Grabien

HIGBIE: “Executive vice president of the Trump Org, Eric Trump himself. Eric, glad to have you on. Wish it was under better circumstances, but these people lost their minds on this Sunday.” E. Trump: “Yeah, they lost their minds. I mean, look who Stephanopoulos is, right? I mean, he was the head of the war room. He was head of Clinton’s campaign, you know, back in the day, right? Everybody knows what side George Stephanopoulos is on. There’s no question about that. Carl, a little statistic, and I have inside information because the person who’s in charge of it happens to sleep in my bed, Lara Trump. But we raised — she raised, in 48 hours, she raised over $70 million in soft donations and in small-dollar donations, right? The average one of those donations was like 40 bucks. I mean, think about that. 30 percent of those people had never been seen by a political party ever before. They weren’t on the rolls of the RNC. They weren’t on the rolls of the DNC. Again, these are people who came into the Republican Party because they thought the whole thing was such a travesty. And not a single person in this country believes that a former president of the United States, a 45th president of the United States, and probably the 47th president, got indicted and charged with 34 felonies over $130,000. Carl, I went down to that courthouse every single day. They closed down 10 blocks around that courthouse, they had thousands of police officers. They had gates everywhere you could possibly imagine. You couldn’t get literally within 10 blocks of the courthouse in lower Manhattan, they would shut down the FDR Drive every single day when he went down there on the way back up. Over $130,000. They don’t do a damn thing about Hunter Biden when, you know, he’s taking in tens and tens of millions of dollars from countries all around the world, sitting on boards of natural gas companies. They don’t do a damn thing about Hillary Clinton, who, you know, after getting a congressional subpoena, deletes 33,000 emails from her home servers, right again, she has a subpoena. She deletes all those emails. They don’t do a damn thing about that. They don’t do anything about, you know, the prostitution. They don’t do anything about, you know, illicit drugs on Hunter’s laptop. But guess what? They go after Donald Trump for $130,000 legal bill, which was marked down as a legal bill from 8 years ago, despite the fact that it probably cost the city of New York a couple hundred millions of dollars, and you know, many billions of dollars, Carl, when you take all the businesses that see the sham that was going on, how weaponized that court system is. And decided to either leave this state or never enter the state, you know, for fear that the exact same thing could happen to somebody else if they were on the wrong side of the political spectrum. So it was a sad day. But the fundraising, we’ve never seen anything like it. And you probably saw the walk into UFC 302 where, literally, you had, you know, 30-40 thousand people in Prudential Center that absolutely went crazy and started chanting ‘USA’ and, you know, ‘we love Trump’ and you know, every other kind of, you know, pro-Trump, pro-American chant that you could think of.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Dr. >> You on tonight. I mean it was a remarkable day on Capitol Hill and obviously, you‘re not a stranger to testifying before Congress or even pretty contentious here. Brains, but I just wonder how today compares to the other times that you‘ve been up on Capitol Hill, testify before lawmakers well, as you know, Caitlin, thank you for having me. >> Hundreds of times over the last 40 years, over Congress. And there‘s always been differences of opinion, differences of audiology criticisms, and things like that. >> That we see now just in the country in general. >> During this hearing was really quite unfortunate because the purpose of hearings or to try and figure out how we can do better so that next time if and when we all faced with a pandemic we‘d be better prepared and we could benefit if mistakes were made, we identify them and we try to correct them for the future that‘s not what we saw today as shown by the clip you showed with Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, that was nothing about trying to to do better. Unfortunately. >> The end about the threats that you and your family are still getting even to this day and for those who don‘t know that was your wife, Christine, who was esteemed in her own rights, sitting behind you there. I just wonder if you ever thought that you would still be getting threats like that, credible threats against your life. Even now, two years out of government service it‘s very interesting. >> Kaitlan, that whenever somebody gets up, whether it‘s a news media Fox News, does it a lot, or it‘s someone body in the Congress who gets up and makes a public statement that I‘m responsible for the deaths of x number of people because of policies. Okay. Some crazy idea that I created the virus immediately. >> The death threats, go way up so that‘s the reason why I‘m still getting death threats when you have performances like that unusual performance by Marjorie Taylor Greene. In today‘s hearing, those are the kind of things that drive up the death threats because there are a segment of the population out there that believed that kind of nonsense. >> Behind you today, we have them highlighted right now on the screen. But but that person that‘s Brandon fellows, he‘s actually January 6, defendant, who was removed from the hearing later on and as he was leaving, I don‘t know if you could hear him, but we heard him on camera shouting that that he believed also that you belong in prison. Did you hear that I didn‘t hear it, but it was brought to my attention before and there was also someone behind me. >> Same person who was identified as someone who just got out of jail for being arrested for the January three sixth attack on the Capitol. Now, what somebody like that doing at a hearing about Covid I mean, it was it was remarkable just to see who was in that room today and to hear what they were how they were responding