TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles - WaPo Lied About President Trump’s Call to Georgia Election Official

Episode Date: March 17, 2021

Today on TRUNEWS, host Edward Szall exposes the trail of deceit by the Washington Post and its attempt to influence the election results and the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. With the release of the full call by the former President, the mainstream media’s manipulation of the story has been made apparent. The team also looks as the trail of lies leads back to the heart of Georgia government, implicating Frances Watson, Brad Raffensperger, and Gov. Kemp. Edward Szall, Rick Wiles, Doc Burkhart. Airdate (3/16/21)

The following program is made possible by the faithful prayers and financial support of listeners just like you. To find out how you can help,, 2021. I'm Edward Zoll. President Trump did not order Georgia's top election investigator to find the fraud in a phone call which played a central role in the Senate impeachment trial. A full audio recording of the December 23rd phone call released by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger now clearly shows that the president never uttered those words and didn't even speak directly with the Secretary of State. Instead, the truth is, he had a mutually cordial six-minute talk with Georgia's chief election investigator, Francis Watson. True News has acquired an unedited copy of the audio of that phone call, which was cited as proof of election interference by the House impeachment manager, Pennsylvania Representative Madeleine Dean. We will share it with you in full in just a moment. As it turns out, Representative Dean never heard the audio you're about to hear,

and apparently needed it to Washington Post when they published their exclusive report on January 9th, signing an anonymous source who falsely claimed that the president told Ms. Watson she would be a national hero if she found fraud proving his case. Joining me to discuss this story and more is True News founder Rick Walls and Doc Berker. Hey, Edward. Hey, Edward. This is a disgusting piece of fake news. It's the example of fake news.

It's the example of fake news. Stunning. Absolutely stunning that they've been caught again. It immediately reminded me of lying Adam Schiff. When Adam Schiff, you know, the first impeachment, when he read into the congressional record a fake transcript. Yes. He knew it was fake.

He wrote it. He made it up. Later called it parody. Yes. After he got caught, he said it was just a parody. It was your responsibility to know that it was a parody, according to him. Oh, of course. But he read it into the congressional record as though it was fact.

And it was part of the evidence for the first impeachment. This phone call was part of the evidence for the second impeachment. And we now know it was a lie, a flat out lie. The Democrats and the news media have been caught again lying. Will anything happen? No. Who's going to investigate them? The Biden administration?

No, they're not going to do anything. Maybe a media watchdog? Seriously? Who's going to investigate them? The attorney general of Mars? I mean, there's nobody who's going to investigate them. They're going to get away with it. There's no repercussions for actions like this. The news media is not going to do anything. They're not going to denounce the news media for lying.

They're going to circle the wagons. Absolutely. But it's a lesson to everyone, not just in America. You can't trust what the Washington Post published. You can't trust what ABC News, NBC News, New York Times, citing the Washington Post or even their own reports based on anonymous sources. The Washington Post lied to the world. This news story went global. It was published in London. It was published in Paris.

It was published in Berlin. It was published around the world, in Tokyo, in Beijing. It was a lie against the president of the United States, Donald Trump. An absolute lie. And it gave the impression, not just to citizens here in the U.S., but around the world, that President Trump was strong-arming Georgia officials in order to influence the election. Yes. And that is just totally false. Look, I got to tell you, when I first read the story, I just, you know, buried my head

in my hands and went, oh, my, what is he doing? Talking about Donald Trump. I was just like, what is he doing? Talking about Donald Trump. I was just like, what is he doing? They're going to accuse him of criminal behavior. They're going to accuse him of obstruction of justice, which is what they accused him of. Unwise was it of the president to make a phone call to the sector state or even the chief investigator in this case and not really be recorded on the other end, used against him, that he would make such a really blatant disregard of statements. And if he recorded it, he used it against him. Reckless statements.

And again, as it turns out, he didn't actually make any of those statements. No, and the Washington Post said in January they had the audio. Yes. They didn't have the audio. They lied. They did not have the audio. And that's the key portion to bring out because they acted as if they did. Then all the other media outlets just copied what the Washington Post said. They didn't just act like they did. They said they had it. Yes. They lied. They said they had the audio and they published the transcript. They published the full transcript of a call and they altered the words in the transcript. What was on the Washington Post website until a few days ago, the original story, until they just had been caught in recent days,

what they had there was the lie. Now that they've been caught, they've cleaned it up. Right. They changed it again. They changed the transcript again. They put it back to what the audio actually says, which proves that President Trump didn't say those things. But the damage has been done.

Yes. He was impeached. I mean, he was impeached. By the House. He wasn't convicted, but they used fake evidence to impeach him for the second time. Who are the criminals? Who are the liars? Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell should be in prison. What they're doing and what they've done repeatedly to Donald Trump is criminal.

