The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Senator Ted Cruz | 12/10/19

Episode Date: December 10, 2019

Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff have done it! Two articles of impeachment against Trump have been announced, but Sen. Ted Cruz believes this in itself is an abuse of power. The senator calls in to argue what Democrats refuse to acknowledge: Russia AND Ukraine could have interfered in the 2016 election! Glenn runs through the three jobs the government is putting aside for impeachment. While it seems that no one trusts anyone any more, BlazeTV’s Mark Levin recently reminded us why the Republicans are sticking together on impeachment: The whole process is unprecedented! Glenn stresses that the GOP must continue walking in lockstep. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, hello, podcasters. Today was kind of a busy, busy newsday. The impeachment articles were filed right at the top of the podcast. And I love them. I love them. And we'll explain why. Ted Cruz was also with us. Mark Levine, we talked a little bit about that.

We went through the IG report and the inaccuracies. They're not inaccuracies. They're lies. And we expose all of it on today's podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Senator from the great state of Texas, Senator Ted Cruz. How are you, Ted? Glad my friend, always great to be with you.

Thank you. First, your comments on the articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Well, you know, it reminds me a little bit of Sherlock Holmes' famous dog that didn't bark. Which is, I think these articles of impeachment represent an admission of failure on the part of the Democrats. I think so, too. Just two, three weeks ago, you may remember that every Democrat in Washington were using the word bribery. They were saying bribery over it over and over again.

The reason for that, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had focused-grouped. They'd done focus-grouped and polled it, and they'd discovered that bribery was really bad. and when they said understandably badly and said, oh, I don't like that. And so in a 24-hour period, just about every Democrat in the House began saying bribery, bribery, bribery. Here's the problem. They don't have evidence of bribery. They don't have evidence of criminal conduct. And as the hearings went on, they brought in one witness after another after another,

and they couldn't in significant part because the president released the transcript of the phone call on the face of it, and there's nothing illegal. A really revealing moment of a 55-page memorandum in which they... They called it a scholarly memorandum in which they argued that for impeachment, you don't have to prove that you could just, which is what they just did, when. Yes. They're revealing that they haven't been able to prove any exercise, and it's been nothing but a partisan show trial for months. But the good news is, once the House is done with it, the Senate's going to take it up, and this is going to be thrown out. This is going nowhere, and every Democrat who is voting to impeach, no.

that this has zero percent chance of succeeding in the Senate. So here's the thing that I want to talk to you about because you did a great job on Meet the press, and they just would not let you speak, and they mocked you for it. And this is what I hope we do find out in the Senate. I know Grassley, Johnson, and Graham are starting to put together witness lists that they want to dig into the Ukrainian scandal. and the first person they want to bring on is Chalupa, the DNC operative. The other one is Andrei Tlashenko, who have had on this program before, who tells a very different story.

Can you explain why the media should not be laughing at the claim that the Democrats were using Ukraine to interfere in this election? Why the media shouldn't be laughing is that it's a fact that they're supposed to be journalists. But they're not journalists anymore. Most of the media, they are propagandists. They don't pretend to be fair and objective. And the reason they're laughing, the reason they're mocking and attacking any claim about Ukraine is they're terrified. You know, on Sunday when I did meet the press, I've done meet the press a lot of times. Chuck Todd knows how to be a real journalist.

He's capable of asking questions that are really. questions. I've never seen Chuck Todd panic as much as he did on Sunday. And all of the media is panicking because they see the Democrats' case collapsing. That's from a ship. So here's the game the media has played. For the past several weeks, they try to pose to anyone in Republican politicians or anyone else. Are you saying that Ukraine and not rushing, they try to pose it as a binary test so that anyone who says, well, yes, aha, you're a fool, you're denying the Russian interference. Well, look, that's utter nonsense. Let me say unequivocally, yes, Russia interfered in our 2016 election.

Russia is not our friend. Vladimir Putin is a KGB thug, which, by the way, the Democrats in the media were apologists for during the entire Obama administration. They've suddenly discovered Russia are bad guys. I'm glad they did so after about 70 years of kissing up to the Soviet Union and Russia. But the fact that Russia interfered in our election does not mean that nobody else on earth did also. We know for a fact a number of other countries have actively interfered in our elections, including China, including North Korea, and including Ukraine. All of 2016, the sitting ambassador from Ukraine, authored an op-ed, published in the Hill, blasting Donald Trump.

