mean, the phrase used is absolute immunity if you are a close advisor to the president to have to come testify. Absolute immunity. Absolutely. That's how clear it is. And again, this is, Every single president. More lies and conspiracy theories from Stu. When will it end?

And the conservative source of the Obama DOJ. Oh my. Oh my. Oh, my gosh. Now he's using Obama. It was somehow different under Obama. All right. I want to go a little then and now.

Some audio with the Democrats warning against and then later embracing a strict partisan impeachment. This from 1998 and 2019, then and now. We are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred, and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer. With allegiance to our founders and a heartful of love for America. Today, I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. And if there's no Republican votes, so be it. It's up to them to decide whether they want to be patriots or partisans.

It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses. Trials have witnesses. That's what trials are all about. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any or all crimes and misdemeanors. If we cannot vote to impeach, then we ought to just modify the Constitution and get rid of impeachment altogether. We leave here today void and empty because our president will have been toppled against the will of the people of the United States. We're going to continue to educate the American people and ultimately vote our conscience on the articles of impeachment. I am greatly disappointed in the raw, unmasked, unbridled hatred and meanness.

that drives this impeachment coup d'etat. The unapologetic disregard for the voice of the people. We can make the decision to override any opinion about whether or not he's indictable. That's what impeachment is all about. Here in America, we generally condemn coup d'etas in foreign countries. We have an obligation to act today to uphold the Constitution, but also to show our children and grandchildren that no one is above the law. They are not going to sit idly by and allow the Republicans to stage a bloodless coup d'etat to remove our president from office.

I think sometimes you have to do the right thing and not worry so much about the polls. Unbelievable. Each one of those voices, the same people, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And, you know, the one that amazes me the most, really, is Nancy Pelosi, where she starts out and talks about it is that. hatred of this president. And then Maxine Waters with the hatred of this president and the mean things that have been done to him. And without any regard today at the meanness and the things that have been said about this

president, not only this president, but the mean and nasty things and the lives that have been destroyed because you were a supporter. of the president or you dare wear a make America great again hat. The meanness? Absolutely remarkable. We are living in remarkable times and if we don't remember who we are,

if we don't remember what's important, if we don't remember that we're all in this together and there is rule of law. But to hear the Democrats talk about no one's above the law, It's very hard for me to say, dreamers are dreamers above the law? Is Hillary Clinton above the law?

You know, we had a guy who was on a sub who took a picture of something that wasn't classified of the sub for his son. He went to jail. Hillary Clinton's staff was chopping off classified document, chopping that off the top so they could they could email it and they could and they could fax it to her. No one's above the law? You have FBI agents that forged documents to give to the FISA court

to put this guy away to make sure they got Carter Page. Carter Page was innocent. Is anyone going to pay for that one? because no one is above the law. We used to be a nation of laws and not of men, and that's what set us apart. And if we don't reclaim that,

and I don't care if that means this president, the last president, the next president goes to jail, my favorite president, no one is above the law. And we must have true, impartial, and fair, trials of people. They must not be deemed guilty until they prove their innocence.