Doc, if you're a prosecutor, are they not prosecutors? Yes, they're House impeachment managers. They're prosecutors. Basically, yes. I mean, they're trying someone. Yes, it's a criminal trial. It's a prosecution. If a prosecutor knowingly enters fake evidence into a court trial to convict somebody, tells the judge and the jury, this is the truth. This is the evidence. And you later find out that the prosecutor knew

that it was fake. What happens to that prosecutor? Well, he should be booted and you'd have a mistrial. They get disbarred. Oh, no, no, no, no. The prosecutor goes to prison. Sure. He lied to the court. Under oath. You'll go to prison for that. Because he's manipulated justice. Yes. Why isn't Nancy Pelosi and Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff behind bars? Well, I'll tell you why. Because cheaters win. In this country, Doc's right. Cheaters win. There's no justice. There's absolutely no justice in this country anymore. You can lie about the president of the United States, publish fake evidence, hold an impeachment trial, spread lies across the world into newspapers and television networks, defame the reputation of the President of the United States and the nation all for political gain. And they're getting away with it. They've gotten away with it twice now, just in impeachment, just in the area of impeachment.

How many other things have they done where it's fake information? Well, we have to suspect most stories that are sourcing anonymous sources maybe fall this exact template. Right. If the level of ethics that the Washington Post apparently falls is that when they cover a story about a phone call, and they don't even bother listening or seeking out someone who's on the phone call or audio of the phone call before they write quotes from it,

there could be hundreds of stories, Rick, over the last four years, which were utter fabrications in this template. We should, all of us, at this point, just totally disregard any news article that says based on anonymous sources, based on unnamed sources. Sources, we could not disclose the name of the source. Okay, we won't disclose it on air. So forget the whole story. That's probably a pretty good policy at this point.

It's a good policy because what we're seeing now is a new system, a new technique in propaganda. Just make up the story, get it in the headlines. They don't care what's in the story. Just get the headlines published. We all know headlines. People read the headlines. They may read one or two paragraphs of the article. That's as far as they go. They don't read. They just look at the headlines. Even in this case, you mentioned that the Washington Post has started to go back and scrub or change. This is what's currently up on the Washington Post website. This article right here had a different title on January 9th.

Today it has, Trump pressured a Georgia elections investigator in a separate call legal experts say could amount to obstruction. Now, which version is this? This is the new version, the version that's current as of March 11th. Back on January 9th, we were able to find an archived version of this. You can't even find it in Wayback Machine. The cache of this article has literally been scrubbed. They've cleaned it? They've cleaned it. You get an error message when you try to pull up what was on that URL

back on January 9th. They had at the front, find the fraud. The money quote, the quote that they were using to say this is it. He said, find the votes. Now he's saying

to the chief investigator, find the fraud. He's ordering them. True news. We just happened to keep a copy of the original Washington Post article, which the Washington Post has completely scrubbed the Internet. You can't find it.

Our American duty right now would be to place this back into the public record. True News published the original Washington Post article, which is a lie. Could they sue True News for violation of copyright? Because can you copyright a lie? It depends if you're writing fiction books, I suppose. Could they take me to court and accuse me of violating a copyright if they copyrighted a lie. They'd have to tell the judge, well, we have two versions of this article. Sir, True News has published the fake version. Of our content. Of our content that we had out there to lie against the president of the United States. But now we don't have to lie because he's out of office. But could they sue me? I don't know.

We have the original story that The Washington Post doesn't want you to see. Oh, absolutely. And as you see in the original story, they were very clear here. I think, would you want to read the correction first or should we read the... No, let's go with the original. The original. So this is what was published. This is what they've scrubbed.

This is what they published and what was cited during the impeachment. President Trump urged Georgia's lead elections investigator to find the fraud in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a national hero, according to an individual familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation. Now, first of all, that whole paragraph is a lie. Lengthily is an interesting question here because it's about six minutes. Would you consider a six-minute phone call to be lengthy? Maybe.

I think that they were trying to indicate it was as long as the call with Brad Raffensperger, which probably could have gone as long as an hour. But the source, this is a Washington Post, January 9. The source is an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity. All right. So the post says on January 9th, we can't tell you who told us about this. Yes. An unnamed source, an anonymous source. We can't tell you who gave us this lie. So they went on to say Trump placed the call to the investigator

of investigations chief for the Georgia Secretary of State's office shortly before Christmas, while the individual was leading an inquiry into allegations of ballot fraud in Cobb County in the suburbs of Atlanta, according to people familiar with the episode. It goes on to say the president's attempts to intervene in an ongoing investigation could amount to obstruction of justice or other criminal violations, legal experts said, though they caution a case could be difficult to prove. Well, certainly now, if the quotes you're using and telling these legal experts were fabricated. OK, so the rest of it, I mean, it's a long article. But this article no longer exists. It doesn't exist.