The Ukrainian embassy pushed that out on their official website. That is very, very unusual for a sitting ambassador to try to inject themselves into the middle of an American presidential campaign. Not only that, publicly the sitting interior minister of the Ukrainian government was blasting Donald Trump. The former prime minister of Ukraine was blasting Donald Trump. Two parliamentarians at Ukraine held a press conference where they accused their government of illegally trying to influence the U.S. election to help elect Hillary Clinton. Those are all facts. And as you note, a Democratic operative who worked for the DNC was meeting repeatedly with the Ukrainians, and it is at least alleged was coordinating closely with Democrats and Hillary Clinton to attack Donald Trump.

This week, the House has finished their show trials and now moved into the Articles of Impeachment, and it's on its way to the Senate where it's going to be taken upon. heart. Rumor has it that Trump wants to do this before Christmas or during Christmas, I think he should demand prime time. I think he should be in the balcony someplace and he should let everybody know, I just might blurt some things out. Everyone should watch this. If the Republicans do their job and you actually have a fair trial, I think it changes the whole world. But did you know you're probably, if you've been making phone calls on Verizon or AT&T or any of these groups, you may have helped finance some of this stuff.

You're helping finance abortion, open borders, gun confiscation, and impeachment. Because companies like Verizon donate millions to left-wing causes. Patriot Mobile is the only cell phone service in America that donates a portion of the monthly bill to conservative organizations fighting for the values you believe in. Now, you would think, well, you know what, I'll go ahead and just make my own donations. No, it's great to have a company

where they can make millions of dollars and donate it, and here's the key. You will pay less than what you're paying now. In some cases, far, far less. The choice is really clear. Switching to Patriot Mobile, it is easy. Keep your number, get reliable, nationwide service, no hidden fees.

at patreonmobile.com slash Beck. Use the promo code Z-Free or call 877-36775-24. It's Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. promo code Z3. You also have a court case in Ukraine, the guy who is the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which was partly funded by George Soros, and put together by our own administration. Clinton, Barack Obama, and running through our Justice Department, you have the head guy of that

on tape saying that, yeah, I was, you know, working to help Hillary Clinton win the election. He and another guy were both nailed and found guilty of interfering with the U.S. election. They say that this was overturned. It wasn't overturned. They just couldn't give them a sentence because in Ukraine, you can't go after a sitting parliamentarian. And so they both walked away, but it was not overturned. And we have it on tape. Yep.

And you know what, Glenn, the media knows all of this. I mean, it was in January 2017, Politico wrote a long expose about Ukraine interfering in the election. the reporters now a reporter at the New York Times. CBS wrote about it, the economists wrote about it, the Financial Times wrote about it. All of the media know this, and back when they were just trying to report news, of course they'd report it. Today, the reason they get so hysterical when you say it is because the Democrats' impeachment case is collapsing. And number one, Ukraine was interfering trying to benefit Hillary Clinton, and all of the mainstream media wanted Hillary Clinton to win. and so they agree with that interference that's interference on their side they're

okay with that but but number two they are desperately trying to preserve the narrative i have to say it has been hysterical to see the media screaming so if you acknowledge the facts and what you know i just said there are simple facts they scream that you're a russian asset uh... it's it that that was a that was a quote from the washington post on sunday where they called me a russian asset john harwood the reporter at CNBC, who even among mainstream media reporters, is remarkably partisan.

He was so bad he got NBC fired from hosting Republican debates in 2016 because bias come out. He sent out on Twitter and said, well, now Cruz is just about peace for Russian propaganda. Oh, that's ridiculous. This is ridiculous. I've been proudly against Russia, and I know you have been, at least in my case, since 1964. So please, stop with this nonsense. Let me ask you this. Well, a foot-wide painting of Ronald Reagan standing before the Brandenburg Gate and uttering the most important words of this last century, Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. I mean, go back to the Obama-Mit Romney debate. I know, I know. Where Romney was rightly pointing out the dangers of Putin and Russia, and Obama looked at him and said,

Mitt, the 1980s call, they want their foreign policy back. The Dems are apologists for Russia, but they've taken it on as convenient. And listen, the fact that they get so hysterical is deep revealing. It shows how scared they are. They don't have any evidence. And what they're going to do next week, which is vote to impeach, they decided they wanted to do in November of 2016. So it's unrelated to any facts. It's not related to evidence.

