The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Pat Gray | 11/20/19

Episode Date: November 20, 2019

Today is the most important day of hearings so far! Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland testifies today, and Glenn and Stu review it in real time. Trump will be hurt today because there WAS a quid pro quo! However, it was only for a White House meeting, not for aid. This is the Schiff show! Glenn predicts Trump’s “no quid pro quo” will go down in history alongside Bill Clinton’s infamously bad “I did not have sexual relations with that woman." But it will NOT end his presidency. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, welcome to the podcast. Today is really the hearings on the hill. And we look at what Sondland said in real time. And the way the media is going to spin this, this is going to be a victory lap for them. And we explain why. Now, on cross-examination, things also came out in the president's favor. But will the media discuss that at all? All that. more on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. All right. The ambassador who is at the center of the inquiry has just taken a seat in Capitol Hill in front of the impeachment hearing and the Intel Committee.

And they're about to ask him some questions. Schiff has just sat down and he's about to open those big huge bug eyes. Can you imagine if he and Alexandria Ocasio, of Cortez ever had a child. The head would be just a giant eye.

Was it a Cyclops as one eye? Is that what I'm thinking of? Cyclops is a third eye, I think, right? Oh, Cyclops is a third eye. What's, I'm thinking of like, isn't there, there's something on the Simpsons that's just one big eye. Yeah. Yeah, whatever that thing is.

Well, it would be, we could just say the baby would look like Mike from Monsters Inc. Yes, that's, that's, that's, perfect. Mike from Monsters Inc. Exactly. That is what I'm thinking about. this is the this is a big day we've had a lot of i don't know a lot of things that you kind of would expect sandland is the witness this is the playoff game it's is it the super bowl maybe it's the super bowl it's the super bowl it's the playoffs yeah it's a high stakes game and here's the

thing sonlin is is the one of the big complaints that republicans have is you keep giving a serious say evidence no one none of these people have even talked to the president. Well, Sondland has talked to the president. All the things that have come out that have been reported as these huge bombshell negatives for the president have all been through Sondland, because Sondland was the guy that talked to the president. He's the guy who was on the phone at this restaurant and all the people around apparently overheard it. He's the guy that reportedly after the conversation said, you know, Trump doesn't care about Ukraine. All he cares about is his own personal, you know, benefit with politics. So now,

Sondland has not said he's said any of those things. He has revised his testimony a couple of times to move it more towards the evidence Democrats have presented. So he came out and said... He's looking for his survival, I think, one way or another. He's a guy who's not a political kind of guy, and he's looking for his survival. And if he was lying, he realized, oh, crap, I'm in deep trouble. Yeah, and they keep bringing up this, you know, the media keeps bringing up the same point, which is every time they bring one of these people up there, this is a public. servant. This man has been worked for

Republicans and Democrats. He's been in the State Department for 912 years. And they bring this up as a positive. Yeah. It's right. Sonlin is not that guy. Sonlin was a was not a huge Trump fan initially but came around to him in a big way and wanted of donating over

a million dollars to his inauguration campaign. Mega donor. As is the case with every administration, the mega donors wind up getting ambassadorships. And so he's the guy going to the EU. I want to take Adam Schiff because he's talking about the 2016 election in Ukraine, that it was a discredited conspiracy theory, that there was anything going on, and who the president feared the most

was Joe Biden and Sondland's about to say that that's all true. In exchange for politically motivated investigations that Trump believed would help his re-election campaign. The first investigation was of a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election. I know, Adam, they can both be responsible. The second investigation that Trump demanded was into a political rival that he apparently feared most, Joe Biden. Trump sought to weaken Biden and to refute the fact that his own election campaign in

2016 had been helped by a Russian hacking and dumping operation and Russian social media campaign directed by Vladimir Putin to help Trump. Trump's scheme undermine military and diplomatic support. It's a deal with Adam Schiff's pacing in these things. It's really deliberate, slow and weird. And then when he gets questions from other Republicans in the committee, he just stares straightforward like he's on some weird drug. Right.