Now, the edited version is up on the site with a whole different headline, a whole different lead and everything. And it also includes a correction as well. Real quick for the correction, I just wanted to quote in the article. There's a quote from one of the legal experts. He said, without the audio of the call, it would be more difficult to prove wrongdoing. Okay. Without the audio of the call. Without the audio of the call. So he was going on the assumption, well, they have the audio and you're telling me to hypothesize, okay, based on what you're telling me is in the audio? Well, actually, what's funny about his analysis now is, yes, it would be hard to prove wrongdoing. So basically, Amy Gardner at the Washington Post said to some sort of legal expert,

if I had audio of the call, what would your response to that be? Yes. Something along that line. Exactly. He said, well, good thing you haven't, because you won't be able to prove any wrongdoing if you don't have the audio Edward for our audience because I would tell you when I was when I personally my office was trying to

Educate myself about this the scandal The scandal is not Donald Trump. The scandal is The Washington Post and the entire news media. That's the scandal. Say it again. Yes. I was confused and Doc came into my office and I said, look, and then Edward came. I said, I'm totally confused what's going on here because I would go to the original Washington Post story in January. It would pop up the March story. I would Google it.

There it is. January 5th, whatever. January 9th. So you would see. And I'm reading it and it's like, but it doesn't say what I was told it said January 9th. Right. And then you said, oh, the Washington Post has already scrubbed the article. They've they've they've fixed it. And so if you don't know about the scandal and you just found

that article, you wouldn't know the Washington Post lied. Right. You'd think there was still a story there, too. You'd think that, oh, no, no, no. This is now the audio proving President Trump intimidated. And if somebody said to you, The Washington Post lied back in January 9th, you said, well, you know what? When I go home, I'm going to look this up. And you pull up the article January 9th and you go, you know what? Edward's full of it. The Washington Post didn't say it. Right. And if you say, well, maybe there's an archive version, you go to Web Archive or the Wayback Machine. And it's empty.

It's empty. Who has the key to the Wayback Machine? I don't know, but I wish I had a Wayback Machine in my life that I could do that. But obviously, the Washington Post does. Certain people can, can't they? Before we go on, I just want to reiterate for our audience, because I found it confusing today to research this until I figured out what was happening. The two phrases, the Washington Post said in January 9th that President Trump, he called He called the election investigation chief and ordered this person to find the fraud. And when you find the fraud, you will be a national hero.

Those are the two phrases really important. Find the fraud and I'm going to make you a hero. It's quid pro quo. Yes. He's going to reward her. You find it and going to make you a hero. It's quid pro quo. Yes. Who's going to reward her. Yes. You find it and I'll make you a hero. So now, Edward, where are we now on this?

Well, the story that's now up does have a correction. And if you were to look at the correction, this is what you'd read. Two months after the publication of this story, the Georgia Secretary of State released an audio recording of President Donald Trump's December phone call with the state's top elections investigator. The recording revealed that the Post misquoted Trump's comments on the call based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to find the fraud or say she would be a national hero if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, asserting she would find dishonesty there.

He also told her that she had the most important job in the country right now. A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of the story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump. This is interesting here. They even said the county wrong. You see that there? This says Cobb County in the original. That says Fulton County.

There were probably a bunch of errors. Story passed what they're even telling us to correct. This is garbage. Garbage journalism. So even their retraction has errors. Yes. So to clear it up for everybody, they did actually do a kind of an editor opinion piece about their mistake. Now, they were very careful to not be too critical of themselves. Right. This is the piece published by Eric Wimple.

The Post publishes correction on Trump's call with Georgia investigator. And in this article, the opinion writer stated, on January 9th, the Post reported that then President Donald Trump, in a call with Georgia's lead elections investigator, Francis Watson, had instructed her to find the fraud. He mentioned that she could become a national hero, reported the newspaper. In both cases, the quotes were wrong, as the Post has acknowledged in a correction to the story. Trump did not tell the investigator to find fraud or say she would be a national hero if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, asserting she would find dishonesty there. He also told her that she had the most important job in the country right now,

reads the correction in part. The story landed on top of a tumult with little equal in modern memory. Since November 3rd, 2020, President Trump and his allies have attempted to convince his supporters that Joe Biden stole the election. That lie provided the rhetorical impetus for Trump supporters to storm the Capitol in January, just as Congress was taking up the Electoral College results. Is the quote that we shouldn't trust and we should definitely scrutinize and in itself has its own spin. Can we put that back up?

That lie. That's the lie. The Post is the lie. The Post is the liar. They are liars. And they have the nerve, even as they're caught lying, to say Donald Trump's lying. It's a propaganda puzzle. We have the solution to this. Take a picture of this quote to share with your friends and loved ones right now, just so you can

say what the Washington Post did. They're admitting that they lied. And in their admission of lying, they accused President Trump of lying about the election. It's absolutely astounding. So to be clear, no one up until this week actually had an audio recording of the call. No one in the media. No, no proof. Oh, no, no, no, that's not true. Well, although the Washington Post was claiming they also corroborated it with other sources. Yes. All right. Because in that original Post article, it says, oh, no, excuse me, I'll take that back. That's the other call with Mr. Raffensperger. Yes, there are reportedly 18 calls total. That's what I've learned today.

Actually, look at this. 18 calls between President Trump, his office, and Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State of Georgia, his office. But it was this particular story in this particular conversation that set off the firestorm. Yes. Yes. That he said, find the fraud and I'll make you a hero.

