Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff Radio Show, America's home for conservative
not Bitter talk radio. Be advised. The content of this program has been
documented to prevents and even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean
to the right. Here's your conservative but not Bitter host, Todd Huff.
Well, thank you, Glenn for that utterly spectacular introduction. It's a pleasure
to be here today. Email Todd at tod huffshow dot com thoughts, questions,
feedback. You know, the drill, adoration and praise always needs to
be included there. Whether you're communicating with this via email or by text,
of course you can Texas three one seven two one zero twenty eight thirty message
and data rates may apply. There are plenty of things that we did not
get to yesterday that I want to get to today. Um, but I
kind of want to want to, I guess, intersperse these things because I
think I think they're all connected, not well, depending upon your perspective,
how they're connected to what degree and so forth. But as we move into
this primary season, first of all, we have candidates that are qualifying now
for the debate, and as of let's see this is USA today. This
is dated yesterday. When is the first twenty twenty three Republican debate date?
Start time? Participants in the primary event now? The ones that have qualified
todate according to the USA Today include Donald Trump, run De Santist, Tim
Haley, Nicky Haley, Tim Scott, Nicky Haley, v vack Ramaswamy,
Chris Christie, Doug Bergham, and according to a an article that was published
I believe yesterday as well at the Epic Times, I believe Perry Johnson.
I think, although it wasn't entirely clear from the article, if he just
met a couple of the criteria, or if he's met all of the criteria,
Perry Johnson may be on that debate stage as well. You'll notice that
the name Mike Pence is still not there. I'm not predicting he will not
be there, but nonetheless that is that's the list, and we've got what
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and
Perry Johnson would be number number eight on that debate stage, except the wild
card may be that the number one candidates may not be on that debate stage.
And as we mentioned yesterday, he basically is saying, look, I'm
demolishing the field. Everybody knows what has to be done in Washington, d
C. There's no point in the Republican Party effectively wasting money on a primary
process when I Donald Trump am the front runner. So what's the point of
this? And he's sending out emails asking people to give their opinions to vote
in a poll. As to sharing their opinions, I should say whether or
not he is going to or should be in the in the debates, And
there's a decent possibility, maybe even a likelihood, that he's not going to
show up at the debate. In one sense, what does he have?
What does he have to gain from doing that? What does he have to
gain? He's going to be the target in some way, shape, manner,
or form of everyone. And you could say he's going to be the
target regardless. People are going to target him in spite of his current whether
or not he's present on that debate stage or not. But that is what
does he have to gain rights It's almost as though he can only lose from
this, and so it remains to be seen if he will be on the
debate stage. Although we see that Fox News is out there encouraging him to
attend. I, you know, for selfish reasons. I might want him
to attend because I would be much more inclined to watch it. I probably
will watch it anyway, although I don't know. I really don't know,
And it's no disrespect to the people on the stage. I just think that
if Trump isn't there, this is really not this is not an event that
is I guess focused on talking to the person that's most likely going to be
the nominee. So anyway, So that's that's going on out there, And
of course Trump is having his legal battles, which you could say, which
I would maintain are a clear side show and distraction. But it's a major
distraction. So he's got that reality to deal with. And there's also the
reality of why these or why this this issue has has come up. Why
suddenly do we have all of these indictments of the former president? Why why
is that the case? Is that just is it just coincidental that all of
these investigations wrapped up right now, right at the unofficial kickoff of the primary
season. Is that really the us likely of scenarios? I would contend that
it's not, in fact, when they start trying when Jack Smith, the
Special counsel, starts trying to silence Trump so that he can't talk about this,
because, my friends, if Trump is right, and I'm gonna say
if just for the sake of discussion for those who are adamantly vehemently opposed to
the possibility that he is right about any of this, but if Trump is
right, just go with me there for a second. If you can't wrap
your head around that completely, Okay, I don't understand that, but I
will be understanding as best I can, And I would say, just try
to imagine. Try to imagine a scenario if you were being targeted, or
someone that you know, or one of the candidates that you like, was
being targeted, and that candidate truly believed because of well past experience, because
of what we've seen on display from the corrupt government that we are living under.
