The Great America Show - CIA DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX AND FRAME-UP

00:00:00.000 Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs, and welcome to The Great America Show.

00:00:04.640 Thank you for being with us. Let's catch up with a few developments and events that do warrant our attention.

00:00:10.140 Amongst the most important developments, the Biden administration is reconsidering its Orwellian-labeled Disinformation Governance Board.

00:00:19.000 And we hear its boss, Nina Jankiewicz, has already resigned just three weeks after the dark Marxist agency was formed.

00:00:28.760 No tears, no tears. We're sure she'll be just fine, still in some other authoritarian role within the Biden bureaucracy in no time.

00:00:38.740 It's merely a pause, but let's be grateful this grotesque abomination is on any kind of pause in this White House.

00:00:46.620 Former Vice President Pence is out stumping for Governor Brian Kemp's re-election in Georgia.

00:00:52.440 President Trump endorsed Kemp's opponent, former Senator David Perdue.

00:00:56.380 Unfortunately for Trump, it looks like Kemp is going to be very hard to beat.

00:01:01.780 And we're told it could be weeks before we know who won the GOP senatorial primary in Pennsylvania.

00:01:08.200 Oz with a fewer than 1,400-vote lead over McCormick.

00:01:13.220 Trump, of course, boosting Oz.

00:01:15.780 Special Counsel John Durham's prosecutors are in court now.

00:01:19.780 Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman on trial on a single charge of lying to FBI agents.

00:01:27.200 And this promises to be a fascinating few weeks.

00:01:30.820 The first week certainly didn't disappoint, as Durham seems to be holding his own against the Democrat establishment

00:01:37.140 and the Obama-appointed judge hearing the case in Washington, D.C.

00:01:42.100 John Solomon's Just the News outlet doing its usual terrific job reporting on this spellbounding story and dramatic trial.

00:01:52.600 John Solomon, great to have you back with us on the Great America Show.

00:01:56.020 And we've got a lot to talk about.

00:01:57.540 And most of what we've got to talk about with you today has to do with your coverage and just the news of the Durham trial

00:02:06.440 and what is happening with the jury.

00:02:11.240 I mean, as I'm sitting here reading what Just the News is reporting and in a few other places,

00:02:19.320 I can't even believe Durham is not even so much as raising a finger to protest a process that, to me,

00:02:30.100 seems to be entirely weighted toward the left and the defense.

00:02:36.040 Yeah.

00:02:36.620 Listen, that's true.

00:02:38.100 People say Washington's a one-party town, and this trial shows it.

00:02:42.280 I mean, from the judge, Judge Cooper, whose wife represents Lisa Page and used to work in the Clinton Justice Department,

00:02:48.820 to the jury poll, three of the 12-seeded jurors are Hillary Clinton donors.

00:02:54.560 A fourth is an AOC donor.

00:02:56.860 So we've known that Washington is a one-party town.

00:03:00.800 In fact, in 2016, here's a fun stat that's in our story.

00:03:04.600 Hillary Clinton got 91% of the vote in the District of Columbia.

00:03:08.120 Donald Trump got only 4.1%.

00:03:10.800 So the jury poll is going to be a hometown favorite of Hillary Clinton.

00:03:15.200 That raises the strategy stakes for John Durham.

00:03:18.760 He knew he had to bring the charge here because this crime occurred in Washington, D.C.

00:03:24.700 But he started off right away today using a term that often triggers liberals in a different way.

00:03:30.640 Many years ago, 50 years ago, 40 years ago, Democrats were aflutter with the idea that there might be an October surprise

00:03:37.980 by Ronald Reagan involving the Iran hostages.

00:03:41.340 Obviously, that didn't happen.

00:03:42.880 But the Democrats were worried about, well, he turned that around today and said, remember that October surprise?

00:03:47.540 You were all worried about 1980?

00:03:49.620 Well, it happened.

00:03:51.000 In 2016, at Hillary Clinton's campaign's request, Michael Sussman walked into the FBI, used the FBI as a political tool to dirty up Donald Trump on an October surprise.

00:04:04.240 So he took the Democrats' worst fear from 1980, and he turned it around and said, you know what?

00:04:09.420 The candidate you might have supported, she did it in 2016.

00:04:12.820 That's how he's going to play this.

00:04:14.080 He's going to bring back this jury to their political biases and then try to flip it around and say, if you were concerned about it in 1980, you should be just as concerned about it in 2016.