to it, and obviously that hearing room was not the haven for what it was supposed to be about the genuine dialogue about how the government handled Covid-19, how to be better prepared for the next inevitable pandemic. >> About that tonight. And I do wonder, do you still believe that the evidence that you‘ve seen does point to Covid originating from animals as opposed to by humans in a lab kaitlan, as I said at the hearing. >> Interview. You have to keep an open mind since there is no definitive proof, one way or the other, it‘s one or the other. When I I look at the scientific evidence, I don‘t see any evidence that‘s concrete at all that it‘s a lab leak, even though a lot of people talk about it, I still think it‘s a possibility, but I haven‘t seen any evidence where there is reasonably good evidence, not definitive. That is suggestive, strongly suggestive that it came from a natural reservoir of an animal jumping into humans, having that, I repeat, I still keep an open mind because the definitive proof is not there. But in my mind it weighs more heavily of one than the other. >> With this was a lack of accountability in working with the Chinese his government on this. I mean, they were evading attempts to try to figure out what happened here. And given that, you testified, tell you said that neither you nor anyone can account for everything that happens inside of China. But I wonder what that means for American research dollars that go there and whether you think that means None of them should be sent there, that they should try to limit them. How should that happen? Going forward kaitlan, if you look at the history going back decades of collaborations with Chinese scientists, we‘re not talking about Chinese officials were talking about China any scientists who‘ve collaborated with the European Union, with the United States, with Canada, with Australia. A lot of very good important science that has contributed to global health has come from collaborations with the Chinese now, obviously because of the tension that‘s gone wrong on right now, that‘s changed a bit. >> Normality where there can be mutual benefit of inter elaborate international collaboration among sciences. The way it‘s been for decades. This is just very recent. This degree of tension that we‘re seeing. >> Came up today was focused on the us and how a deputy of yours at it the‘90s age bragged about evading federal records laws and deleting emails to where they couldn‘t be produced to reporters people, members of the public, hoover, requesting them. And you talked about this, but what changes do you believe the NIH should make to ensure that these open records request which which we believe are fundamentally important or not purposefully obstructed by officials yeah. Well, first of all, kaitlan, let me say that the individual who did that was wrong. That is unexcused, able inappropriate. And that is not the way things go with the NIH. That is an outlier and not typical at all of the hundreds, if not thousands a very hard working committed people at the national institutes of health so I hope that the public and the audience doesn‘t realize or doesn‘t come to the conclusion if I might say that one single person who did something that is totally unacceptable and very inappropriate, that that is reflective of the thousands of people who are doing their job and are committed to the health of this country and so what should be done differently? >> Concern that people see that and you say it‘s it was an outlier, but there‘s a concern that it does diminish trust and really in public health overall, obviously at a time when it‘s needed the money most well, I‘m not sure what you can do. Kaitlan. It is it is not appropriate and it‘s in fact illegal and a violation of regulations to mess with public records that are official business records. And that was done and that‘s unfortunate but that happens when one person does something that‘s inappropriate and wrong. I said, I‘m not sure what kind of correction we‘re talking about except to say that that is by no means typical of the conduct of the large, large numbers of people who work at the NIH yeah. >> What I think people would like to walk away from a hearing like today is to see bipartisanship given scientists do say it‘s inevitable that we‘ll see another pandemic depending on when that is and from where you sit right now as a country, are we prepared to deal with another pandemic and your view? I think we have a ways to go. >> Some missteps along the way. I think there‘s some systemic issues that need to be addressed. I mentioned it at the hearing today that are association and connectivity between the local public health issue choose and the central CDC and other public health issues. There isn‘t the kind of real-time connectivity the CDC‘s aware of that. And they‘re trying to correct that. And I think the kinds of things we saw was a weakness at the public health implementation we did extremely well from the scientific standpoint. The investment of decades of research led to a vaccine in 11 months, which is unprecedented in the history of vaccinology, that has resulted in the saving of millions of lives. So when it comes to the science, we did well, we‘ve got to do better at the public health health level. >>

KUDLOW: “Last one, Jonathan, and you’re always so great. You wrote a good piece. I read it in The Hill. There are a number of reasons to believe that the Trump appeal in the Alvin Bragg case will be successful. You still think that?” TURLEY: “I do. Look, very few of us outside Manhattan have a lot of faith in the New York legal system right now. And the former president may have some rough sledding on the first level of appeal, but after that, I think that some of these glaring errors will become more pronounced for judges. I think eventually it will go in front of the Supreme Court. In my view, it’s — it would be impossible to sustain this verdict. I mean, this — there are so many problems, so many errors that were committed by Judge Merchan. But we may have to wait a bit. It’s likely to occur after the election, which is what many people in Manhattan were hoping for.”