If that candidate believes that he or she is legitimately the target of a
political witch hunt, then he has to she would have to be able to
defend himself or herself from this. It would be completely relevant for the voting
well for all Americans, but especially for those who are eligible to cast a
vote to be able to vote with that in mind. It seems like a
relevant thing that people should be able to discuss and understand and to have the
person who's in the political opposition right now, which is Trump, to be
able to articulate his positions. As I mentioned yesterday, Secretary of State Anthony
Blincoln sent out a a tone deaf tweet over the weekend. I think it
may have been Friday, last Friday, but he sent out a tone deaf
tweet that said basically criticizing the Russian government for convicting the leader of the political
opposition in Russia, saying, the United States wouldn't stand for this that sort
of thing. Meanwhile, meanwhile, we are engaged, this nation is engaged
in that very same thing here. Now. Trump could be wrong in his
I'm not saying, for those of you that feel strongly about it, that
he is wrong. I happen to think he's not wrong on this. But
Trump could theoretically, it's logically possible that he is wrong in this, that
he is not being targeted for because he's part of the political opposition, because
they fear him. I think that that's incredibly unlikely, probably like point one
percent or some such thing. Maybe not even that. So, but he's
got the right. That's the point here. He's got the right, and
he should be able to make the case. Hillary Clinton could make the case.
In fact, I saw who was it? Somebody tweeted something and it
said it went through the list of people that have lost elections and it said,
you know, this person lost an election, and then they I think
it dropped the f bomb. But basically, this person lost an election,
left the White House and moved on with life. Let's put it that way.
And it listed Hillary Clinton as an individual who did that, which of
course is not the truth at all, and also mentioned Albert al Gore.
Al Gore did not do that as well. Al Gore challenged and I look,
I think he had the right to do that. He had the right
to challenged the Florida election. They tried to fight it in court and they
lost that that case, and they were not granted the electors from the state
of Florida. Back in two thousands, some of you were way too young
to remember that. Some of you may be more seasoned and that seems like
a long time ago or whatever, But that did happen. That did happen.
We had George W. Bush, who was declared the winner. I
forget the order, but one of the well the news networks had called Florida
for Gore and then Bush, and then Gore and then Bush. I forget
the order. But it was back and forth like that because it was so
razor thin. It was super razor thin, and there were legal ramifications that
we didn't know. We didn't know for some time who the nominee, excused
the president was going to be because of this. Now, I will say,
throughout the recount process, Gore, excuse me, Bush never lost the
vote in that recount. It wasn't like Gore was ahead, and then they
did another recount and Bush was ahead. It was Bush winning consistently on the
recounts, but they were close numbers, close enough to where a legal challenge
is absolutely understandable in that case. Now, al Gored never charged or claimed
that there was fraud. Instead, he was claiming that, well, not
not a wide scale fraud. I mean they were looking at remember they were
looking at hanging Chad's boy. If you weren't a round for that, this
is bringing back a whole bunch of memories. But they would they would have
a Republican and a Democrat, and they were holding up ballots to the light.
They would hold it up and look at it because it was it was
a punch card ballot, and they would they called those little things that you
would punch out, they called them chads. And they were saying that sometimes
that people were trying to vote for Gore and didn't go through because they didn't
push hard enough or some So that makes sense, by the way, probably
some probably some modern leftist man that doesn't have the strength or the dexterity to
pop out a chad for President Gore I would have been if he would have
won, but vice President Gore at the time, he was Clinton's vice president.
But nonetheless, they were looking at things on these ballots and they were
saying, that's a dimpled chad if meaning it had had some pressure on that
chad, which indicated there had been pressure applied, which I mean there was
arguments about which votes should count, hanging chads, if the chad was punched
out in part been hanging in another parts. This was a thing. And
to act like we've not had any sort of controversy about elections in this country
is ridiculous. I mean, you to go back to the I mean,
go back to the Kennedy election. There have been plenty of cases where there's
been razor thin elections and there's been challenges. Now to the point of those
who well, those on the other side, those who don't like Trump,
they say, eventually the person challenging the election will concede. Trump's never conceded.