00:04:24.140 Don't look at politics.

00:04:25.600 Look at the evidence.

00:04:26.340 Look at the evidence, and we haven't even begun to look at the evidence, and we know that's going to be quite a process.

00:04:35.800 What I'm worried about is this ex-New York Times reporter, as just the news reported, asking that his testimony be protected in next week's Sussman trial.

00:04:46.420 Yeah.

00:04:47.340 Eric Lichtbaugh says he needs protection on part of that from a protected source.

00:04:56.340 Which just happens to be Michael Sussman.

00:04:58.880 It's pretty remarkable.

00:05:00.280 First off, let's keep in mind, he's volunteered to be a witness for the defense.

00:05:04.900 So he's already shown his colors, right?

00:05:06.320 He's going to try to help Michael Sussman here in this trial as a reporter who wrote one of the stories about Alpha Bank.

00:05:12.600 Now, in fairness to him, that story knocked down the Alpha Bank theory and portrayed it accurately that the FBI didn't believe that there had actually been a conspiracy.

00:05:22.300 There wasn't this secret communication channel.

00:05:24.280 But it gives you a mindset that a reporter would feel comfortable being a defense witness willingly and then say, okay, the defense can ask me any questions they want because I'm their witness.

00:05:33.100 But when John Dern comes in, I want a lot of things to be off limits.

00:05:36.640 I don't think that's going to succeed.

00:05:38.320 I think the judge is going to say, listen, you came in here, you opened the door, we're going where both sides want to go.

00:05:44.120 I think that's going to fail.

00:05:45.460 But when we talk about Washington being a one-party town, one of the ingredients of the one-party town is so much of the media establishment here is in bed with the Democrats, in bed with the bureaucracy in Washington.

00:05:58.280 You saw it in the text messages of Lisa Page and Pete Strzok and Andy McCabe, reporters chumming around with them.

00:06:07.680 The media were a co-conspirator in the spreading of this false Russia story.

00:06:12.260 And now, even as the trial comes along, you see the media still in bed with the Democratic side on the defense of this trial.

00:06:19.800 Not surprising, I think, to most Americans, but at least it's laid bare for the first time in the courtroom.

00:06:25.400 You know, Eric Lickbaugh is a well-known reporter.

00:06:33.680 He seems to be at some risk here of getting into real trouble, because if he is not given that protection he's asking for from the prosecutor, he could be in a heck of a mess.

00:06:49.320 And so could Sussman.

00:06:50.180 Yeah, listen, the judge is going to have to face a decision at that moment and decide whether he's going to compel testimony.

00:06:57.120 We saw this happen once before.

00:06:59.300 Famous case a long time ago.

00:07:01.100 Judy Miller, another New York Times reporter, actually went to prison for a while because she wouldn't answer questions in the Scooter Libby trial. 1.00

00:07:08.040 So there is precedent in history of sending New York Times reporters to prison or former New York Times reporters to prison to compel them to testify.

00:07:16.920 We'll have to see how this plays out.

00:07:18.920 I think the first thing will be just the judge ruling on the day that Lickbaugh was brought to the stand what the parameters of the questioning is going to be.

00:07:26.880 I think John Durham is going to play this smart.

00:07:28.740 He doesn't want to get into any sideshows, but he wants to be able to ask Eric Lickbaugh, who were you talking to?

00:07:33.520 What were they telling you?

00:07:34.900 You agreed to be a defense witness.

00:07:36.480 You can't have it both ways and say, I want to testify for them, but not give you the truth.

00:07:40.900 I think he'll draw that out and we'll see that.

00:07:44.200 But you're right, Eric Lickbaugh, if he does refuse to testify, the judge has a contempt power to punish him in some way.

00:07:51.300 We'll just see if it gets to that point.

00:07:52.620 I want to point out something really interesting about Eric Lickbaugh because a lot of people don't remember this.

00:07:57.960 But back in 2006, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the secret NSA eavesdropping program.

00:08:04.140 Remember, that was a story about the government maybe abusing Americans, right, spying on Americans.

00:08:10.020 This is a trial about the FBI maybe being abused to again harm Americans.

00:08:15.420 And he's on the opposite side of the issue right now, right?

00:08:18.160 He's testifying for the defense, trying to be a sympathetic witness for them.

00:08:22.620 He saw wrongdoing when George W. Bush was president and the government maybe overreaching and invading the privacy, harming the interests of Americans.