CLOUD: “I’m going to go through a list of Covid mitigation measures that you supported over the course of the pandemic and ask you to give me a yes or no as to whether you believe these measures were justified. Business closures?” Fauci: “When 5,000 people were dying a day, yes.” CLOUD: “Church closures?” Fauci: “Same thing.” CLOUD: “School closures?” Fauci: “Again, the —” CLOUD: “Stay at home orders?” Fauci: “These were important when we were trying to stop the tsunami of deaths that were occurring early on.” CLOUD: “Early on?” Fauci: “How long you kept them going is debatable.” CLOUD: “Mask mandates for adults, mask mandates for children, mask mandates for children under five?” Fauci: “And going back to what I said before, all of that is in the context of at that time 4-5,000 people a day were dying. [crosstalk]” CLOUD: “Mask mandates for children under five, there’s scientific evidence for that?” Fauci: “Excuse me?” CLOUD: “Mask mandates for children under five, there’s scientific evidence supporting that?” Fauci: “There was no study that did masks on kids before. You couldn’t do the study. You had to respond to an epidemic that was killing 4-5,000 Americans per day.” CLOUD: “Vaccine mandates for employees? Vaccine mandates for students? Vaccine mandates for military?” Fauci: “Vaccines save lives. It is very, very clear that vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of people worldwide.” CLOUD: “I’m not debating — we’re talking about Covid-19. Did or do the vaccines, the Covid-19 vaccine stop anyone from getting Covid?” Fauci: “I have answered that question to the chairman. Early on, it became clear that —” CLOUD: “They didn’t.” Fauci: “— No. Actually no. In the beginning, it clearly prevented infection into certain percentage of people but the durability of its ability to prevent infection was not long, it was measured in months.” CLOUD: “And they didn’t stop you from spreading it either, correct?” Fauci: “Early on it did if it prevented infection. But what became clear that it did not prevent transmission when the ability to prevent infection vaned.” CLOUD: “I think what’s troubling is when the American people look at the certainty and the — the case at which people lost jobs, they lost livelihoods, I had rural hospitals in my — in my area that did not have a single case of Covid in their rural community that had to shut down and people not get care that they did need for cancer and — and some passed away because of those kinds of things. And — and time after time, people’s lives are destroyed and we have not seen the same sort of once the new data came available we did not see a change, of course. And you’ll point out, for example, on the schools that the CDC, you know, put out the guidelines, for example, but — but we know that those guidelines end up being protection from lawsuits. And so if you don’t want to be sued, you better follow the guidelines. So they’re not mandates, de facto mandates, but they turn out to be such a mandate. And — and when the science began to change — we all understand that in the first couple of weeks, first few weeks, even a couple of months, we were all trying to figure it out. I think there’s a lot of grace for that. The concern is that as the science became available, there wasn’t like, ‘Oh, maybe we should consider the lab leak theory. Oh, maybe we should consider natural immunity.’ We never heard these messaging coming from you or from anyone else who stood on the sidelines talking about these things, and it’s left the American people with a tremendous distrust. I want to talk a little bit about the grant process. My understanding from your testimony to us it says that the NIH process for awarding grants is that basically research proposal goes to peer review committee to receive a priority score, then it goes to an advisory council for NIH personnel. It receives a final — basically the group votes on it, and then eventually it ends up on your desk for signature. Right? Now, you said in that that sometimes, if I recall correctly, those grants are often approved en bloc, en masse, when they’re voted on, and then you sign off on them.” Fauci: “That’s correct.” CLOUD: “I — I — this — this is one of the things that’s really troubling to the American people because we — they look at their lives being destroyed and there’s no one to hold accountable because these systems of — of accountability have become systems of plausible deniability. And so your name is on every single grant. But yet you — you absolve yourself of any sort of responsibility by saying, ‘Well, you know, it goes to this committee that’s, you know, that has a number of people on it, and they’re approved en bloc and so there’s no accountability for anything, any of the taxpayer dollars that are going forth.” Fauci: “I disagree with you, congressman.”