So, Ted, I've got less than a minute here with you, and I just want to ask you, because you started the conversation off with, we're going to throw this out in the Senate. Please tell me that you are going to hold an impeachment trial and expose all of this stuff in the Senate, won't you? We will have a trial in the Senate. Unlike the House where there was no due process and no fairness, I believe the Senate will be much more fair. We'll allow both sides to present the case. So the House managers present their arguments, but we'll be. we're going to allow the White House and the President to present their defense. I believe that means if the President wants to call witnesses,

the President should be able to call witnesses. If the President wants to call Hunter Biden or the whistleblower, whomever the President wants to call, we should allow both sides to present their case. And then on the facts, this is going to be thrown out because the Democrats have not, they're abusing the Constitution. Not only they're not proven an impeachable offense, they know it, and they're just abusing the Constitution for partisan ends.

to talk to you, Ted. Thank you so much. Senator Ted Cruz, you can follow them at cruise.com. Thank you for clearing that last one out. I was afraid they were going to throw it out. I'm glad to hear that Ted is saying they're going to have a trial, and they should call the whistleblower and Chalupa, and everyone else involved, because I think it destroys the DNC. The best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn.

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. All right, the articles of impeachment have been filed, and here they are. Abuse of Power. The president using the powers of his office for personal gain, ignoring the national interest, which is based on your opinion. if you believe the president didn't want to know anything except Joe Biden,

didn't care about where $8 billion went, didn't care about the obstruction or the throwing of the election in 2016 and the actual collusion with the Democratic Party, if you think that was all personal, if you think that he was only going after Joe Biden because he was a candidate, and it had nothing to do with making sure that the vice president wasn't enriching his family at our expense.

Go ahead, try to prove that. I don't know how you're going to, but try to prove that. Pat Gray joins us along with Stu Bergier, our executive producer. The second one is obstruction of Congress, not obstruction of justice, but obstruction of Congress. This one is truly laughable because the president, can obstruct Congress. They're an equal branch, an equal and separate branch. So the Congress cannot tell the president what to do, and the president cannot tell Congress what to do. They can try, and they've tried over and over again for the last 200-plus years. But the Supreme Court has

decided over and over and over again. It is absolutely the president's right to not allow people to testify or turnover records. David French heard about this, and he's exactly what you outlined. Both parties have asserted this immunity for generations. Listen to this. For nearly half century, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, has consistently opined that, quote, the president and his immediate advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee on matters related to their official duties. OLC has reaffirmed this position more than a dozen times over the course of the last nine

administrations of both political parties. William Rehnquist, when he was assistant attorney general, did this in 1971. He said, the president and his immediate advisors, that is those who customarily meet with the president on a regular or frequent basis, should be deemed absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee. They not only may not be examined with respect to their official duties, but they may not even be compelled to appear before a congressional committee. This opinion was reaffirmed by the Clinton administration in 1996 and by the Obama administration in 2014. As the Obama DOJ explained, this asserted immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and in the immunity of the president himself from congressional compulsion to testify. Since the president is the head of one of the independent branches of the federal government, if Congress could force the president or one of his immediate advisors to testify, then the president's independence and autonomy from Congress would be threatened.

And that is open and shut a case as you can possibly imagine. There is no grounds to impeach the president on obstruction of Congress. It's their job to do an investigation if they want to do one, but they can't force people associated closely with the president to come and testify. That's just not how it works. If you want to do that, you can go to the Supreme Court and you can have them rule on it and individual cases. Is this outside of their everyday duties? There are some ways you can get around those things. court has to rule on them. Several of these witnesses that have been called have asked the court

to rule on it. And the Democratic Congress said, no, that's going to take too much time. We've got to get a Christmas break or whatever their argument is. It is an open and shut case on that one. It's an embarrassment, and it shows how weak their hand is that they would even try that as one of these articles of impeachment. So I talked to Ted Cruz. You can hear him on the podcast later today, but I talked to Ted Cruz about an hour ago, and he said, we are absolutely going to take this up and we have questions now um there are three senators that are starting to put together uh the uh a probe uh and a witness list and the first two on their witness list uh chalupa the woman who was at really i think the head of the dnc um collusion with the ukrainians and andre tleshenko who worked

first for the prosecutor's office, then was transferred and worked for the embassy here in the United States for the Ukrainians and has details. We've talked to him on the program. He has details and names and times and places of

what Democrats were there and what they were doing with Chalupa and what was happening on this collusion to throw our 2016 election and throw Donald Trump under the bus. Now, if the Democrat get their way, and the Republicans do not truly open up everything.