You notice that? Yeah. It's really creepy. Yeah, he might be on some weird drug. Oh, okay. Yeah. A expletive about Ukraine. You're expecting someone to be able to.

Explain him. Even his mother's like, I have no idea. He's been creepy weird ever since he was sitting at the dinner table in his high chair with those creepy eyes and that big forehead. The president found himself increasingly embroiled in an effort to press the new Ukrainian president that deviated sharply from the norm in both terms of policy and process. Interesting visual for radio listeners. They're showing clips of Sondland as Schiff is reading this. Sunland does not look He looks confident He looks confident He looks like this is a joke I know exactly what happened

He looks like he's been smiling Through this with Schiff He's projecting confidence Yeah Not a I'm gonna tell it's a big secret And I'm so sorry It's not that vibe at least visually from Sondland

I want to I want to At a goal of the White House meeting for President Zelensky Which the group deemed crucial For U.S. Ukrainian relations So as a Schiff is blabbing here, could I give you a preview here of this opening statement? There's some pretty big stuff in it.

He goes through a series of about six points here at the beginning of it. We've acquired the testimony here in advance. And what's interesting here, probably the big takeaway is his fourth point here. And he's going to go through this whole thing in just a couple of minutes, but we're going to give you a preview anyway. He says, as I testified previously, this is when he changed. changed his testimony. Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the

desires of the President of the United States and we knew that these investigations were important to the President. So that is as clear a accusation. That's the only one that really has any real first-hand credibility on this. And he's saying, now again, like you can say this is why

we've made this point five thousand times, you can't set the hurdle at quid pro quo. It's a dumb place to defend because there's tons of people who were all acting like it was a quid pro quo. They all seem to have evidence and at least belief and testimony here

that it happened. Now, Sondland is as close as we've been able to see to the president that is saying, yes, what it was. Again, Sanlun is not just some guy. He's a huge supporter of the president.

So that is a big deal and it points to, if nothing else, Glenn, and see if you agree with this, that Giuliani is going to be the focus of this. These people who are in this situation who are on the borderline like Sanlin, who could get in trouble

or could be the hero witness, are going to push this not necessarily to the president at the end, but towards Giuliani. And if they can get Giuliani to take the blame for all of it. It may be a place where where the president and everybody else winds up being comfortable.

Now, whether that works or not, I don't know. It's a big question of whether the American people believe that. And I think, you know, there's some evidence to believe that Giuliani does this type of thing, you know, on his own. But he says in his testimony that we knew, we didn't think Giuliani was necessary for this process,

but we did not think he was acting in bad faith. We did not think he was trying to do something illicit. We thought it was a legitimate role. We just didn't really like that he was involved in our thing. So he says, finally, at all times I was acting in good faith as presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the president. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the president directed us to do so. We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians.

Indeed, my personal view, which I chaired repeatedly with others, was that the White House meeting and security assistant should have proceeded without preconditions of any kind. We were working to overcome the problems given the facts as they existed. Our only interest was to advance longstanding U.S. policy and support Ukraine's fragile democracy. Yeah, that's interesting. And he in the previous paragraph also talks about the quid pro quo he's mentioning, he's saying was a thing, was about the meeting. Not about the money. Correct.

When he found out about the money, the security assistance, he was very upset about that. and did not think that that should be any part of the policy whatsoever. So he is making a distinction there as like, yeah, we were doing a, yeah, you can come meet with the president, but you got to do this investigation thing. That did happen, according to Sondland. However, he's saying when he found out about the security assistance being withheld, he was very angry about it. And he said he was adamantly opposed to suspension of any aid. He tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended but never received a clear answer. What's interesting about that is it means the quid pro quo that he's talking about, according to Sondland, did not have to do with the money.