00:08:31.300 But he's going to be on the opposite side of that debate when the FBI was used to smear the reputations of people like Carter Page and Mike Flynn and Donald Trump.

00:08:40.480 Very interesting flip on a guy who once hung his shingle on the idea that government overreach was a bad thing.

00:08:47.280 Yeah, and that's a great point.

00:08:48.620 It is also to be considered, I think, that the New York Times and Blick Blau was a member of the team that won a Pulitzer Prize for the Russian collusion hoax.

00:09:03.040 Do you suppose this trial will have an impact on whether or not that is returned or asked for by the Pulitzer Committee?

00:09:11.220 That is a great question.

00:09:13.820 I keep hearing rumblings, but we can't get it confirmed that the Pulitzer Committee is, in fact, doing a review of some of the behavior.

00:09:21.260 I do know that there's a reporter for Columbia Journalism Review that's doing a look back at the failures of the New York Times, particularly in the Russia collusion story.

00:09:32.140 I believe that will come out this fall.

00:09:33.560 We should all be watching for that.

00:09:34.740 I understand it is an excellent piece of journalism.

00:09:37.180 It'll be good journalism.

00:09:37.960 It won't be the sort of thing we'll be lampooning, but let's go back and remember the Eric Lickbaugh of 2017, because he's one of the writers.

00:09:45.600 Here's one of his headlines.

00:09:46.580 You can check this out.

00:09:47.380 Don't take my word for it.

00:09:48.180 You can go to the New York Times archive and see this.

00:09:50.540 Comey tried to shield the FBI from politics.

00:09:53.480 That's one of his headlines.

00:09:54.720 James Comey didn't shield the FBI from politics.

00:09:56.780 He facilitated the FBI getting in politics by allowing the Russia collusion story to get there.

00:10:02.060 So we get a sense of Eric Lickbaugh's perspective as a New York Times writer by some of the headlines he wrote.

00:10:08.780 Here's another one he wrote.

00:10:10.120 CIA had evidence of Russian effort to help Trump earlier than believed.

00:10:14.820 We now know that the CIA debunked the Russia collusion case, was telling the FBI, hey, Carter Page is our guy.

00:10:22.540 He's not involved.

00:10:23.220 And we're going to hear from, we believe, we're going to hear at this trial in the next couple of days, Lou, CIA witnesses coming in saying, hey, we looked at the Sussman stuff and we not only dismissed it, it wasn't true.

00:10:35.340 We believed it might have been contrived, manufactured.

00:10:38.500 So some of the headlines that Eric Lickbaugh wrote back in 2017, people ought to go back and look at.

00:10:44.500 He isn't exactly been very good on the facts when it came to this Russia story.

00:10:49.300 He was a sympathist for the deep state, a sympathist for the Democrats, as he's now showing as a defense witness.

00:10:55.860 But some of his reporting is worth going back to.

00:10:58.720 Certainly some of these headlines are worth revisiting.

00:11:01.360 And you know what?

00:11:01.700 We're going to do that on this show.

00:11:03.520 We're going to go back and go through all of that as this unwinds in court and on the pages of Just the News.

00:11:11.680 Do we know just exactly who both sides are working for?

00:11:17.300 You know, that's a great question, right?

00:11:21.060 We have a lot of understanding of this case.

00:11:24.420 While this case is a very narrow case, really, at the end of the day, the facts for the jury to consider are, did Michael Sussman come in and tell the FBI falsely he wasn't working on behalf of a client when he was and he brought this in?

00:11:38.440 We know now for certain he made the claim because John Durham produced what I would call a smoking gun text message showing that he told the FBI general counsel, James Baker, I'm coming to you on behalf of no client.

00:11:52.280 We now know that that can't be disputed.

00:11:54.400 He's going to try to waffle and say, well, that's not what I meant.

00:11:56.780 Or the FBI knew, even though I said that, that that wasn't what I meant.

00:11:59.980 It's a very narrow question, but John Durham is using this trial to talk about the bigger story.

00:12:07.640 And early on in his court filings about three, four weeks ago, he talked about a joint venture, a conspiracy, that this was a conspiracy or joint venture between a law firm working for Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Clinton campaign,

00:12:20.240 a tech executive named Jaffe, who was certainly close to the Clinton campaign and chairing them and wanted to work for Hillary Clinton if she got to be president.

00:12:30.440 And I think the fourth co-conspirator in that joint venture is the news media.