Garcia: “Do you think the American public should listen to America’s brightest and best doctors and scientists, or instead listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes?” Fauci: “No. Listening to people who you’ve just described is going to do nothing but harm people, because they will deprive themselves of life saving interventions, which has happened. And you know, some have done studies, Peter Hotez has done an analysis of this and shows that and people who refuse to get vaccinated for any variety of reasons, probably responsible for an additional 200,000 to 300,000 deaths in this country.” Garcia: “Thank you, sir and your entire team for saving lives in this country. And I’m sorry, you have to continue going on with these attacks.”

Fauci: “There’s a difference between the viruses that were funded by the NIH sub award versus anything else, anybody else in China might be doing.” GRIFFITH: “Excellent.” Fauci: “We were talking about did the NIH —“ GRIFFITH: “You’re talking about what you funded.” Fauci: “What we funded.” GRIFFITH: “All right.” Fauci: “And that’s the point.” GRIFFITH: “And — and that goes to my next question, because I thought you might go there, and I appreciate that.” Fauci: “Right.” GRIFFITH: “Because in an off the record member-level briefing in February of 2022, I asked about the likelihood of nature of a SARS related Coronavirus to have a furin cleavage site, particularly since it takes the 12 nucleotide change in there to make it so — to make it as viral as this was going on. And at the time, you said to me pretty much what you just said, and I want you to just confirm it for the record, ‘Well, that wasn’t us. If that was being done, it wasn’t us.’” Fauci: “Yes.” GRIFFITH: “And you confirm that for the record? Yes?” Fauci: “No, what I —“ GRIFFITH: “It wasn’t you. It wasn’t what you were funding.” Fauci: “What I’m saying is that I cannot account nor can anyone account for other things that might be going on in China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is. But the one thing I know for sure is that the viruses that were funded by the NIH phylogenetically could not be the precursor of SARS-CoV-2.” GRIFFITH: “Do you think they could have done it without the humanized mice that we gave them?” Fauci: “Could have done what, sir? I —“ [crosstalk] GRIFFITH: “Could have done — Could they have done any other research with the humanized mice that we gave them? Would they be successful? China didn’t have the humanized mice before we gave them to Wuhan. Isn’t it accurate that they might have been able to do extra stuff with our mice?” Fauci: “I think that’s a hypothetical — sorry sir — that’s a hypothetical that I can’t really answer what they could and could not have done.” [crosstalk] GRIFFITH: “But you can’t say it couldn’t have happened either. I yield back.” Fauci: “Well, you want me to prove a negative.” (Laughter)

WENSTRUP: “Vaccines save millions of lives and I want to thank you for your support and engagement on that. However, despite statements to the contrary, it did not stop transmission of the virus. Did the Covid vaccine stop transmission of the virus?” Fauci: “That is a complicated issue because in the beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect, not 100 percent, not a high effect, they did prevent infection and — and — and subsequently, obviously transmission. However, it’s important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by is that the durability of protection against infection, and hence transmission was relatively limited, whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and deaths was more prolonged. We did not know that in the beginning. In the beginning it was felt that, in fact, it did prevent infection and thus transmission but that was proven as time went by to not be a durable effect.” WENSTRUP: “Definitely it had positive effect for many people, especially those that were vulnerable. But we knew from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were subject to getting Covid. So was the Covid vaccine 100 percent effective?” Fauci: “I don’t believe any vaccine is 100 percent effective.”