Eventually the person on the other side will let bygones be bygones and move
along. Now, I would contend that that is the case. However,
there is a difference here. Now you can say, you can absolutely say
that. The difference is because Trump will say whatever he has to say to
not admit defeat, to claim that he should have been president, to say
that he should have won, you can make You can say that, and
you are free to say that and make that case. But the facts and
the accusations, let's let's at least say that the accusations of what's been implied
in the twenty twenty election, what's been argued in the twenty twenty election by
Trump and others is dramatically different than what is what has been argued in the
past because in the past, in the past, there were recounts, and
there were questions about which ballots should have been counted. There were not in
the case of the Hanging chads and all that with al Gore, there was
not a claim of wide scale voter fraud. That changes everything. If true,
If true, now I'm still looking. If you don't. If it's
not true, then we have to dismiss that. Or if there's not enough
evidence, and if the amount of evidence suggests otherwise, than we should come
to that conclusion. However, the problem has been from day one that we're
just not allowed to have these questions or to engage in these conversations, whether
it be on social media primarily, whether it be I mean, there are
the thought and the censor police coming at you if you simply ask questions.
I've never made an open statement saying definitively one thing or the other, because
there's they won't have the conversation. It is questionable to me, highly questionable.
In many cases, one may be inclined to think that the reason for
that is because it was intentional and it was coordinated and it was precisely what
they did. But someone could draw another conclusion as well. But the idea
that they have come forward and debated this and dismissed. All of the allegations
against Trump, will excuse me, all the allegations that Trump has made pertaining
to a stolen election that has simply not happened, that has simply not happened.
They will cite things like, well, the courts have ruled in his
against him this many times. Well, that's they didn't go through and do
a deep dive analysis and said that there was no voter fraud. They would
make other basically, they would often claim that he had no standing or there
would be some legal reason why that they would cite that he could not bring
that particular case and so forth. And so this has not been this has
not been a litigated, so to speak, situation, and so that's been
percolating out there as well. So as to me, when you think about
the people on the debate stage, and then you look at what I've just
described, and we're going back in time and a little bit with the history
of elections and so forth in this country, in particular the history of the
twenty twenty election and claims of voter fraud and stolen election and all this sort
of thing. That debate stage is has a handful of people that should absolutely,
unequivocally have a problem have a problem with how the government has responded to
Trump, because it didn't just stop with Trump making these accusations and the government
ignoring them and trying to basically block him off from any way of winning the
election. That's not where this ended. That would be troubling enough if in
fact he is the legitimate winner. If he's not the legitimate winner, then
the government, Um, I still don't think they've handled it the right way,
but at least they could make the case that they've gotten to the conclusion
that we that we need to be to, that we need to reach.
But that's that's not again the path that we've taken, and that is problematic
in a country. And on top of that, now they're weaponizing the government
to go after him. So in my mind, in my mind, when
I see the seven names here plus Trump that are that have qualified potentially eight
now with Perry Johnson, if those eight people cannot come out and unequivocally state
what vvk Ramaswami stated, and how vivek Ramaswami is saying, Look, what
is happening that Trump cannot be allowed to happen. I'm a better candidate than
him. I would have handled things differently than him. He did things he
shouldn't have done on January sixth or whatever, but they weren't criminal, and
just because someone shouldn't do them doesn't mean that they should be imprisoned or targeted
by those things. If every person on that stage cannot make that statement,
they are not remotely qualified to be commander in chief of this country. They
are not remotely qualified to be the candidate of the Republican Party. And I
still think that it's clearly going to be Trump, But I also believe,
I also believe that should it not be Trump, we had better have someone
at the helm who is prepared to go in and fight this beast on day
one. If not, I don't care. This is the bottom line point.
When I want to get to this segment, I'll take a time out.
But if they do not have that fight with them within them, if
they do not have within them the understanding of the reality of Washington, d
C. The weaponization of the federal government against Trump and against really anyone else
who dares to try to do the things that Trump did. If these candidates
do not see that they're not qualified for the position and perhaps more importantly,
folks, I don't care what their ideology or beliefs are because they'll never get
implemented. It does not matter if you don't understand what you're up against.
It does not matter what you believe, because it's never going to get off
the ground, not even a millimeter off the ground. The bureaucratic state,
the deep state in Washington, DC, the swamp, has dealt with people
like that for a long time. They are okay with people who don't try
to basically flush the rats out of the shadows. That's what Trump did.