00:12:36.600 One of the things I wrote about two weeks ago was all of these messages between Fusion GPS, the research firm and Sussman and others with the news media, feeding the news media,

00:12:48.140 telling the news media who they could interview in Congress that would give them the quotes that would affirm Russia collusion.

00:12:54.820 The coziness of the news media is going to be a subliminal message or a subplot of this trial.

00:13:01.320 And I think people will walk away at the end of this trial saying, you know what?

00:13:05.460 The media was on the side of the people who gave us a false Russian story.

00:13:09.720 So I think John Durham is going to tell a much larger story in a narrow case.

00:13:13.300 And the media, the Democratic machinery and the deep state bureaucracy are all going to be on one side.

00:13:22.080 There is so much to this story now that, you know, the idea that the that the CIA would be debunking the FBI story.

00:13:33.200 Yes, it runs against the grain a bit because we all know that the CIA was enmeshed in this, quote, unquote, joint venture to push this material and did so.

00:13:47.240 So how do we how do we start to square all of that up?

00:13:50.920 It's a really interesting dynamic because the more I've dug into this and I had the same theory as you, Lou, that the CIA was all the way in on this.

00:13:57.620 And what you learn at the end of the day is the career CIA people, the people that are on the ground, were actually doing the right thing, telling the FBI, hey, you really should check this guy, Steele, out.

00:14:07.800 He needs to be revetted because we think he's too close to Russian oligarchs.

00:14:11.320 He's been infiltrated by Russian intelligence.

00:14:13.960 They tell him, hey, why are you looking at Carter Page?

00:14:16.780 He's one of us.

00:14:17.980 Of course, the FBI lies and doesn't tell that to the court.

00:14:20.580 Even doctors, the documents to hide it from the court.

00:14:23.440 There are the career people that actually were doing the right thing, flagging time and time and time again that the FBI was on the wrong case.

00:14:32.120 They were looking at the wrong things.

00:14:33.500 They were being misled.

00:14:34.760 They were perpetrating a case based on Russian disinformation.

00:14:38.680 Those are all words that the CIA used.

00:14:41.080 And then we're going to find out this new development that they told them that this Alpha Bank thing might have even been contrived.

00:14:46.120 Forget that it was wrong.

00:14:47.280 It might have even been manipulated.

00:14:49.020 That's the career people.

00:14:49.940 Then there's John Brennan and the political people at the top of the CIA.

00:14:55.720 And those are the ones that we can now go out and see are on television fanning a Russia collusion story that they themselves knew was false.

00:15:04.360 And how do we know that?

00:15:05.580 Well, we know that John Brennan fanned this and was on TV relentlessly both as CIA director and then as a consultant media player.

00:15:14.120 But remember what he tells Barack Obama in July of 2016, before this all started.

00:15:19.960 He goes in and tells the president, Mr. President, there's been an intercept and Hillary Clinton's people are being caught on overseas saying they're going to pull a dirty trick on Donald Trump.

00:15:29.080 They're going to try to make him look like a Russian collusion spy or patsy because they want to get the attention off her email scandal.

00:15:37.220 So John Brennan knows the truth.

00:15:39.420 He even tells Barack Obama the truth.

00:15:41.240 Then he goes on television and fans a different story.

00:15:45.540 And I have a funny feeling when this is all done, John Brennan's not going to get charged with any wrongdoing.

00:15:49.420 But when the final report comes out, if it becomes public, John Durham writes the final report.

00:15:53.720 I strongly believe that you're going to see a comparison between what the CIA knew and said behind closed doors and were telling people the truth and what John Brennan went on TV and said.

00:16:04.400 And I don't think John Brennan will fare very well in the court of public opinion when all that evidence is laid bare to the American public.

00:16:12.960 Well, that's a wonderful wish to ask for.

00:16:18.160 It is also noteworthy that Brennan hasn't been out in public of late.

00:16:22.560 Yeah.

00:16:22.820 And that's always a signal.

00:16:24.920 Isn't it?

00:16:25.380 You know, John Brennan's been quiet.

00:16:26.680 You look, Andy McCabe has been a lot more quiet.

00:16:29.680 Lisa Page has been a lot more quiet.

00:16:31.520 A lot of these people whose conduct is still under investigation.

00:16:34.320 James Comey.

00:16:35.080 Yeah, he must be lost in the clouds or in the trees or wherever he was tweeting from a couple of years ago because we haven't heard from him either.