WENSTRUP: “We have senior officials from your office in their own writing, discussing breaking federal law, deleting official records, and sharing private government information with grant recipients. The office you directed, and those serving under your leadership chose to flout the law and bragged about it. Why did you allow your office to be unaccountable to the American people? You were the highest paid person in the government. This makes you more accountable to the people, not less. Dr. Fauci whether intentional or not, you became so powerful that any disagreements the public had with you were forbidden and censored on social and most legacy media time and time again. This is why so many Americans became so angry because this was fundamentally un-American.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: That’s probably why I don’t know about it. When I started hearing about Caitlin Clark I had no idea what she looked like or her race I heard about the fact that she was breaking the records, I’m not buying this. >> This is the second or third time on the show when I cohosted that we talked about women’s basketball and it’s because of Caitlin Clark, the wnba has been a failure forever, it just has been you can like the product, dislike the product, they don’t make money they’ve not turned a profit ever and if you look at the interest at the college level at the wnba level in Caitlin Clark, the jersey sales, ticket sales, TV ratings this league would be suicidal to not protect its most valuable asset in the history of the league and getting shopped around like this is embarrassing that should not be allowed to stand and notice the woman who checked her to the floor and wouldn’t talk about it. Next question, you flagrantly fouled the league star, you don’t get to say no comment why don’t you have accountability or at least talk us through it, it’s really arrogant I’m not cut when there that is a bad look. >> We haven’t seen a player like Caitlin Clark impact the lead in history. >> I’m going back to Michael Jordan impact on a league later from the codirector of the lavatory for inclusion and diversity in sports and the los angeles times. >> Caitlin fits a comfortable narrative for a lot of people in the United States she comes from the heartland she is an amazing talent and also white straight woman, there is not a lot of things that would make people feel uncomfortable with that person being successful, no question I will let you react to that.

UNKNOWN: “...for Israel. Please welcome Brooklyn boy, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer!” Schumer: “Thank you! (Audience boos) Bring them home! Bring them home! Bring them home! Bring them home! Bring them home! Bring them home!”

LEVIN: “And therein, ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line. Why do I want this case to get before the Supreme Court? So they have the opportunity, whether they take it or not, to give us our due process clause back, to give us our equal protection clause back. It is not up to a prosecutor and a judge — a rogue prosecutor and a rogue judge for that matter — to destroy and nullify the due process clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendment, for the equal protection clause of the Fifth and 14th Amendment. And we have the same Democrat Party that rejected the Constitution, the same Democrat Party that fought the due process clause, that fought the equal protection clause; the same Democrat Party that after the Civil War, despite the Fifth Amendment, despite the Civil War Amendment, the 14th Amendment, still supported segregation, still supported Eugenics, still supported and backed Jim Crow. And nobody is a better figure, illustration of that than Joe Biden. Now they do it for different reasons and they do it in a different way, but it does not change who they are and what they are. They hate the Constitution as they must. As they adopt an increasingly aggressive Marxist ideology. And this party is an autocratic party. An autocratic party. It does not care how it gets power. What was done to Donald Trump in that courtroom, in addition to everything you heard, is an attempt to nullify the federal constitution, due process, equal protection. That’s what took place. The Democrat Party is the new Confederacy. That’s right. It was the old Confederacy, now it’s the new Confederacy. Reverse federalism where a judge and a prosecutor steal the jurisdictional power of the federal government and all that implies, the Constitution, federal election laws, and these entire processes. That is reverse federalism. That is nullification. That is the new Confederacy. That is what Joe Biden, the old Confederate, and that’s what his Marxist supporters now support. This needs to be fought. We will be right back.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: STEPHANOPOULOS: “I’ll begin with you, reince. We have a sitting president who was facing felony indictments. Donald Trump now facing three felony indictments right now and he’s now been convicted. He’s a convicted felon. Why isn’t that a constitutional crisis?” PRIEBUS: “Well, because I think this is going to be up to the voters and the voters don’t see it that way.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “I’m asking you as a representative of former President Trump.” PRIEBUS: “I don’t see it as a constitutional crisis.