And they don't investigate the whistleblower, the collusion with the Democrats. If we don't uncover all of this and come with an answer, a satisfying answer, the republic is deeply, deeply hurt. Now, I want to, you know, they like to talk about the Constitution, and they're and their constitutional duty here in Congress right now. But what does the Constitution say that there are three jobs, in the preamble, what are the three jobs, Pat, of the government? Common defense.

Provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare. And? And you're, no, no, no. fixing up the Declaration with the preamble and Provide for the common defense

promote the general welfare and geez now I forgot it and promote domestic tranquility Okay Providing for the common defense So hard to remember

Tranquility because we haven't seen it in so long time Are they providing for the common defense? Yeah Yeah I mean I think I think some of the things like Civil Society 2.0 and the State Department is hurting that, but they are providing for common defense. Okay.

We have the Air Force and the Navy and everything else. Are they promoting the general welfare? No. I don't think so either. Look at what the headlines are in the UK. Nationalized health care is falling apart. The big story is the kid that was sleeping on a pillow out in a hallway because there was no, there were no beds in the hospital for him.

It's completely falling apart over there. So, you know, promoting the general welfare, no. And promoting domestic tranquility. We all know that's the exact opposite. The exact opposite. I'm going to put everybody in that boat. I'll put everybody in that boat, knowing that some are not, shouldn't be in that boat. But let's all look at our own parties and say, are you promoting domestic tranquility?

Now, how do you do that? You do that by pretty much doing the opposite of what everything in Washington is happening right now and in the media. And that is, look for truth. Domestic tranquility is all screwed up when you don't know what the truth is anymore. When there is no absolute truth, when there is no arbiter of truth and justice and fairness, when it is all in question, there is no domestic tranquility. Now, I want to take you not just to what has happened, and these two unbelievable charges that anybody in the media who is telling you,

well, this is a pretty serious charges, they're lying to you. They are absolutely lying to you. They are disappointed to the core because there's nothing to these charges. Now, let's go over the IG report that also came out yesterday. So the IG report came out and said that the Russia investigation began as justified and unbiased. But then something happened along the way. Steel, the DNC, FISA, the FBI all went off the rails. And they put this 500-page report out.

And they are, they said that there are 17 inaccuracies or errors that were made. And when you hear some of these errors or inaccuracy, remember, we're talking about going to a FISA court. This is a secret court. This is so anti-constitutional. It's sickening. But this is a secret court. And the FBI went, this should have the highest. highest standard for any kind of warrant.

So they go to this secret court, and they go and they say, we have to know this stuff because this presidential candidate looks like he's doing some really bad things. Okay, but let's remember we're dealing with the possible president of the United States. We're asking the courts and the FBI to get involved. in an election. I am totally fine with somebody getting involved, the FBI, and vetting. If Donald Trump would have been in bed with Russia, it would have been really bad, and he should have been impeached if that were the case. And I like the fact that the FBI will look into

these people. However, their omissions or their inaccuracies all amount to the FBI. FBI lying to the court. And some of them are really, really bad. For instance, they admitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Carter Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for another agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information. information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlap with the facts asserted in the FISA application. So in other words, the FBI came to the court and said, hey, we got this guy, he's talking

to Russian agents, and he's working for Donald Trump. And we just, we just really need to wiretap. Okay, well, is the guy, are you sure the guy's not working for us or any other agency? No, not working for any other agency. well that's not true are you sure he hasn't said anything about working with these people for us has he ever reported any of that no he hasn't done that

well they knew that he did now is that just an inaccuracy or is that a lie well one of those you can say is an inaccuracy but wait until you hear the 16 others in the one conversation with the courts.

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. His 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 the impeachment articles have been filed today, abuse of power, because the president went for personal gain against the national interests. No way you can prove that. No way you can prove that. In fact, I think you make a strong case that all of it was for the national interest. And I'll get into that a little bit tomorrow. The second is obstruction of Congress.

Notice they don't say obstruction of justice. They say obstruction of Congress. because he didn't let people testify. Well, neither did Congress. But the reason why he held them back is because the president has a right to. In fact, many of the witnesses said, look, I have one branch of government tell me to testify, another branch of government to tell me not to. If Congress wants me to testify, they got to bring it to the court.