That's where they draw the line. That's why they have a problem with him.
And if these other individuals cannot make strong statements about what's happening with our
government, and it matters not one iota. It matters not one iota what
their beliefs are, what their policies are. They're engaging in a pure intellectual
exercise because it will never come to pass until they know what they're up against.
And I'm up against the clock. Long this segment, my friends,
quick time out. You're listening to the conservative doctor talking. I'm your host
Tohff. Back in a minute, back, my friends, and so picking
up kind of where we left off. This The legal battle for Trump continues,
but it's not just legal obviously, it bleeds over into the politics of
this whole thing. Trump is now seeking the usual of the DC judge who
is overseeing his case. He's also asking for a change of venue. We
reference that last week, the change of venue part, and I think he's
absolutely justified in doing that, especially in Washington d C. Now Washington d
C, our beloved nation's capital, is you know, I was. I
wasn't there long. I was there for four months, and it's been a
long time ago because I'm older than dirt. Back in nineteen ninety nine,
I was studying at American University, which is on the what the north west
quadrant. I guess the northwest corner of Washington d C. Washington DC is
a bubble. I was there long enough to realize and understand that. And
the other thing Washington d C is Washington DC and the surrounding metro area,
which would include places like Arlington, Virginia, and Northern Virginia. In general,
it would include parts of Maryland as well. These are cities the DC
metro area that's been built up. Thinking about this now, it exists.
Those communities are big. The part of town that I was in is one
of the I mean, a very nice part of town. It's near what
Chevy Chase, Maryland. I guess Tinleytown was the subway stop back in those
days. Tinleytown American University, not too far from the National Zoo. But
it's a very nice part of town. And you get into some of these
suburbs. Incredible amounts of wealth in these parts of well, the suburbs.
Now, I'm not against wealth. In fact, I'm a gay that likes
the idea of people having wealth. Unfortunately, the biggest factor, well one
of the biggest factors that prevents the average person from obtaining wealth is are the
people that are in the city I'm talking about. Of course, there's other
factors as well, certainly, no doubt work ethic for a lot of people,
commitment, risk. Sometimes sometimes people have you know, bad fortune,
bad I don't like to say luck, but just some of the things that
they're fighting were choices that they've made. You know, some people make choices
instead of chasing something that would produce more financial rewards, Maybe they spend time.
There's a brazilion reasons, but one of the biggest factors that people,
regardless of what they're currently doing, are not wealthier, is because of the
people running the show in Washington, DC. And these folks live in a
bubble and everybody that comes there. I mean, I'm he's aggerating slightly by
saying everybody, but it's darned near everybody. It's like ninety plus percent vote
for Democrats. And why do they do that. They do that because they
know that that is where the gravy train comes from. They know that if
they want to have positions of power, positions of authority. They don't like
the idea of decentralized power and having power returned back to the states and to
the citizens, because they move there precisely to be around that hub of power,
that hub of I don't even want to say influence, because they use
not influence, but force is what they use. Someone like me is using
influence. We try to persuade, we try to attract and draw. We
don't have any force. You don't have to listen to this program. You
have to pay your taxes, you have to do what the government rights into
law, and they know that, and so it's all part of the It's
just part of a game. It's a career path for people, and so
they all flock to Washington, d C. They live in a bubble.
The amount it's almost I remember when I was there, and it's been a
while, but I remember thinking, it is amazing how disconnected this place is
from the rest of the what I would consider like normal America. Right flyover
country, which is where most people live, is you know, in flyover
Country, small town USA. Even even in the cities. The disconnect between
big cities and what's happening in DC is pretty extreme. They live in their
own world, They operate in their own lane. They're supposed to be representing
for those who are elected representatives, the people that they have elected them back
home, but they're oftentimes they're just part of the machinery, part of the
mechanism. And they know that someone like Trump coming in is not good for
business. It's not good for what they desire, which is more power and
more control. It's it's Trump represents less bureaucracy, less tape. Remember the
rules that say for every new bureaucratic rule that you establish, I Trump said,
I'm going to require you cut or eliminate two other rules. I think
it was one of the two, was the ratio, and so they cut
a ton of rules that way. They don't like that they live in a
place where Trump is constantly when he was there, constantly maligned and demonized.