00:16:42.000 And I think that is a sign.

00:16:43.240 Usually people who are still in the crosshairs of an investigation, their lawyers say, hey, pipe down, quiet down, don't poke the bear.

00:16:49.860 So I think that may be a reflection of what we see that John Durham still has a lot of investigating to do.

00:16:55.300 Have we got a list of both sides and who they're calling as witnesses?

00:17:01.760 We do.

00:17:02.900 Most of the witnesses for John Durham are government witnesses.

00:17:07.880 They're an FBI agent who worked the case and probably was involved in the opening of the Alpha Bank phase of the case.

00:17:13.400 We expect him to come in based on the filings and say, listen, if we had known that Sussman was working on behalf of Jaffe, the Clinton tech executive, and the Clinton campaign, we might have treated this differently.

00:17:25.100 We might not have opened up on this in the middle of a campaign.

00:17:28.760 We believe there's going to be some CIA experts who looked at this when Sussman didn't get what he wanted from the FBI, right?

00:17:35.400 They ultimately decide, ah, this part of the investigation is bogus.

00:17:38.600 So then he tries to repackage it and sell it to the CIA in February of 17.

00:17:43.340 We expect some of those CIA people to come in.

00:17:46.200 The Durham, and then one of the surprise witnesses for the prosecution, he may not be a willing prosecution witness, but Sussman's boss, Sussman's colleague, Mark Elias at Perkins Coie is going to be called on behalf of the government.

00:18:01.320 He may be a hostile witness.

00:18:02.540 He may be a cooperating witness, but we expect that to be a very important moment in the trial about what he knew, what his emails will show.

00:18:10.780 And that'll be a moment where some of the Perkins Coie internal communications get before the jury.

00:18:16.280 That's going to be a very interesting moment in the trial.

00:18:19.340 Well, Sussman is facing a charge of lying to the FBI.

00:18:22.560 Yes.

00:18:22.940 It seems like a lot of people are open to that charge right now.

00:18:27.020 That's a great question, right?

00:18:29.360 There's always been questions about the testimony of people like Glenn Simpson.

00:18:32.880 As you know, Devin Nunes, when he was House Intelligence Committee chairman, and by the way, ridiculed in 2018 when his report came out.

00:18:39.680 Remember the media said, oh, Devin Nunes is wrong about everything.

00:18:42.660 Adam Schiff is the right guy.

00:18:44.360 Four years later, we now know that almost everything Adam Schiff wrote was wrong in his counter report, and everything Devin Nunes wrote has turned out to be true and proven.

00:18:53.460 But remember that Devin Nunes made a large number of criminal referrals of people he believed were not honest to the Congressional Committee.

00:19:02.940 And those are still pending.

00:19:04.420 We don't know the NOTAM.

00:19:05.440 I want to point out one thing that will come up at this trial.

00:19:07.440 We now know from the text message that Michael Sussman, the Clinton campaign lawyer, told the FBI, I'm not coming to you on behalf of any client.

00:19:16.780 A year later, a year and a half later, he goes to the House Intelligence Committee and tells the exact opposite story, which is I did approach the FBI on behalf of a client.

00:19:27.060 He couldn't keep his own story straight in those two spheres.

00:19:29.960 And I think that's going to become one of the issues the jury is going to get to see.

00:19:34.240 But there's a lot of people who testified before the House Intelligence Committee.

00:19:37.920 Jake Sullivan, the current National Security Advisor, is another guy whose testimony has been called into question by Republicans.

00:19:44.300 We'll have to see if any more false testimony cases come out of this John Durham investigation.

00:19:50.300 So, a couple of questions as we wrap up here, John.

00:19:55.540 Do you expect any surprises, I mean, real big surprises to come out of this Durham proceeding?

00:20:02.280 You know, and the reason I'm asking is it looks like this thing is stacked against John Durham and the prosecution big time.

00:20:09.740 Christopher Cooper, Obama appointed judge and acting freely in the interest of the Democrats and the left wing, the Hillary Clinton campaigns, the Obama campaigns.

00:20:21.720 It's it's a massively biased environment into which Durham and his prosecutors are marching.

00:20:29.980 You know, it's definitely true.

00:20:32.780 The jury poll, the city, the media are all going to be stacked against John Durham.

00:20:36.580 And they have from the moment he was appointed the you never can underestimate what happens when a career government official, someone who works in the bowels of the FBI and just goes in and does his job every day, comes out and says, you know what?