He never got an answer as to why the money was suspended. That's a big distinction here. The Democrats will certainly push on that to see if they can get something else to pop out of it. But it looks like that's the direction, the sort of the window he's trying to fit this into. So he says, with enthusiasm, we return to the law. White House May 23rd to brief the President from Ukraine. The important strategic importance of Ukraine and the value of strengthening the relationship with President Zelensky to support this reformer, we asked the White House for two things.

A working phone call between President Trump and Zelensky. And second, a working Oval Office visit. In our view, both were vital to cementing the U.S. Ukraine relationship, demonstrating support for Ukraine in the face of Russia aggression and advancing broader U.S. policy interest. Unfortunately, Trump was skeptical. He expressed concerns that the Ukrainian government was not serious about reform. He even mentioned that Ukraine tried to take him down in the last election. Our response to the persistent efforts to change his views, President Trump directed us,

Talk with Rudy. We understood Talk with Rudy meant Mr. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Let me say again, we weren't happy with the president's directive to talk with Rudy. we didn't want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believe then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the president's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukrainian matters. So do I, but unless there's something else going on. Is Schiff done with this yet?

He's still blabbing. President Zelensky did not clear things up in public. The only person is this impeachment is more about than actual President Trump is the Schiff. It's all about Schiff. The Schiff show. He loves it. show with a go-goo-goo-goly eyes. I first communicated with Mr. Giuliani in early August. He emphasized that the president wanted a public statement from Zelensky.

Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election, Burisma, and two things that were important to the president. We kept the leadership of the State Department, NSE, informed about our activities. We included communication with the director of Secretary of State Pompeo, his counselor, his executive secretary all within the State Department communications with Ambassador John Bolton, Fiona Hill, blah, blah, blah. They all knew what we were doing and why. Well, that doesn't, does that look good for them?

Because they all kind of said they didn't know what was going on. I mean, it is, you can tell there is seemingly animosity between Sondland, again, who's not a State Department guy, although he was, he does believe in the State Department and had a big role there between him and Giuliani. I mean, they are throwing a lot of this on Giuliani. And, you know, while they're saying, like, there's a big, you know, segment kind of that you mentioned there where he is saying, look, we didn't want to do this. We didn't want Giuliani involved.

The president, though, was skeptical of the State Department, and so we went along with it. But we did not want Giuliani involved in this. Now, look, it's the president's decision whether Giuliani's, I mean, the president's a guy paying him, right? It's his personal lawyer. So he gets to make those decisions and Sondland respects them here, but is pointing out over and over again that he did not like the idea, the road that went down. So it really looks in this testimony so far that you haven't heard yet, but we're reading ahead on his opening statement. His opening statement, at least as far as we have read, I'm halfway through the 24-page document and reading it as we are telling you about it. He is, he looks like he's going after Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani is, looks like he's going to be the fall guy. Can we take Nunez and his opening statement? He's coming up in just a second. Some things happened yesterday that we'll get into as well that did not go well for the Democrats. and, you know, well, let's just see. This is a really important, important day for the impeachment hearing. Adam Schiff. With that, I recognize ranking member Nunes for any remarks that he would wish to make.

Thank the gentleman. As we learned last night, story time last night. We get story time first thing this morning. Ambassador Sondland, welcome. Glad you're here. I'm really not glad you're here, but welcome to the fifth day of this circus. As I've noticed, notice, noted for the Democrats on this committee spent three years accusing President Trump of being a Russian agent. In March 2018, after a year-long investigation, Intelligence Committee Republicans issued a 240-page report describing in detail how the Russians meddled in the 2016 elections and making sense. specific recommendations to improve our election security. Denouncing the report as a whitewash

and accusing Republicans of subverting the investigation, the Democrats issued their own report, focusing on their now debunked conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to hack the elections. Notably, the Democrats vowed at the time to present a further, quote, comprehensive report, unquote, after they finished their investigation into Trump's treasonous collusion with Russia. For some completely inexplicable reason, after the implosion of their Russia hoax, the Democrats failed to issue that comprehensive report. We're still waiting. This episode shows how the Democrats have exploited the Intelligence Committee for political purposes for three years, culminating in these impeachment hearings, and the

their mania to attack the president. No conspiracy theory is too outlandish for the Democrats. Time and time again, they floated the possibility of some far-fetched malfeasance by Trump declared the dire need to investigate it and then suddenly dropped the issue and moved on to their next assonine theory. A sampling of their accusations and insinuations includes these. Trump is a long-time Russian agent as described in the still dossier. The Russians gave Trump advance access to emails stolen by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Trump campaign based some of his activities on these stolen documents. Trump received nefarious materials from the Russians through a Trump campaign aide.