If the court tells me a third branch that I have to testify or not, then I'll do it. They didn't do that because the courts have been. very, very, very clear. When it comes to one branch over the other, they have the right to say, no, unless the third branch gets involved and says yes. And it's been decided in our courts over and over and over again with the language along the lines of clear rights. So they're not going to be able to prove corruption or, uh, corruption or,

what was it, obstruction of Congress. Now, you want to talk about the national interests. You want to find out if the national interest are there and if anyone has abused power. Tonight at 5 o'clock, I'm going to show you

how the Congress has abused their power in unbelievable ways. And nobody seems to care. But that's all. all going to change as soon as it goes into the Senate. Now, Mark Levin, who is, you know, co-founder of the Blaze with me, Blaze Media,

is on this, like white on rice. Oh my gosh, is that racist? I mean, why white rice and not brown rice? Thank you very much. It's just like white and brown on rice. It's just like that. He's been all over this. I want to give you a little piece of what he says.

said about what's really happening in this impeachment and what it's really all about. Listen to this. No president in American history has ever been treated like this, let alone a president who's facing impeachment. No federal judge, all 18 of them that faced impeachment. They weren't all found guilty, but 18 of them have ever been treated like this. This is the most grotesque abuse of power by the House of Representatives under the control of the Democrats. we've ever seen because it is a silent coup, the purpose of which is to remove a duly elected president and disenfranchised the almost 63 million people who voted for them.

The reason the Republicans are all united, all united, from all parts of the country, some more conservative than others in the House, they're all united, not because every single one of them loves the president, but every single one of them is absolutely flabbergasted. by what's taking place in this phony house of representatives. This is Mark Levine from his Blaze TV show. He is very clear. I hope to have him on today at 5 o'clock if we can make our schedules match.

He'll be on. And I really want to hear him on these two articles of impeachment. I mean, he's a constitutional scholar. And I think these two are absolutely laughable. The second one is complete garbage. Garbage. That's garbage. The first one, I mean, I don't believe, and I would not have hoped for it. But, I mean, at least you can, the abuse of power has been a commonly constructed idea in the past.

But I like your analysis of this, and I like Marx analysis of this. I just wish I could get them in one place, maybe under one particular subscription. No, impossible. Yeah, I know. I'm not saying it's possible. It's near Christmas. It would take a group of people, like, I mean, it would be great to have, like, Dave Rubin. Oh, yeah. Right.

And Stephen Crowder. Yeah. All these people, you know, get it. like 40 people together. Now you're getting ridiculous. I'm just saying you and Mark would be great. You couldn't get those egos to do it. I mean, my ego to share a space with somebody like, no way.

I never do that. In every way you're terrible. Unless you went to blazeTV.com and subscribe for blazTV.com. Not I want to spend the whole thing. I'd rather save $10. What would I do then? Well, you'd have to use a promo code, Glenn. Yeah.

PlaystTV.com slash Glenn. Use the promo code, Glenn. Save $10. and you get what Stu says is a dream come true. And so much more, as we will be announcing in the coming days and weeks, we're really excited about what we have to offer you at blazedtv.com. All right. So what haven't we covered today?

So we've gone through the entire IG report and given you pretty much every single one of the major errors, quote-unquote, errors. I love this. Yesterday I was reading The New York Times story about this, and they're going through the inaccuracies. This one they called an error. And I want to understand how this is an error. It was an email that a quote unquote low-level staffer edited the email to take out things that did not agree

with their FISA application. This error was then replicated on multiple. In fact, didn't just like change a comma. No, no. Changed and printed and wrote in the reverse of the line. That's not an error. No.

Okay. That is an intentional act. The errors and intentional acts are not the same thing. Like carry the one. I forgot to carry the one. I forgot. It was a mistake. I was trying to do something right.

And instead I made a mistake and it was wrong. That's an error. This is, I was trying to do something wrong and succeeded. That's not an error. This is like the Keystone cops. You know what we should do? We should just take all of. the footage of Mueller, his team, Congress, and the hearings, and just speed it up so it looks and put it in black and white.