00:20:49.960 I work at the FBI.

00:20:51.140 I try to call balls and strikes.

00:20:52.660 I don't play the politics that was on the seventh floor where McCabe and and Comey were.

00:20:58.960 I try to call balls and strikes.

00:21:00.440 And I'm telling you, as a career FBI agent, I'm looking you in the eye.

00:21:04.160 I might be the guy that a year from now is going to be investigating a murder in your neighborhood or a drug gang that's terrorizing you.

00:21:10.900 So you want you.

00:21:11.580 I think you trust me to keep you safe.

00:21:13.540 What happened here was an abuse of the FBI.

00:21:16.560 They came to us.

00:21:17.280 They lied to us.

00:21:17.980 They used us for a political dirty trip.

00:21:20.060 You can never underestimate how powerful that will be to a juror who may have never in their life before met a real FBI agent.

00:21:27.920 And then a few days later, a guy that comes in from an agency that most people never deal with, the CIA, comes in.

00:21:33.840 And here's an analyst, an expert, and says, you know what?

00:21:36.640 We looked at this data that Hillary Clinton's team was putting together, and it is bunk.

00:21:40.900 In fact, it looks like it was manufactured for an October surprise.

00:21:44.960 Those moments can take a jury that has a lot of biases, has a lot of politics in it, and stop them for a second.

00:21:51.380 And the question I think you'll see, John Durham led this way this morning, and I think he'll close this way.

00:21:57.420 Take the politics out of this again.

00:21:59.180 If this is the drug lord in your neighborhood that's terrorizing you, if this is somebody that gunned down someone in your neighborhood, do you want them to be lying to the FBI?

00:22:07.800 Because it's the same crime, whether it's a political person in the Hillary Clinton campaign or that drug lord.

00:22:13.580 You have to treat them the same.

00:22:14.880 And I think you'll see John Durham try to snap the jury out of its natural anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton biases and do that.

00:22:22.820 And I do believe Judge Cooper has done something very important for John Durham.

00:22:27.140 He pierced the attorney-client privilege.

00:22:29.280 He said, you know what?

00:22:30.240 I don't buy this idea that this was an attorney-client privilege, a project for Perkins Coie, so I'm letting some of these emails out.

00:22:38.680 I think when people see the raw politics that are in these emails, they might buy into the idea that this was an October surprise.

00:22:46.060 And I think that's what John Durham has to pull off here.

00:22:48.320 We'll see how good he is when the jury verdict comes in.

00:22:52.300 And how long a trial do you think it'll be?

00:22:54.880 It looks like it's going to shape up to be a couple of weeks, not much more than that.

00:22:58.000 It isn't a complicated case, right?

00:22:59.540 Either he lied or he didn't.

00:23:01.140 I think this will go on about a week or two.

00:23:03.500 We'll have a few celebrity.

00:23:04.660 I think the Durham celebrities are going to be the FBI agents, the CIA agents who are just, you seldom hear from them in the stand.

00:23:11.560 They're going to come out, and then there'll be the really interesting examination of Mark Elias.

00:23:17.240 And then it goes to the defense side.

00:23:18.780 You're going to see some of, you might see some of the Hillary Clinton witnesses, campaign people.

00:23:23.820 You're certainly going to see Eric Lickblow.

00:23:25.380 That might be a dramatic moment.

00:23:27.180 And then this will go to the jury.

00:23:28.580 And I think the key for Durham is to keep people reminding that, take your politics out.

00:23:33.540 Do you want anyone to lie to the FBI?

00:23:36.040 And I think that's the, today, Durham laid that gauntlet down in the opening arguments with his prosecutors.

00:23:42.000 And I think they're just going to keep at it.

00:23:43.660 October surprise, October surprise.

00:23:45.880 Misusing the FBI is bad for you.

00:23:47.980 One day, the shoe could be on the other foot, and you could be a Democrat, and someone's misusing the FBI for Republican gain.

00:23:54.780 You have to punish this so it doesn't happen.

00:23:57.000 I think that's how he'll continue to play the jury right to the last moment.

00:24:01.040 And the odds at this juncture?

00:24:04.200 You know, it's hard to say.

00:24:05.200 I've never been good.

00:24:06.240 I was wrong about O.J. Simpson as a young reporter, and so I decided I'm never going to make a prognostication again.

00:24:11.260 I will say this.

00:24:12.340 John Durham is a very accomplished prosecutor.