Trump laundered Russian money through real estate deals. Trump was blackmailed by Russia through his financial exposure with Deutsche bank. Trump had a diabolical plan to build a Trump tower in Moscow. Trump changed the Republican National Committee platform to hurt Ukraine and benefit Russia. The Russians laundered money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Trump's son-in-law lied about his Russian contacts while obtaining his security clearance. It's a long list of charges. All false. The best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program. If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts. So I want to take you back to the hearings. Sondland, Ambassador Sondland, is still reading his opening statement. If you just joined us, you missed a couple of things. Let me just read probably the most critical thing in the last 20 minutes. Also, July 26, shortly after our key of meetings, I spoke by phone with President Trump, the White House, which had finally shared certain call dates and times with my attorneys will confirm this. The call lasted five minutes. I remember I was at a restaurant in Kiev,

and I had no reason to doubt that this conversation included the subject of investigations. Again, given Mr. Giuliani's demand that President Zelensky make a public statement about investigations, I knew the topic of investigations was important to the president. We did not discuss any classified information. Other witnesses recently shared their recollections of overhearing this call, but for the most part, I have no reason to doubt their accounts. It is true that the president speaks loudly at times. It's also true that we discussed ASAP Rocky. It's true that the president likes colorful language. While I can't remember the precise details, again, the White House has not allowed me to see any of the readouts of that call. The July 26th call did not strike

me as significant at the time. Actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations, particularly what we were hearing from Mr. Giuliani about the president's concerns. However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice President Biden or his son on the call or after the call ended. I know that members of this committee have frequently framed those complicated issues in the form of a simple question. Was there quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. There was. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others, the president wanted a public statement from President Zelensky, committing to investigations of Burisma in the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians.

Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood the prerequisites for a White House call and a White House meeting. It reflected President Trump's desires and requirements. they talk about, you know, it was no secret. In fact, let me quote, it was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to, quote, run a fully transparent investigation, end quote, and quote, turn over every stone, end quote, were necessary. in his call with the president. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to ask for if you want a meeting.

The rest of it seems to be, this is what I heard or what I later came to believe, but no evidence. But make no mistake, this is going to hurt the president's case because he has made his case, which it is not. But he has decided to make the case all about quid pro quo.

This is the only guy with first, knowledge that can say there was quid pro quo, but he didn't say it was happening from the president. He said it was happening through Rudy Giuliani. That only Rudy Giuliani said quid pro quo. You have to do this or he's not going to get that meeting. But he is saying that did come directly from the president to Giuliani. But he does not have firsthand knowledge, but that would, you know, that would be a good assumption. Sure. I think it's important to kind of talk about what we're doing here today, which is, I think you can go probably all over talk radio today and get people telling you that, you know,

oh, these guys are all, it's all a sham and it's a hoax and there's nothing going on here. And you can certainly go on every media source today and they're going to say this is the worst thing in the world. What I feel like it's important for us to do today is to look at this and see, how is the media going to take this? How are they going to push this to the American people? What the truth is and what is still speculation? And what is the approach that Democrats are trying to take here? Right. They are playing by the presidents.

They're letting him hang himself on the quid pro quo. When I say this is bad for the president, I mean it's bad for the president because he has insisted on making it only about that. It's not about that. It's about the national interest on what happened in the 2016 election and deep corruption in our state department and former administration. That's what this is really all about. but he has insisted on making this about quid pro quo.