So it looks like those old Keystone cop movies because that's really what you have to believe that this government is so inept that they would make these, what is it, 17 or 19 inaccuracies, which all go one way. I mean, it's one thing to say they're making errors and they're making errors if it cut both ways. It's an error. If you have 19, quote, mistakes and one of them goes for this way, one of them goes the other way. But 19 mistakes that all happen to favor one side, that's statistically impossible. It does seem to be that way. It is. A couple of other things from this report.

One being, the dossier was central, according to the IG, was central to how they acquired these FISA warrants, which is a big deal. And Dossier was shown to be really the piece of crap that we kind of all thought it was in that they went to try to actually figure out how many of these things were true. The only things that were true in there were publicly available information, which is embarrassingly pathetic. I mean, if you can't get it, none of the things that came to this report. The golden shower?

No. They were not able to confirm that one. In fact, they had witnesses, not witnesses of that because it didn't happen, but people who were in places to know and actually said no actually that's the opposite of what happened that didn't happen right so that's a big that's a kind of a big deal and it also shows like would anyone for any reason hire christopher steel for anything after this i mean he was trying he was charging a fortune to get uh high level information from sources around the world and came up with literally nothing except for publicly available information i mean fusion GPS got really ripped

off. Well, I guess the DNC got ripped off at the end of it. I mean, now it comes to this, right? They've got an impeachment potentially out of it. So it is central, but he didn't do anything, right? Like, he pushed an agenda, but he didn't actually get them any information. And that's pretty

pathetic. No, they have the information that the DNC got from Fusion GPS, the information they had, if you had a decent press, who would say, we're going to even if it was exposed because what was it,

what was the website that just exposed it and just published it and then CNN? Yeah, BuzzFeed. And so CNN said, we have to do. Okay, so what you do is you say, these charges are out. We're going to let you know what these charges are, but we're not going to discuss this.

We're doing our own investigation into this report, how this report came to be, and we're going to try to corroborate any of these things. They didn't do that. They didn't do that. So the DNC got what they wanted. The other one that they were working on was in Ukraine. They wanted to bring down Paul Manafort.

And I'm telling you, there's one thing I can't put my finger on, but I'm telling you, Tony Podesta is involved in this. He, I think, has done the same things that Paul Manafort did. And because I cannot explain why the day that Paul Manafort thing breaks, He closes up shop. One of the most important lobbyists in Washington, D.C. He turns the lights off, fires everybody, and says, this is our last day. Goodbye.

Oh, man. And that was really weird. I mean, it was reminiscent of, like, you've got a dictator in control of a country. And they come to you and they say, hey, people with torches are walking this way. There is a plane on that tarmac. You will never return to this country. Do you want to get in it? It's that type of scenario.

It was so weird. All of a sudden he just abandons ship, leaves behind this incredible business, and no one ever asked another question about it. So how does that happen with Tony Podesta? Why? At the same time, when he's doing the same job that Manafort is doing. Okay? With a lot of the same people. With the same people. One's get paid, the other doesn't? Very, very strange. Really, really weird. But what did they get? They got the same thing as the steel report. they get a report that is so badly put together and so obviously not real that when they go to court, the FBI doesn't even use it. Doesn't even enter into evidence now. The Justice Department told the DNC, all we need is another reason.

If you just give us any reason, it doesn't have to be true. Just has to be something that gives us reason to open this up because we blew another case. but we could take it again if you give us a reason to open it. And so they did. But it was such a bad reason that they didn't even used it in court. And one last, I think, important takeaway from this. The big headline for the mainstream media is that they found no political bias in this report. That is not, however, the truth.

What they found was, what they said was, we found no political bias at the beginnings of this report. It's not started because of political bias. However, what they said is documentary evidence of political bias. They could not find that, which is in other words of me saying, like, if I text you, Glenn and I say, hey, we got to start a movement to take Trump out, anything at our disposal, go for it. Right. Like that is something that you would do. And it sometimes does happen in these investigations. They actually catch people saying it that overtly.

They didn't catch them doing that here. But there's something that happened where this investigation started. Some of it was for legitimate reasons. And some of it was for legitimate beliefs. but went political or at least followed the exact path it would have taken if it was political bias. It's hard to imagine it was something else. Let me just give you this one line. Remember, the media is telling you that they found no political bias.

Steele's handling agent told us that when Steele provided him with the first election reports in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to the agent that the request for the research was politically motivated. Okay. And they went along with it anyway. They went along with it anyway. And they didn't tell FISA, the FISA court, that very fact. The Blaze Radio

Network. On demand.