And no one up to this week has heard that audio recording. The Washington Post told us they did. But they just confirmed that they just got the recording. No, they printed the transcript. Yes, I know. How can you print a transcript if you don't have the recording? They made it up. No, they printed the transcript. Yes, I know. How can you print a transcript if you don't have the recording?

They made it up. No, they had the recording. They altered the transcript. You can't print the transcript if you don't have the recording. They had the recording. You've got to understand this part. The Washington Post had the recording of the phone call. They altered the transcript just like Adam Schiff lied. And then when the full recording

came out this week, they got caught in the lie. I understand. See, this is where it's at. They had the recording. They they published the transcript, but then they changed the words to make President Trump say things he did not say. And then that just, yes, it justified the impeachment. They used it to justify the second impeachment, just as Adam Schiff used his fake transcript on the Georgia call. Remember, that was the call to Georgia. Yeah, to the Ukraine. Yes. And he lied. He made up a fake transcript and he justified the impeachment.

Once again, it worked so good the first time they did it a second time. Do it again. How many times have they done it? How many times have they done it? Well, they prey. They prey on our memory. They prey on us forgetting these instances of just outright lies. The good thing we have a great archive. I get it now, Rick.

Because we have all these videos and all these stills. Wow. Well, we have the audio itself. The audio of the call between President Trump and the investigator, yes. And the investigator was Frances Watson? That's correct. And she was in charge of investigations of election fraud? Yes, and that specific time she was looking into allegations of fraud in...

In the state of Georgia. She worked for Secretary of State Raffensperger. So, okay, so let's listen. I've not heard the call myself, so this is the first time. Hello, Francis. How are you? Hello, Mr. President. I am actually doing very well. Good. Well, you have a big fan in our great chief, right? Chief of staff, Mark. I did. I met him. It was a pleasure to meet him yesterday.

He's great. He's a great, he was a big success. He was a great congressman. And then when you lead by 35 points, it's hard to get people out of there. But I tried for two years and we got him. And he's done a fantastic job. I just wanted to thank you for everything. You told me you've been great. And, you know, this country is counting on it because it's very interesting. So I won Florida in a record number, Ohio in a record, Texas in a record,

Alabama by 40, 40 points. And I won everything but Georgia. And I won Georgia, I know that, by a lot. And the people know it. And you know, something happened there. I mean, something bad happened. I hope you join that, that, because if you're, you know, I hope you're going back two years

as opposed to just checking, you know, one against the other, because that would just be sort of a, a signature check that didn't mean anything. But if you go back two years, and if you can get to Fulton, you're going to find things that are going to be unbelievable. The dishonesty that we've heard from them.

Right. You know, just good sources, really good sources. But Fulton is the mother load, you know, as the expression goes, Fulton County. Right. Well, Mr. President. I appreciate your comments, and I can assure you that our team and the GBI, that we're only interested in the truth and finding the information that's based on the facts. And, you know, we've been working 12, 16-hour days, and we're working through it.

So I can assure you that, and I do appreciate you calling. I know that you're a very busy, very important man, and I'm very honored that you called. And quite frankly, I'm shocked that you would take time to do that but I am very appreciate it. Mark asked me to do it. He thinks you're great. You know it's just you have the most important job in the country right now because if we win Georgia first of all if we win you're gonna have two wins. They're not gonna win right now you know they're down because the people of Georgia are so angry at what happened to me.

They know I won. Won by hundreds of thousands of votes. It wasn't close. And Alabama, you know, where they go, because I won South Carolina in a record, Alabama in a record, Florida in a record. You know, I won Florida by 600,000 or 700,000 votes. It's never happened before with a Republican. And with all the money they spent, you know, you heard all about these never happened before with a Republican. And with all the money

they spent, you know, you heard all about these guys going down spending a fortune. And we won Texas by a record. Texas was won by the biggest number ever. And, you know, it didn't, and Ohio, of course, you know that. You know about about that that was won by nine points or something and it's uh all of it iowa i mean and it didn't it never made sense and you know they dropped ballots they dropped all these ballots stacy abrams really really terrible i mean just a terrible thing and i will say this if if it went hope i mean, hopefully this will show, because if you go back two years or four years, you're going to see it's a totally different signature. But hopefully, you know, when the right answer comes out, you'll be praised. I mean, I don't know why, you know, they've made it so hard.

They will be praised. People will say, great, because that's what it's about, that ability to check and to make it right. Because everyone knows it's wrong. There's just no way. You know, they had people in Georgia, for instance, that won, and I was way ahead of them, and they won because of me.

You know, I pulled them, they call it coattails, right? And we pulled them across, and they say, there's no way that I beat you by 15 points. You know, I've had that. We've had plenty of those calls too. So anyway, but whatever you can do, Francis, it would be, it's a great thing. It's an important thing for the country.