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “He did.” PRIEBUS: “I’m with those who said when Alvin Bragg decided in New York he’s in the best situation to go after Donald Trump because he’s done it over 100 times to his kids and that was one of the basis for his election, he made it political. Joe Biden made it political by sending Robert De Niro into Manhattan. The district attorney chose to make it political and what’s happening? What’s happening is we’ve got an unbelievable united party $53 million came in the door. I spoke to the chairman of the RNC yesterday and I spoke to President Trump yesterday and I asked him, is there anything that you’re seeing right now other than the headache of this conviction that isn’t going to well in this campaign? And the answer is that this campaign, and where the Republicans are situated today with Donald Trump as their candidate, is better today than it’s ever been at any time.” STEPHANOPOULOS: “It doesn’t bother you that Donald Trump is a convicted felon?” PRIEBUS: “Not on this case, it doesn’t. Not on this case, it doesn’t because this is a case just like your legal panel just debated, where smart lawyers, lawyers without political affiliation are saying that this case is flawed in many regards and an appeal is at least — at least a doable appeal —“ STEPHANOPOULOS: “So it does bother you on the January 6th case?” PRIEBUS: “It could. But listen, I think this case is unique. I think that when you have a case where the statute of limitations has run and the only way you can revive the case is by hooking a federal crime, that’s where the appeal is.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Velshi: “Danny, I will start with Mike Johnson. He has already said that there will be an appeal, which we aleadt know, and that Trump will win. When he said I want the Supreme Court to get involved, what is he talking about?” CEVALLOS: “I’m not entirely sure. There’s no guarantee that any direct appeal or any appeal from this conviction whatever land at the Supreme Court. It is not an appeal as of right to the highest state appellate court in the state of New York, which is called the Court of Appeals. You need a federal constitutional issue or another reason to get to the Supreme Court.” Velshi: “Is the immunity issue that? Is he was not president during the things he was alleged to have done.” CEVALLOS: “He was when he wrote the cheques that reimbursed Michael Cohen. But to the extent — the immunity issue could potentially affect all of these cases. It’s not likely to affect this case. And we don’t know what the Supreme Court will say on that case which is pending and has to come out in the next few weeks. All I can tell you is that I don’t think either side is going to get exactly what they want. I don’t think federal prosecutors will say there’s no such thing as presidential immunity and I don’t think the Trump side is going to get a decision that everything a president does that he’s immune from prosecution. The Supreme Court said, it is a decision for the ages. They have to decide what the contours are of presidential immunity. That has nothing to do with this conviction procedurally. It will be appeal directly to the appellate division and the court of appeals, the next intermediate court of appeals in the New York State court system.”

Trump: “We were doing great. We were energy-independent. We were soon gonna be energy-dominant. I didn’t want the Russian pipeline to be built because of the fact, very simple, I wanted to supply them with the energy. The whole thing was all — we’re going to make a fortune. We have more liquid gold than any country in the world, including Saudi Arabia and including — and then I do ANWR in Alaska, which is the biggest find, as big as Saudi Arabia, some people say it’s bigger, and Biden closes it up in his first week. The first Department of Interior, the woman — the person in charge, closed it in her first today in office. Ronald Reagan tried to get it, he couldn’t get it. Everybody tried to get it, Bush... I got it. And they closed it up. But I’ll reinstitute it very quickly. It’ll happen very fast. But think of it, so we were rocking and rolling, we were energy-independent, we were soon going to be double the size. We were in third place and even beyond that when I took the over. We were leading — you have to see a graph. Russia, Saudi Arabia above them, Russia second, we’re third. And then we go like this. I mean, we were — we were going to be energy-dominant. We were doing things. The way you have to solve it is through growth.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: CAPEHART: “We have a guilty verdict against the former president on 34 criminal counts while he is also running for president. There is no legal or political precedent for what we are witnessing. But how does this compare to other destabilizing moments in our history?” BESCHLOSS: “I think the choice is actually pretty clear. You know, we have got a convicted felon. But in days of yore, if a convicted felon had run let’s say for alderman which was probably about as high as he or she would have aspired until the last couple of decades, that person would have said I served my time. I learned my lesson. I have remorse. There is going to be no one more zealous than I am in enforcing our legal system. Instead, you and I saw that rant at the bottom of the brass elevator at Trump Tower yesterday by the presumed Republican nominee of this year. And he is saying the system is rotten. I want to dismantle parts of the Constitution. I think that people should not respect the law. So when you have got someone who is promising at the same time to be dictator for a day, it will never be for a day as you know. It will be for four years, if not for his lifetime if that begins. At the same time, he is saying I’m going to dismantle our rule of law which is the glory of America, keeps the peace, assures fairness when it works for all Americans. You have got dictatorship and anarchy at the same time. Do you, Jonathan, think the majority of Americans will vote for dictatorship and anarchy? I don’t think so.”