Now the rest of us do as well. But it's not the same bubble.
It's not the same bubble. And so Trump says, I don't want
this venue, and I don't want this judge. This judge is an Obama
appointee. This judge is which again, and in a sane world, that
wouldn't matter, because a judge would look to the facts of the case.
However, however, I've noticed, and you have two that judge is appointed
by Leftists often see that as a seat of power that they can occupy to
further their political ends. And that's the concern, and that should be a
legitimate concern from Trump and Trump's legal team, and so changing the venue and
wanting a different judge. This judge used to work at the law firm that
I believe employed. Did Hunter Biden himself work there, or maybe Hunter Biden's
counsel. There's other things about this judge too. I got it in the
stack of stuff, but I don't have it pulled up at the moment,
but there's reasons to say, you know, if we're really trying to seek
a fair trial, and if we really objectively look at how we even got
to this point with Trump getting indicted in multiple places. I mean, the
request for a new judge and a new you are certainly to me moves that
he should request, and at least I would think definitely the change the change
of venue for certain which of course would then presumably replaced. I'm not a
lawyer, but I'm presuming that would mean there would be a different judge as
well. Anyway, so we got all this stuff kind of percolating in the
background, and it's going to coincide with this whole election, and it's about
to get really really intense in ways that I just the average person is just
not prepared for this. I just twenty sixteen and twenty twenty will look like
proverbial walks through the park when we're done with this, especially if Trump continues,
well actually at this point, if he if he ends up somehow getting
convicted, or if he ends up somehow being the nominee, it's going to
cause there's going to be increased tensions and candidly there should be if he's prevented
from me in the nominee. This is effectively what banana republics due to their
political adversaries. It cannot be allowed to stand. It should only strengthen and
galvanize our commitment to supporting Trump because because of everything that this means, because
as Trump said, the government is going after him because he has just stepped
between them and what they're trying to do to us. Now, there's a
lot more to it, I know that, but in a nutshell, that's
pretty accurate depictions. So that being said, timeout is in order. My
friends. You're listening here to conservative not better talk. Be back here in
just a minute. On back, my friends. So you know when I
first started this show, by the way, that is going to be this
week. Just hit me. Let's see today Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Thursday, I believe will be our eight year anniversary of starting the podcast.
Now, we weren't on the radio at first. We we're a podcast for
a year or so before we got on on the radio. And when I
started this I distinctively remember I remember thinking, you know, when it comes
to these primary processes, I'm never going to be I just I didn't want
to endorse candidates. I really didn't. In fact, I didn't think that
I would ever I would ever do it. And you go back to twenty
sixteen, I remember not not doing it. I don't think I think I
had been asked. But I never even share who I voted for in the
Republican primary back in twenty sixteen, and Indiana was the state the last state
that Cruz was in really officially on the in the race, I should say,
And when Trump won Indiana, that's when Cruz dropped out. That would
have been in May of twenty sixteen, which is really when Trump secured the
nomination officially. So but I think I just don't want to be a guy
who this is not about an individual. To me, however, I didn't.
I knew we had problems in this country, and I guess I didn't
fully understand, as I would say none of us did, to what depths
the government was prepared to go to take out a guy who was, in
my estimation, because of their insatiable desire to take the man out, seemingly
by their own actions, the most feared man from those who have an ideology
that is diametrically opposed to mine, and that person, of course, is
Donald Trump. And they, the deep state, the bureaucratic state, whatever
you want to call it, the swamp. They fear him. The media
fears him, All the people who are the problem in this country fear him.
And it's not a defense of him when I come here and I say
to me, this is because he holds the keys to how to defeat them,
or at least the one person who is the closest to holding the keys
to defeating them. And I think a lot of it goes back to his
willingness to fight. And I look de Santis as a fighter. I mean,
there's a lot of things I like about Vivek Ramaswami. There's a lot
of things I like being said from other candidates. I just think, as
I stated earlier, it doesn't matter what their ideas are if they don't understand
the beast that they are about to be fighting, if they were to be
elected president. If you don't understand the depth and the depravity of Washington,
d C. The breadth of what they are involved with, the depth and
the depth that they're willing to take it, the resources they're willing to throw
at it, the ability to keep it covert, the ability to spy on
campaigns and get a president and peach twice. Remember when Chuck Schumer was talking
with forget who who's talking with Rachel Maddow, I believe and Chuck Schumer.