It's so important. You have no idea it's so important. And I very much appreciate it. Well, I appreciate your call and I hope you and your family have a very healthy and and happy christmas and um and i i certainly uh appreciate you and and everything that you've done well and i appreciate it too francis do you think they'll be working after christmas and keep it going fast because you know we have that date of the 6th which is a very important date

right right i i i know i know you've got that coming up and and i i can assure you that that you know i i'm i'm going to be working uh and and we're going to be working and it's um good i um yeah i i appreciate it and you know, our team's out there working, you know, we got pandemic. Well, you thank them. Yeah, we've got pandemic. And I hear the, I hear the Georgia, it's not the NFL, it's the FBI, right? Right. But I hear, I hear they're fantastic. And I hear about 96% with them, so that's good, okay?

But say hello to those guys. Tell them I appreciate it very much. Let them all know. I will certainly do that. You just take your call anytime you need. If you need help, call me. But Mark has the number. But Mark appreciates it. But I wanted to call you. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and you have a good evening. Thanks, Frances. Take care. Have a good Christmas and everything. So long. Thanks, Frances. Thank you. Bye-bye. Appreciate it. Bye.

Edward, Doc, did you hear President Trump pressuring her, threatening her, intimidating her? Was that an intimidation phone call? Not at all. She said, Merry Christmas. She said, I hope you have a nice Christmas. She said, I'm... He was commending the public service. Absolute mischaracterization of that call. She was shocked that she had a phone call from the president of the United States. Not shocked in a bad way, but amazed that the president of the United States called her.

Who wouldn't be? Can you imagine getting a phone call directly from the president of the United States? Where was the pressure? What point did he really lean heavy on her and say, this is what I expect you to do? Well, Rick, she thought about saying happy holidays. There was some pressure to not. I mean, it's pretty rough. So you start off with the original article by The Washington Post. It said it led with find the fraud. That's it. I'm going to make you a hero.

Right. And so just to lay out the incestuous relationship that goes on with all the different media outlets here, we're going to show you here as we walk through this, all the different outlets that just repeated the Washington Post lie. You just heard the phone call. For the first time, America's hearing the phone call. Not during the impeachment, not back in January, not even in February. Now, this moment, you are raw, unedited version. So on January 9, what did CNBC say about the phone call we just heard? CNBC reported Trump pressured Georgia top elections investigator to find the fraud in a phone call.

Did he call her again? Did he have a second call? No, they were using the Washington Post as their source. Trusting the Washington Post. And the Washington Post said, we have the audio and we're publishing the transcript. And if you read the transcript, you said the Washington Post got him. He said it. It's in the transcript. That's my reaction on January 9 when I read the Washington Post.

I went, oh, dear Lord. They got a transcript of the call. He said it. He said it. I remember just thinking, oh, Mr. Trump, you're done. They've got the goods on you now. They're going to go after a conviction. They're going to try to get a conviction on obstruction of justice. They actually have the actual transcript. You're caught.

They got them dead to rights. That was the impression. But they altered the transcript. What did... Well, the laundering of lives didn't end there. What did NBC... Here's NBC, January 9th, Trump pressured Georgia top elections investigator to find the fraud in a phone call. And in a very similar headline here. This article actually, Rick, each of these outlets, they claim to have second checked it. I got a second source. We've spoken to a source who corroborated this.

NBC actually quoted Georgia's deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs. He said, we can confirm the events in the Washington Post story. That is a very odd quote. We can confirm what? On behalf of the sector of state, Jordan Forks was speaking, we can confirm the events in the Washington Post story. The story that we've just laid out was an utter lie. He confirmed it.

An unnamed source confirming something he didn't even know because it didn't exist. That's good, Edward. He confirmed a lie. He confirmed a lie. How often does this happen? The Secretary of State's office confirmed it in Georgia. That's incredible. No. I mean, I'm just, I'm stunned by that. It is a coordinated strategy to convict an innocent person using fake evidence.

Yes, because it's not just about the present. This can be done to any of us. It can be done to any of us. You know, so in the first, you know, all through the Trump presidency, okay, with the fake election, I mean,

you know, the Russia hacked the election day. And some of our viewers got very upset with me because we had both sides. We had very strong Trump supporters, but we also had conservatives and Christians who were not Trump supporters. And so we were always stuck in the middle. One group saying, why do you defend Trump? Another group saying, why don't you oppose Trump? Okay, our position was we're going to tell the truth. Yeah, we're pursuing the truth.

You know, we're gonna tell the truth to the best of our ability. So, you know, I would always take the position what they're doing to Donald Trump in the Russia hack the election day and then the Georgia, not Georgia, but the Ukraine call. Yes. My view was if they can do this to the president of the United States, what do the rest of us have as protection? If you can take down the president of the United States of America with fake evidence, then when that type of corruption filters down to the state, county, and city level, there's corruption everywhere. And a complete erosion of trust in our government and our officials.

There's no rule of law anymore. And you can put people in prison with fake evidence. That's why it had to be opposed, regardless of who the president was, regardless of how you felt about the president. It's about the rule of law. It was wrong. Due process.