And so, because everybody knows that, what's going to happen is the media is just going to pound Sondland's thing into the ground saying, yes, those who question if there was a quid pro quo, I can tell you, yes. This does, I think, potentially provide an off-reb for Trump on that defense, which is to say, wait a minute, we're talking about the meeting. meetings we use for all sorts of things. You were talking about security. You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

I didn't withhold that. I didn't withhold their safety for any of these things. Right. I withheld a meeting, as Sondland said. And it does give him an off-ramp from that argument, potentially. If he decides to take it. He's had plenty of them. He's had off-ramp after off-ramp after off-ramp.

The biggest one being Mick Mulvaney, who came out and took all the arrows for saying, look, it's not about quid pro quo. stuff happens all the time. And we haven't, I mean, Mick's been invisible since. Apparently did not go over well in the White House and was not received well by the media. But he was being honest, which is like this stuff happens all the time. Of course, when you're giving a country $391 million, there are some strings attached to that.

Yeah, it's true. And there's real nuance in Ambassador Sondland's testimony. He talks about how the president didn't believe anybody. in Ukraine. He thought they were all corrupt. He didn't want anything to do with it. So there again is a reason in national interests to withhold the money. And that backed up Trump's sort of telling him this, which is it was for the national interest and not for personal, private, political benefits. So we're talking about a couple of things. We're talking about how the media is going to run with it, and you know that, how the legal case should be run here by the,

the Republicans, but I don't know what the Republicans are doing. And what this means for the deep state. Now, yesterday we had some pretty incredible things happen yesterday with the witnesses that were there. Vindman is a guy who was pursued by Ambassador Sondland. and Rudy Giuliani. He was a guy who said there was no national interest in this. If Ukraine was engaging in U.S. election interference, colluding with Obama, and Bidens were using the power of the government to make millions of dollars with a known corrupt oligarch.

He didn't hear about it, and it wasn't in the national interest. Well, that doesn't make any sense at all. He didn't. It showed that the three amigos were Sonlin, the guy who's testifying now, Vindman, who testified yesterday, and the whistleblower. Vinman was on the phone call, and we found out yesterday that when he finished the phone call, he immediately ran out and talked to the whistleblower. and I believe Sondland, right? And

I think it's Sondland. And they started to war game this out. Now, it wasn't Sondland. Who was the other guy? It was the other guy with a bowtie guy, wasn't it? Taylor?

Taylor was the first day. Kent. It was Kent. It was Kent. So Kent is the three amigo. It was Kent, the whistleblower, and Vindman. Now, yes,

yesterday, we looked, you know, at Vindman, they kept asking him, did you know about all of these things? Did you know about corruption in Burisma? Did you know that was happening? Did you know that there was speculation that his son was corrupt? Did you know anything about the DNC working with the embassy? Did you know anything? And gave this whole list, the answer, the answer was, was no on absolutely everything, absolutely everything. So he looks as if he is, I mean, he's supposed to be a Ukrainian expert. This is his beat. The name Chalupa had been floating around. Soros's involvement in Ukraine had been known since early 2015. Hunter Biden's involvement with Bereza had been a topic of concern in the State Department for a while, as testified

by George Kent last week. So was this guy last? or was he just incompetent? We'll tell you more about this coming up in just a second because we have an expose on this. It's really important tonight at 5 o'clock. We'll tell you about it here in a second, but looks like Adam Schiff is now ready to ask some questions of Sondland. And over this continuum,

it became more and more difficult to secure the White House meeting because more conditions were being placed on the White House meeting. meeting. And then, of course, on July 25th, although you were not privy to the call, another condition was added that being the investigation of the Bidens. I was not privy to the call, and I did not know that the condition of investigating the Bidens was a condition, correct. You saw that in the call record, correct? It was not in any record I received. But when you didn't. Yes, I saw that in September, Correct. So on this continuum, the beginning of the continuum begins on May 23rd when the President

instructs you to talk to Rudy? Correct. And you understood that as a direction by the President that you needed to satisfy the concerns that Rudy Giuliani would express to you about what the President wanted in Ukraine? Not to meet the entire group, Volker, Perry, and myself, correct. Now in your opening statement, you confirm that there was a quid pro quo between the White House meeting. and the investigations into Burisma in the 2016 election that Giuliani was publicly promoting.