CONWAY: “I got roped into it so quickly, from all angles. I mean, TikTok, Instagram, all these mainstream media outlets. I was just roped in. I was told ‘Hey, this is what you’re going to do: You’re going to say this, this, and this, and people are going to love you for it.’ That’s kind of what happened. So, yeah, it sucked. It did suck.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Scott: “So why bring in the D.A. congressman, to testify?” Van Drew: “Because this Judiciary Committee especially under the chairman Jim Jordan who is a good man and my friend will drill down and we will get through what really is going on here. Understand how just for lack of a better word weird this is, Michael Colangelo left being the third person in the pecking order and in the Justice Department and went to New York City with a pay decrease and, obviously, having less influence just to help Alvin Bragg. That’s, obviously, being orchestrated he was appointed the first day of Biden’s administration he was appointed to the Justice Department as obviously being orchestrated. There’s collusion, there is collaboration we know there are things to be concerned about. And the other thing we want to hear about Alvin Bragg, I want somebody to explain to me how Alvin Bragg can change something from a misdemeanor to a felony because it leads to his basic words another crime unnamed, we don’t know what the other crime was. We don’t know what the other crime was that was perpetuated by the fact that this crime was made to be, you know, greater than anything that ever was. You know what I also like to know from Alvin Bragg, Jon, I would like to know in New York City, 60% of the crimes that take place beatings — theft, armed robbery all kinds of violent crimes as well, 60% of those crimes have been reduced from felonies to misdemeanors I know why because they want to pretend that the crime rate is going down. It’s not New York City is more dangerous than ever. We want to know what communication coordination is taking place here, there’s something very wrong, we know that it’s wrong. This case is a sham. It truly you know it was a dark, bleak day for the United States of America. It really truly was. We stand for something as a country. The rule of law, and the rule of law was shattered with this decision.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: ASMAN: “You said something earlier, kind of unusual for the judge to invite the jury to ask questions. Usually the judge doesn’t go through all that and leave them on their own to come up with a decision. I think back to when he didn’t allow Brad Smith to talk about federal election law because he said I want to do it. He said we have full-screen, he said the other day on Tuesday, stay away from the law, stay away from the law, stay away from the law, he repeated that three times, he said that’s my job. I will take care of it. Again, he wants to control the narrative even if other people know better about the law than he does, I am talking about Brad Smith.” GOWDY: “I was in the courtroom when he said that. My reaction was to be stunned. If you are the lawyer giving summation, the job of the jury is to apply the facts to the law. How can a lawyer make an argument, closing argument to the jury whether you are a prosecutor or defense attorney without making reference to the law. What I used to say is I think the judge is going to tell you the law was x. if he tells you something or she tells you something otherwise, follow what the judge tells you. Every judge in America will allow you to say that except the one presiding over this trial. He has made it clear one of the few times he ever sustained an objection against the prosecution by the defense was because they were talking about the law. How do you convince a jury that the fact don’t match the law if the judge is not allowing you to argue the law. I’ve never seen that before. I’ve never seen a judge not allow the jury instructions to go back with the jury. How can you remember fiftysomething pages work of archaic legal instruction based on your memory. How can you do that?”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: CAPEHART: “Joining me now, former federal prosecutor, thank you for coming to the Saturday show. Both sides will have a chance to weigh in on Donald Trump’s sentence. How likely are prosecutors to seek prison time?” KHARDORI: “Is really ahearted question. I don’t envy their position to be honest. Whatever their predisposition is, I said this as the trial was going on and as Trump was continueing the same sorts of comments and rants, he is increasing the odds that the prosecutors will ask for prison time and he is increasing the odds that judge merchan would send him to prison for a period of time. I don’t want to say it is more likely than not. But this is definitely not helping him.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Sharpton: “Before we go, I want your brief take on the West Virginia mayor — I’m sorry that West Virginia senator Joe Manchin who officially left the Democratic Party to become an independent yesterday. Senator mentioned health Democrats maintain a slim majority during the Biden term, but he also blocked major provisions of the infrastructure bill that would have addressed climate change and strengthened the social safety, and he stood in the way of suspending the filibuster to make progress on voting rights and police reform, the George Floyd bill, for example. What kind of legacy does senator mention leave within the Democratic Party?” Johnson: “With that ruptured, he unofficially left the party a long time ago when he sabotaged our agenda and it’s very clear he is about himself because the switch of a party indicates to me that he actually does have more political aspirations. It is unfortunate him about we are seeing Joe Manchin for who he is, a person for himself, and not the people.