Even CNN was on the bandwagon that particular week. Trump pressured Georgia election. Did you hear pressure in that call? Once again, Trump pressured Georgia elections investigators search for dishonesty in the 2020 ballots. And they've changed their article too, by the way,

this is one of them that was quick to update. And I also want to point out here in their characterization, when you listen to the audio and you go back later and listen to what we just played you, President Trump also brought up 2016. Yes, he did. No one is talking about that, but that is absolutely what was on the call. You see, go back five years. Five years from 2021, even 2020 is the 2016 election. Does that mean he knew that there was something crooked going on in 2016? I suspect in December, he was realizing that Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, was not on his side. He had to start wondering, what else has been going on in Georgia? Especially after I'd told him this, I'm taking this President Trump. President Trump wanted a different senator

appointed too. Did not want Kelly Loeffler. Why? What was going on? And President Trump, I think in December, was especially very critical that the governor of Georgia was not pursuing election integrity. That's what he was asking for. I think everybody can agree to that. If we need to look at the actual

votes, people counting this properly, and the things that happened in the state farm arena, for example, I think the people of Georgia deserve an answer. And that's what he was asking for, not pressuring, asking for and commending the chief investigator for her due diligence. And to take this back to the original lie by the Washington Post, the Post told the world Donald Trump pressured the Georgia State Investigator, the chief investigator, find the fraud and you're going to become a hero.

Right. Now, Doc, if I called you and I pressured you, you would get off the phone going, oh, man, that was one very unpleasant phone call. Right. I was just told, you get this done or else. Right? Isn't that a pressure? A mafia call.

Right? I'm going to lean in on you. You're going to do this, Doc. You got it, right? You understand what I'm saying? You get my drift. You're going to get this done, Doc. You know, that's a pressure.

All right? You know, bad stuff happens to good people doc all right that's pressure i'm getting worried now but if you make when when i read somebody made pressured a government official to do something then i'm i'm imagining what that call was like so back back in January, reading the Washington Post transcript, you're thinking, man, Donald Trump was, he must have read her the riot act. He must have said, you know, I'll destroy your life. You're going to do what I want. You find the fraud. That was the goal. The goal was to weapon what I want. You find the fraud. That was the goal. The goal was to weaponize the imagination. Yes.

Because by putting the story out, and as you noted, most people only read the headlines, you could only think how bad it possibly was. Thus, you're going to support an inquiry. And keep in mind what's going on that week. Okay? Earlier in the week, you had the January 6th event. Mm-hmm. Okay?

So all of that is later, you had the January 6th event. Mm-hmm. Okay. So all the way back. This is three days later, isn't it? That's right. So emotions are high, tensions are high in the nation, and then this comes out on the 9th. Three days later, hits the news cycle. They were calling for his resignation. Now, remember, they were trying to push for the president to resign early. And there was talk of a 25th Amendment.

They were doing a full court press to make him resign and have Vice President Pence take over. This was part of the strategy to force him to resign. They lied and submitted fake evidence and used it in a second impeachment. There are so many lies. I mean, it's a buffet of lies if you look at this. Again, they're not just quoting the Washington Post. They're claiming to have their own sources now who are lying about the lie. Well, certainly CBS did not lie.

Well, let's read Ed O'Keefe of 60 Minutes. A person briefed on the call tells 60 Minutes that Mr. Trump told the investigator they would be a national hero if they found evidence of fraud. But no evidence has been found by the investigator. And days later, Mr. Trump would be similarly rebuffed by Raffensperger. They have their own source. Yeah, 60 Minutes is saying they have their own source on this, Rick. Who's the person briefed on the call? Not the Washington Post. 60 Minutes is claiming they have an independent source on this. Briefed on the call.

And this reflected in their article on the next day on CBS News. Trump pressured Georgia election official to find evidence of voter fraud. There either was a network of liars or all these outlets were quoting the same liar that the Washington Post used. Or they just quoted the Washington Post and fabricated the source altogether. That's right.

I think that's what they did. Multiple sources fabricated. No, I don't. No. You just think they've just coordinated together? A coordinated lie campaign. It's a propaganda campaign. Mm-hmm. It was a coordinated campaign. And all these news media outlets knew it was a lie. They knew it.

Well, it was effective. It made its way into the impeachment trial in the Senate in February. Representative Madeleine Dean, there's no question that this is true. She directly cited the lie from the Washington Post, using them as a source, a source enough to convict a sitting former at this point, former president of the United States. The amount of evidence you have to have to do something like that. So it was read into the congressional record. Yes, here it is right here. A few weeks later, on December 23rd, Trump called the chief investigator for the for the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, who was conducting an audit, an audit of the signature matching procedures for absentee ballots. Trump urged him, find the fraud, and claimed the official would be a national hero if he

did. Let's call this what it is. He was asking the official to say there was evidence of fraud when there wasn't any. The official refused and the investigation was completed. Now, is Congresswoman Dean going to apologize and amend the congressional record? She absolutely should. Or we can't take anything Congressman Dean says, including her votes on bills, to be truthful. Isn't your word pretty much all you have? That's why we do voice votes still in the House. Your word's supposed to mean something. But she read fake evidence

into the congressional record during the impeachment of the President of the United States. Let's take another step, Rick. She read propaganda. Let's use their strategy here. She read propaganda that could have been from a foreign power. How do we know the anonymous source wasn't a spy for another government? Meaning like China? Like China. How do we know?