Is that right? Correct. And in fact, you say that other senior officials in the State Department and the Chiefs of Staff's Office, including Mick Mulvaney, Secretary Pompeo, were aware of this quid pro quo that in order to get the White House meeting

that were going to have to be these investigations the President wanted. Correct. And those, again, are investigations into 2016 and Burrism. slash the Bidens. 2016 Barisma. The Bidens did not come up.

But you would ultimately learn that Burisma meant the Bidens when you saw the call record. Of course. Today I know exactly what it means. I didn't know at the time. Credible, Stu? And then on July 26, you confirm he's not all pro-Democrats. We've pointed this out multiple times now, but a lot of his testimony is actually helping

the president here in some ways. in some ways and hurting him and others. If he chooses to let them help. Recounting that I take exception with is I do not recall mentioning the Bidens that did not enter my mind. It was Burisma in 2016 elections. You have no reason to believe that Mr. Holmes would make that up if that's what he recalls you saying. You have no reason to question that, do you? I don't recall saying Biden.

I never recall saying Biden. But the rest of Mr. Holmes recollection, is consistent with your own. Well, I can't testify as to what Mr. Holmes might or might not have heard through the phone. I don't know how he heard the conversation. Are you familiar with this testimony? Vaguely, yes.

And the only exception you take is to the mention of the name Biden? Correct. That could be significant. They're going to use that. I'm not only is it correct that the president brought up with you investigations on the phone the day after the July 25th call, but you would have been surprised had he not brought that up, is that right?

Right, because we had been hearing about it from Rudy, and we presumed Rudy was getting it from the president. One of the big things you're seeing here from Sondland, and in his testimony, he said the conversation after the phone conversation at the restaurant, where he said, you know, he doesn't care about Ukraine, is not included in his opening statement. And you see the tricky shift tactic there,

which is to say, do you know that, are you familiar with his testimony? He says vaguely, he says, well, so the only thing that you disagree with is you didn't say Biden. And he says, yeah, Well, wait a minute, there's a whole other part of the call you haven't discussed at all. And now they're going to say he agreed with that part of the testimony as if he knew what he was talking about. Back in just a second, one minute.

Keep the testimony running in case something happens. Do you remember the good old days when the Internet was safe and fun? Nobody tried to hack and steal things from you? Yeah, no, it never happened. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn. And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed. This podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Hi, it's Glenn. If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes? If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time. You can subscribe on iTunes. Thanks. So Pat Bray is joining us. By the way, happy birthday, Pat. No, thank you.

I'd get you a gift, but you have the pants. Didn't I give those back on your birthday? Nope. Wow, that was inconsiderate of me. It is. We've been giving the same. gift to each other since what 1989 I think

and it's a pair of lovely golf pants that I bought Pat originally in 1989. They're pink paisley golf pants from Ralph Lauren. Very nice. And very colorful. Yeah. So I gave them to him. I actually believe

they're Dulce and Gabana because really? Yeah. That's an expensive joke. Yeah, but it is but they're extremely weird and that fits Dulce and Gabana perfectly. No, I'm telling you, it's... Are you sure? Yes, I'm positive.

I know at one point, some of the pants we were giving back and forth were Dulce and Gabana. I think I gave you a shirt to go with the pants, and then you kept the shirt. But anyway, so we've been given the same gift back and forth to each other since 1989 and or 1990, and I didn't get my... I really thought I gave that back to you. Nope. I had to repurpose it again this year.

What? I'll have to get you another pair this year. I'm skipping your birthday. Anyway, so Pat, you've been watching the impeachment. What is your thought today? Kind of like yours. It seems like a bad day for the president. And I don't, I just don't understand why they've gone this direction the whole time.