We played this SoundBite recently. This is an older sound bite, but Trump
Schumer, excuse me, said that the intelligence community, who Trump at the
time was going after because of the whole Russian collusion delusion. Schumer said,
that's the stupid thing to do, because the intelligence community has seven ways to
Sunday of getting getting back at you. And they acted like that was totally
cool and acceptable. I remember saying, why is Rachel Maddow just nodding an
agreement here? Why didn't she say whoa, whoa? Why are we having
the weaponization? That's the that's admitting the weaponization of our government. Not granted,
the people watching MSNBC don't know what they're listening to anyway, they become
mind numb robots who don't think for themselves, who have been stirred into a
frenzy over Trump. But nonetheless, it's right there for anybody who wants to
see it. And so when you realize the ferocity with which they have gone
after Trump, you realize that there is a reason and A it's because he's
the biggest threat. But b it's because, my friends, I think that
they believe they are very close to the metaphorical finish line here. And I
think that they are close to the metaphorical finish line. It's been a gradual
process. It's taken time. They've committed to it for a long, long
while, and now they can see it, they can almost taste it,
they can almost touch it. It's right within their grasp, and some rogue
politician comes in and sets it ablaze and exposes them to the light of day.
They don't like it, and that's not meant to be maligning the other
candidates. That's meant to be I think framing this properly in saying, look,
I love the ideas that some of these folks have. Some of them
I'm not super inspired by. But nonetheless, I think there's a lot of
good ideas. I think there's a lot of potential future talent up there.
You know, I'm very interested in vvak Ramaswami. I'm interested in some of
the others, some of the other candidates as well. I'm interested in Well,
I don't want to mention any other names at the moment, but there's
others I'm interested in. And I think if we don't understand, and if
we don't, if we're not prepared, if we think we can come in
as I think Pence would be inclined to do if he even gets to the
debate stage. But the mindset of Pence, or the feeling I get from
the Penn's campaign, is we'll just go in there. We'll deal with these
folks a little bit better than Trump did. Right, we won't burn down,
we won't go scorched earth on them. Well, the problem is they
are fully and completely entrenched and they are prepared to go scorched earth on anyone
who opposes them. So if you don't go scorched earth, it's because you're
not fighting hard enough. And I think you have to know that you can't
waste a year or two years or three years with that mentality. You have
to go in there day one and eradicate this stuff. Anyway, timeouts in
order. My friends sit tight back in just a minute. Welcome back,
my friends. So not a lot of time remaining here today, Not a
lot of time. So there's other things in the news that I again,
let me pause, if there's some things that I've referenced. Fact, I've
had this in the stack of stuff for a couple of days. I've got
the lunatic at MSNBC known as Joy Reid. She is happy. She's happy
that Trump's judges around the January sixth indictment have been or will be or are
currently women of color whatever that. Whatever that means in a judicial proceeding,
criminal proceeding, I guess that shouldn't matter, but it does. Elon Musk
is out there offering to pay legal bills of people that have been unfairly treated
for things they've posted on platform formerly known as Twitter. By the way,
Elon says he may have to delay his fight with Zuckerberg due to a possible
injury or excuse me, a possible surgery. So I'm not a big fan
of that. But there's lots of stuff that I want to get to.
It's on the stack of stuff on the website. Just go to toushow dot
com to see that. Put a timeouts in order. My friends back in
just a minute. Welcome back to my friends. Something else in the stack
of stuff that I just didn't get to today is court records as an article.
I think it's SAIDs and Newsmax or Epic Times. I'm not sure it's
in the stack of stuff, but court records show that millions of dollars flowed
from China, as Trump would say, China to the crooked Joe Biden family
president bribery himself. Court documents are now now showing that. So that's a
whole other thing that's percolating as well, the whole Hunter Biden scandal, which
is not about cookers and drugs. It's about pay to play alleged scandals here
up to potentially Joe Biden himself and folks. I gotta go have a great
day, SDG.