We don't know. They could have literally used information from a spy agency, our own or foreign, to hurt America. Well, the Russia hacked the election hoax was a foreign spy. Don't you know 17 intelligence agencies have concluded on the same evidence and the same sources, but they can't tell you. It's too secret. So what you're going to find somewhere in here is a CIA agent. There's an FBI agent. There are intelligence agents involved in this propaganda campaign because they worked for four

years, actually five years. They infiltrated the Trump campaign going back to 2015 and put their plants inside the campaign. Operation Crossfire Hurricane. And then going back to the first impeachment, remember, it was Eric Caramella, the name we are not allowed to say, a CIA attache, actually launched that impeachment for it. I'm going to bring up one more name, and that's Frances Watson. Frances Watson knew this story was false from January 9th. Yes.

Oh, actually from December 23rd. What? She knew what was said to her. I didn't think about that. But she didn't correct it on January 9th. Okay. Okay, so I'm glad you brought this up. This is very interesting.

So Francis Watson is the woman that we saw and heard in the phone call. And what's her job? Chief Investigation for the Secretary of State's office. For election fraud. For election fraud. We heard the phone call. We know that she was not pressured. Right.

She saw all of this, all these news headlines. She saw the impeachment. She saw the whole thing. And she did not come forward and say, that's not true. Yes. And she she had the recording right away. This is she didn't have the recording in January. She had the recording December 23rd. She recorded the phone call. So she could have shown them. Hey, look. She recorded the phone call. How do I know? She said so. She recorded the call. She said that she recorded the call because this was a once in a lifetime moment.

Immoralized. A citizen receives a call from the president in the White House. Wouldn't you record that call? No. You wouldn't? No. Without telling the president of the United States I'm recording the call? Good answer, Rick.

No. Of course not. My integrity would not allow me to do something like that. Absolutely. I mean, I wouldn't even say, Mr. President, I would like to record this call so that my great-grandchildren have a copy of this. I wouldn't even say that because he might say, I have to end this call right now. Thank you. All right. When you're talking to somebody that level, you don't say stupid, ignorant things. Right. And I'm going to record your call as stupid and stupid and ignorant. But what she did is she

she recorded the call without his knowledge. Absolutely. She Michael Cohen'd him. Yes. Yes. So she recorded the call. Now, as Doc pointed out, Frances Watson kept secret the call and her knowledge of what was said. She knew all along that the Washington Post, CNN, CNBC, NBC, CBS, all the newspapers around the world, they were all lying. All of them. The news networks, they were all lying. She knew they were lying. And she said nothing. Why? Because she was ordered by somebody in Georgia to keep her mouth shut. Who? Who's her boss? Raffensperger? Yes. And

who does he report to? Kemp. Kemp, the governor. And who do they report to? China. China. Okay, now I got one more thing out of this. So, suddenly this week, the real audio shows up. Yeah, isn't that curious? Why this week? But she had the audio. But the Washington Post had the audio. The Washington Post always knew that they lied. And Francis Watson knew that they lied.

And the people who confirmed the transcript knew that they lied. Right. So what has happened this week that this audio would come out now? And the people who confirmed the transcript knew that they lied. Right. So what has happened this week that this audio would come out now? Well, it just happened that a copy, or I should say the recording, the recording was found in the trash bin of her phone. Well, I thought she... She deleted the call. But she said she was going to memorialize it.

She said she recorded it because she wanted it memorialized for her posterity, for her grandchildren. This was a historical moment in her life. That's the reason she recorded it, so that she would have something in her for her legacy that she could hand down to her children, grandchildren and so forth and say, this is me talking to the president of the United States. She recorded the call for that purpose. It was an important call for her personally to say, I have evidence that I talked to the president of the United States. Well, I don't guess so. She ended up putting it in the trash bin.

Doc, if my great-great-great-grandpappy had a conversation with Abraham Lincoln and kept it, all right? I mean, if he had a letter from Abraham Lincoln. You would have this letter today. I would have it today. You'd have it framed. You'd have it, you know, secured, safe. It wouldn't be in the trash can.

Yeah, days later, he didn't toss it in the trash can and say, ain't nobody going to be interested in the Abraham Lincoln letter. Okay. So why did she delete it? She deleted it because she knew all of the news reporting and the impeachment was based on a lie that involved her. She was at the center of a lie used to impeach the president of the United States. And she deleted it. Why?