00:24:15.500 And by the way, he was a prosecutor for decades in a very blue area of Connecticut.

00:24:21.260 Connecticut is about as liberal as District of Columbia.

00:24:24.220 It's maybe a little less, but not much.

00:24:26.020 And he always got his convictions.

00:24:27.340 He's a guy that has a very good track record.

00:24:29.680 And I don't think just because the jury poll is stacked against him that you should bet against him.

00:24:34.400 I think he's going to make a very convincing case.

00:24:37.020 And all through this case, every time it looked like, oh, Hillary Clinton scored a win, the next day, John Durham would come in and say, oh, I forgot to tell you about this.

00:24:44.920 Here's that text message.

00:24:45.880 And people, oh, my gosh, well, that was wrong.

00:24:48.000 He's trumped the defense several times in the lead up to this trial.

00:24:52.780 And I suspect he'll do it again in the case.

00:24:55.480 He's a very good litigator, and his team is very good litigators.

00:24:58.900 Again, they got odds stacked against him with the jury poll.

00:25:01.960 But this is a guy that won a lot of cases in blue Connecticut against people that you'd be surprised that they secured convictions.

00:25:08.360 I think he'll do very well.

00:25:10.120 It'll ultimately come down to what jurors think of the case.

00:25:12.420 And didn't at any point you expect Durham to ask for a change of venue?

00:25:16.960 I did not.

00:25:18.060 I did not.

00:25:18.560 He plays by the rules.

00:25:19.560 This is not a guy.

00:25:22.340 My research on him and talking to lots of people that have worked with him is that he's very comfortable working within the system.

00:25:29.420 He believes on most days the system still works.

00:25:33.000 And part of his shock, part of the thing that drove him to bring this prosecution is when someone tries to cheat the system,

00:25:39.560 it really offends a guy like him because he believes that the system can still work.

00:25:43.380 This is not a guy that thinks, I've got to change venues because I don't believe in the justice system.

00:25:47.600 He's been a career prosecutor for 40-plus years.

00:25:50.220 He believes on most days the system works.

00:25:53.280 And part of the reason he wants to punish Michael Sussman from the people that I talk to around him

00:25:57.820 is that he believes that this was an abuse of the system that he's taken so seriously.

00:26:02.260 So I don't think he ever considered it.

00:26:04.320 I think he feels comfortable bringing this case where the crime occurred in the District of Columbia

00:26:09.040 and trying his best to convince a D.C. liberal jury that this is something you don't want happening in government.

00:26:15.720 We'll see how that plays out.

00:26:16.940 And I want to turn quickly to some more of just the news reporting, by the way.

00:26:22.860 Sure.

00:26:23.600 GOP reps subpoenaed five of them.

00:26:27.300 McCarthy, Jordan, Biggs, Brooks, Perry.

00:26:32.680 It's an impressive list.

00:26:34.960 Yes, it is.

00:26:36.140 And all the more impressive because there are no true Republicans sitting on that January 6th committee,

00:26:42.180 and it's considered to be, and I think appropriately so, a partisan show trial, a Soviet-era show trial in point of fact.

00:26:51.720 Yeah, listen, there's been a lot of effective attacks on the January 6th committee.

00:26:56.040 Some of our reporting greatly embarrassed the January 6th commission.

00:26:59.600 Let's remember that it wasn't that long ago where they accused Bernie Kerik and something they put out in public,

00:27:05.780 which, by the way, you didn't need to put this into the subpoena, but they did it for show,

00:27:09.180 and they said Bernie Kerik, the former NYPD commissioner, was in Washington, D.C.,

00:27:15.340 and attended a meeting the night before the January 6th rally to hijack the counting of the votes.

00:27:21.000 We went and got his phone records and his tracking data, and we showed he wasn't in D.C.

00:27:26.320 He was in New York City three, four hours away, did not attend the meeting, could not have attended the meeting.

00:27:32.140 They had to apologize to him.

00:27:34.380 They've made some major blunders in this investigation.

00:27:36.960 But here's how I think this commission is going to work out when it comes to the five Republicans that you're trying to compel testimony from.

00:27:45.780 There is a structural legal problem that this commission has had.

00:27:50.500 There are rules that Nancy Pelosi's House put into place that says that subpoenas and compelled testimony can only come from a committee that has been properly seated. 0.99

00:28:03.260 In order for a committee, under Nancy Pelosi's rules, by the way, these aren't Republican rules.