You mean Trump? Yes, why Trump has insisted it's not quid pro quo. Who cares of it? Quid pro quo. Tell them it's in the national interest. Because it was. Because it was. And that's what.

See, what Schiff has done today is he's moved it two steps. He's made two moves. He's got somebody now saying, yep, definitely. I talked to the president. I got it from Rudy Giuliani. It was quid pro quo. If this didn't happen, he would not have a meeting with Zelensky. Now, he later tied that to the aid, but that is hearsay,

because that was something that the ambassador said, I just assumed that that's what it was. Okay. So there is no evidence that it was tied to the aid. But you could make that assumption as Ambassador Sondland did. So what he did was he gave them the quid pro quo today. At least with the meeting. With the meeting.

But did you see what he had the ambassador testify to towards the end? The Democratic attorney said or Schiff said, So this was a working meeting, though, right? This was an official working meeting. Oh, yeah. And he said, yes, it was. And so you were planning on doing work and trying to really work. Yes.

So this was an official presidential duty. So he moved this piece two spots down the board. And the president shouldn't have ever let them have that. No. And he only allowed them to have that because he kept insisting and probably still will. There was no quid pro quo. There was an off ramp, however. The off ramp was, I think, the first part of that. Oh, well, if that's what you meant by quid pro quo, a meeting, I thought you were talking about the money. But the meeting, yeah, quid pro quo.

Right. But you better have a legitimate reason why that money was held up. Right. It's going to be hard for him to say, sure, yeah, that was a quid pro quo. The point, here is that what do we argument about at this at this at this at this juncture right a meeting like like i i mean i that is like what what age are we i think that's the out if it's if it's all about the meeting i don't care if that's a working meeting or not you can't impeach him over a meeting can i mean it's silly it's ridiculous i it's just it's it's so but he's not but there's not that's not the way it's going to be spun remember impeachment is not a legal proceeding it is a political proceeding, so you have to

convince the American people. Donald Trump has given him the ammunition. He's armed the media with the ammunition. Clear cut. Yes, it was quid pro quo. They're not going to take it any further. They won't care about the meeting. And even if he didn't

say that, they would lie about it, but they have him on tape saying it multiple times with all the flavor that they want. And it is a logical leap from the meeting to then what happened to the aid? Why was the aid held up? And it was a logical leap from Sondland.

Yes, which is what he's saying. I was like, yeah, well, obviously this is part of it. Right. And so the American people will take that leap. And that shuts down everything else, everything else of what this is about. 2016, what's the State Department's role in these riots all around the world, including Ukraine? What was happening with civil society 2.0? what was happening with the 2016 election, what happened to the $7 billion.

All of that is gone. It's honestly like somebody burned down a house and we're listening to two attorneys argue with the guy who left the paint thinner open and then was smoking around it. And all they're doing is asking the painter, yes, but was the living room? eggshell or white. That has nothing to do with anything. That has nothing to do with this. But that's the president's fault. And it's strange that they haven't seen that along the way.

How is it possible? I think everybody did. He with all his advisors didn't say, look, this is the wrong tack. We've got to go to U.S. interest. I don't understand. Inside sources have told me that they have, have been saying that. To the president? Yes. And he won't go with it. No. He never wants to give

up ground. Strange. And I do think after this, he will come out again and say there was no quid pro. I agree. Because he'll say it wasn't in the call. He will. And we still at this point don't have a transcript of Trump saying it. Right. What we have is a very close aid, a million, you know, seven figure donor to the president who said that it, that it was said. And he came directly from Giuliani. And he's credible in a way that like his presentation. As you watch it, he seems credible. He's credible for the media and the American people to consume it and deem he's credible. The clips will play.

He could be the biggest liar in the world, but he will not be spun that way. And his clips don't look like Vinman looked a little, I don't know, squirly. Yeah, he didn't look shady. He just looks squirly. You watch him and you're like, I don't know. Vinman did not have any of that approach to him at all. And to be clear, he said some things that have been. beneficial, I think, to the president. And this line is carved out pretty well in that we, he basically put,

Sondland put all the blame to Giuliani largely and said, Giuliani was doing these things, but they were at the president's request, but Giuliani was the problem. Giuliani is the one who was saying, you know, explicit quid pro quo. Giuliani, Giuliani, Giuliani. Now, he's not saying that he doesn't believe Giuliani, that Giuliani didn't really get the word from the president. He's not saying that. But the president may very well say that. He may say, I don't know what Rudy was doing. You know, yeah, maybe Rudy was telling people that.

I wasn't telling people that. He could throw him under the bus. And we 100% at this point know that there was a quid pro quo for these things, at least according to the Ukrainians, who definitely felt that outwardly from Sondland. Have you noticed that until today, when Sondland kept saying it, they've dropped the quid pro quo thing and went to bribery? Yeah. And I think that's because, you know,

American people don't necessarily know what quid pro quo. They're not up on their Latin as much as maybe we should be. They did a focus group last week or the week before. And they said, you know, what does it mean? And nobody knew what it meant and nobody cared what it meant. But when they said, how about the word bribery? They all went, oh, that's really bad. Right.

And that's why they changed it. It was all changed again for a focus group. And I think it was changed for El Sharpton, too, because. The president has been proven to have a cued pro quo. He did not say that, too. A quid skin row quo. The president has been doing bribears. Too many briberries.

So I think in part this is for Al Sharpton Sunday. That could be for his broadcast. Yeah. So he doesn't have to. deal with that stuff. I will say it's also in the Constitution, right? Outwardly, the word is in the Constitution as opposed to quid pro quo. Well, they tested high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery.

Yeah. Quid quid pro quo. And there's no chance that Al Sharpton could ever pronounce that. No chance at all. No. So, well, I can. Can you do high crimes and misdemeanors? Is that?

I don't know. I don't even know if he could get to that. I'm not positive on that. It's probably pretty difficult. And I will tell you. Hot crimes and Mrs. was meaner. What? Wait, what? Maybe Mrs. Weiner.

They know Mrs. Weiner. What's her name? Anthony Weiner's. Let me just leave you with this idea. I want to play the audio from Good Morning America. Now listen to this audio, what they say. Well, our poll also shows that 21% of Americans have made up their minds after the first week of testimony. That suggests that they were already locked in or that really the testimony they've heard is enough.

But that's a big percentage who still have to make up their minds. And 70% saying the president did something wrong. The president keeps saying the call was perfect. He did nothing wrong. Our poll suggests that may go down in history along with, I did not have sex with that woman as a very ineffective presidential defense. Okay. So I believe that to be accurate.

Really? You think only 20% of people have made their mind up on this? I think it's even close to that. No, no, no, no. What I'm saying is the statement, I didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. You're saying you believe that you never had sex with her. Well, I'm pretty sure. Okay.

Pretty sure. Okay. So. Never be 100%. Right. These things have. I think that it is, I think that this, there was no quid pro quo is going to go down in the same way as a bad presidential defense. and we'll all remember no quid pro quo

and it will become a joke but it will not harm the president it won't bring him down it will not bring him down that that's what I predict from this that ABC is right but what I think they're thinking is and that brought the impeachment

no look to the end of that nobody cared nobody cared yeah and the funny thing too is we're talking about him changing the quid pro quo argument, but he hasn't even changed the perfect call argument. He's still on that the call is perfect. I don't think that's going to be his pattern here. All right.

Happy birthday, Pat. Thank you. Thank you. 38. 38. Wow. You're thinking of that. It's really strange.

Yeah. I've got children who are 38. Right. Science doesn't know how it happened. That is weird. Well, men can have periods. That's right. You know, 38-year-old.

And babies can have babies. Babies can have adults or teenagers. The Blaze Radio Network On Demand