Because somebody in Georgia politics said, you get rid of that phone call. Get rid of it. And she wasn't simply hitting delete when she did that. She was destroying evidence. Obstruction of justice is her, the chief investigator of fraud. She is the one guilty of obstruction of justice, the destruction of evidence. But she made a mistake. She deleted it, but she didn't empty her trash bin. It still stayed in her phone. Now, why? I got the answer to this. I can't wait to tell you. I'm on the edge of my seat now. And we're going to take a break and I'll tell you right after this. Okay. We'll be back in 10 minutes. Okay. I'm going to tell you why it came out this week.

I'll tell you why she found it on her phone this week. Let's go to number 10A. Fulton County's district attorney investigation into Trump heads to grand jury. There's a grand jury in Fulton County looking into this phone call. She suddenly found it. Because she can't lie to a grand jury. She'll go to jail. There it is right there.

That's it. This is an incredible story because... She coughed it up because she has to be questioned under oath by a grand jury. The grand jury was appointed to get Trump, to lock him up. They're going to end up locking up Watson, locking up Raffensperger, locking up Kemp.

No, not really. There's no justice going to be done. They'll have to shut it down because the evidence will lead to them. They participated in a deliberate deception campaign to destroy the reputation of President Trump and to bring about a conviction in the Senate. And there was an attempt to cover it up. Yes.

This is a full-blown conspiracy. But she forgot, either she forgot to empty her trash bin or the grand jury said, give us your phone and we'll have a forensic investigator find the audio. Or the grand jury has subpoenaed Apple. So who released the call this week? Was it the Secretary of State's office? Are they the ones that released the call this week? Was it the Secretary of State's office? Are they the ones that released the call? I don't know. Are they trying to get ahead of the story?

Wall Street Journal was one of the first to put the audio out. But the Secretary of State's office had the recording to release on a public information's request. And the public information's request was actually very specific to look at her devices,

which tells me that someone knew that it may used to be on the phone and that she used the phone to record it. You can actually tell in the recording, there's a little clue, when near the end where the phone buzzed, she got a text message or something, President Trump's audio lowered

for a short period of time. So if you'd heard that audio, you would know, by gosh, it's on her phone. All we've got to do is get the phone. The fact that what you just explained here, that she had gone through a process, tried to delete the information which could exonerate the president. She had it. It intentionally deleted it when she knew it could help him.

My goodness. She's worse than someone who's trying to assassinate the president. She had the ability to put a bulletproof vest over the president, not his states. But she did as she was told. Yes. And who told her? The sector state of Georgia. And the governor. And the governor and his puppet master. There's your story. Well, the devil really did go down to Georgia. Looking for some elections and integrity to steal. She has no integrity.

She allowed President Trump's reputation to be tarnished. She allowed him to be impeached a second time. She could have stopped the impeachment. She could have stopped the impeachment. She could have stopped it. All she had to do is come out and say, that is not true. Congresswoman Dean, I demand that you rescind it. He did not say that. And I will not participate in this lynching of the president of the United States. She could have done that in February, last month.

And being a criminal investigator, she knows the consequences, the penalties... That's a very good point. ...of allowing fake evidence to be introduced into a court. And she knows about obstruction of justice. How would she not know about it? That's her job to know about it. And that's why she deleted the phone call. She intentionally obstructed.

And so either she didn't empty her trash bin on her phone or a forensic investigator found it Either way and retrieved it. Yes. Yeah, either way. Yeah, you're right. She tried to get rid of it But somehow it came back to life this week and it came back to life this week because there is a grand jury Investigating the phone call. Right. For the purpose of convicting Donald Trump. And they fell in the trap. It's like Heyman's gallows.

Yes. They're going to get hung on their own gallows. Their own little mistakes in their matrix of fraud. What a bunch of lying crooks. What's new? Well, you want to talk about Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh? We should quickly bring up Judge Kavanaugh, because as the same way they have politically lynched the president, they are going after his appointees now.

They're going after anyone that they can pierce the veil over. And specifically in this case, there now is a push to not just remove Brett Kavanaugh, but to re-litigate the whole confirmation hearing. This is number 11 for control. A Democratic senator, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, is suggesting the FBI's background investigation was fake. Now the request here is following money, payments that appear to have disappeared when Brett Kavanaugh was first being confirmed. But the part that really doesn't make sense here is why are they looking at this now at a time when shifting the balance of the Supreme Court could mean a change in the country? So by claiming that there was no legitimate background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, you are tarnishing him and saying his confirmation by the U.S. Senate was illegitimate

because the Senate was not given proper information by the FBI. But you can see where they're going. The Democrats are going to make a demand that Justice Kavanaugh resign from the Supreme Court. Then Joe Biden gets to fill the seat. Right. Without having to expand the court. And then they're going to go down the list of conservatives on the court. One by one, they're going to get them on something. And you're absolutely right. It's a fraud that keeps going. I hear our music on out. Looks like we are closing out for today. Hey, you're doing things different here.

It's not music. I got. It's the out music. I've got to listen to the out music. All right. Thank you for joining us on True News. Please share this with your friends. And God bless you. The preceding program was made possible by the faithful prayers and financial support of listeners just like you. To find out how you can help, visit www.truenews.com.