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: CAPEHART: “Congresswoman waters, your name has been invoked several times. We will give you the last word. What do you think?” WATERS: “Let me say when I tweeted about Trump talking about the Constitution, I basically said in my tweet that he had disregarded the Constitution. I got over a million .3 hits on that. I think the American people see through him. And, they will be guarded in how they deal with the election. Let me just say this. I am worried that he is so divisive and that he is talking about retribution. And about revenge. And I think that is dangerous. He has even mentioned civil war saying there will be bloodshed. I will spend some time with the criminal justice system. With the justice system requesting them, tell us what’s going on with the domestic terrorists. Are they preparing a civil war against us? Should we be concerned? What is he doing with this divisive language? It is dangerous. And we are going to have to make sure that we understand that we are not at risk with this man talking in the way he is doing. This is not good for this country. But he does not care about democracy. He does not care about the Constitution of the United States. He is in love with Putin and Russia and Kim Jong Un and North Korea and all of that. And so, it is not just that he is a criminal. This is a man who disrespects the Constitution and democracy and we have to figure out what they are doing as domestic terrorists tried to take over the government January 6th. How far is this going to go? Are they going to be attacking? Whom are they going to attack? What are we going to do? I have to get on with trying to get an investigation going.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: VOSSOUGHIAN: “I want to bring in Clark Brewster, attorney for Stormy Daniels. Thank you for joining us. I’m sure you have been quite busy, to say the least.” BREWSTER: “My pleasure.” VOSSOUGHIAN: “You have spoken to stormy, how is she doing?” BREWSTER: “Stormy is doing better. When the verdict broke on Thursday, we talked. I was the first to speak with her, and it was a culmination of so many things and so many feelings. She got quite emotional about it. We had a talk about what led us there, and how she testified in the courtroom, but, obviously, the verdict, the 34 guilty’s, notwithstanding the fact we expected that to happen, the reality of it was a bit of a jolt for her. But, she is doing well. She is dealing with it. She is inundated with press requests. She chose not to do any interviews. She is wanting some quiet time.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: VOSSOUGHIAN: “Aaron Gilchrist are joining the firm on this. Walk us through what more we heard from the president when it came to the conviction of former president Donald Trump.” GILCHRIST: “Strongest part of the president’s reaction to this week’s verdict. President Biden sang the American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed in this decision from the jury. The president’s comments were short, but clearly, critical of former President Trump, and at the same time, trying to shore up respect for the judicial process and the justice system, saying, essentially, that the system worked as it should. What we saw from the president at the White House yesterday was different than what we have been getting from the Biden Harris campaign, even today, it’s putting out statements referring to President Trump is a convicted felon, again, calling him a threat to democracy, leaning into the message that we will continue to hear from the campaign for months to come, that the only way to keep Donald Trump out of the White House is to vote and vote for President Biden.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: ASMAN: “You said there are grounds for appeal on this case. All kinds of grounds for appeal. The unique suggestion they pick one of three and that’s enough to convict a lot of other things but how soon could that be fast tracked to a court that might get the desired result?” SCHARF: “There are many grounds for appeal and acquittal. There are giant holes in the prosecution’s case which Todd Blanche revealed during his summation the other day. I don’t think the prosecution has come close to proving Donald Trump did anything wrong, not that he committed any business records fraud. If there were conviction we would appeal as quickly as possible and attempt to fast-track that within the bounds of New York appellate procedure. In the meantime, we think there are grounds for the jury to acquit and we are hopeful that is the outcome here.”

VALENCIA: “Do you wish that Trump could be president forever?” ABBEY: “Yes, I would.” VALENCIA: “As for Millicent Abbey, she says nothing would stop her from voting for Trump in November. So he could literally go on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, like you said?” ABBEY: “Shoot somebody, I would support him.” VALENCIA: “And you would support him?” ABBEY: “Yes, I would.”