00:28:07.980 These are the rules that Democrats put in place.

00:28:10.220 You have to have a ranking member on a committee in order for this to happen.

00:28:14.900 There is no ranking member.

00:28:16.360 The Republicans were not allowed to pick their ranking member.

00:28:19.220 That is not in dispute.

00:28:20.420 There is no ranking member on this committee.

00:28:22.260 Liz Cheney can be on the committee.

00:28:24.020 Adam Katzinger can be on it.

00:28:25.340 But they're not what are known in the parlance of Congress, in the rules of Congress, ranking member.

00:28:31.120 I think you're going to see Kevin McCarthy and others go to court and say, listen, we have these rules in Congress.

00:28:37.000 We didn't follow them.

00:28:38.380 Then the rules should continue to apply to us, which is you can't compel something where there's not a ranking member.

00:28:43.180 This is going to get tied up potentially in courts for a while.

00:28:45.740 And it's going to play out.

00:28:47.140 And then there's going to be an election.

00:28:49.220 And if Republicans win, remember this line.

00:28:52.440 Remember what you wish for.

00:28:54.100 Be careful what you wish for, because Republicans could be in control next year.

00:28:57.760 And their first, I guarantee you, their first subpoena on a January 6th-related investigation is not going to go to anyone other than Nancy Pelosi,

00:29:05.700 because she has never been questioned about what she knew, why she turned down the National Guard on January 4th,

00:29:12.780 what she was told the day of, could she have prevented this attack?

00:29:15.740 So Democrats may have some buyer's remorse on this come January of next year if Republicans are in control.

00:29:21.800 But I think what plays out between now and then, my reporting indicates that there is a legitimate legal challenge to this committee,

00:29:29.760 because it isn't following Nancy Pelosi's own rules.

00:29:32.840 And that may give these Republicans a way to contest these subpoenas, saying they're not lawful under the rules of Congress.

00:29:39.980 As always, we give our guests the last word, John Solomon, if you will.

00:29:45.740 Yeah, listen, this is going to be a dramatic few weeks in Washington, whether it's January 6th,

00:29:49.760 whether it's the elections playing out in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and other key battleground states, and the Sussman trial.

00:29:59.060 America is still trying to grapple and come to grips with what happened in the last two elections.

00:30:03.540 2016, the Russia dirty trick. 0.92

00:30:06.040 2020, some of the rule changes and other things that occurred that put the 2020 results into question in many people's minds.

00:30:13.500 The next few weeks, we're going to see a lot of that play out with court cases, assessment trial.

00:30:18.180 And I think people will walk into the 2022 election with a certain, a more factual certainty about what happened in 16 and 20 than they did going into these weeks a few weeks ago.

00:30:29.640 It's shocking that we're almost at the 2022 election and we're still trying to figure out what happened in 16 and 20.

00:30:35.160 But I think we're going to get some factual clarity for the first time, and that'll be satisfying to people no matter what side of the political aisle you're on.

00:30:42.380 I think we're going to learn some things that we'll all agree will be facts, and that is always a good thing.

00:30:47.900 Absolutely.

00:30:48.780 John Solomon, thanks for all you do.

00:30:51.060 And that is obviously a great deal for the Republic.

00:30:55.340 We appreciate it.

00:30:56.720 Thank you, sir.

00:30:57.220 Love your show.

00:30:58.240 Thank you.

00:30:59.040 And we love just the news.

00:31:01.900 John Solomon, you can always depend on John's journalism, a great American.

00:31:06.940 And tomorrow here on The Great America Show, we talk with John Paul McIsaac,

00:31:10.920 the young man who lost his computer repair shop and livelihood when Hunter Biden gave him what turned out to be the laptop from hell.

00:31:19.460 That's here tomorrow.

00:31:20.760 We'll learn what he's doing as he puts his life back together and seeks justice.

00:31:25.420 Also with us, Corey Mills, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran businessman running for Congress in the 7th District of Florida,

00:31:32.920 and he makes an unusual campaign promise, saying the business that he co-founded sometimes makes liberals cry.

00:31:41.480 That's here tomorrow on The Great America Show.

00:31:43.820 You don't want to miss it.

00:31:45.020 Till then, God bless you, and God bless America.

00:31:47.900 God bless you, and God bless you, and God bless you.

The Great America Show - May 20, 2022

CIA DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX AND FRAME-UP

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript