Speaker 1: Hello, Federalist Radio Hour friends. It's your amiable host and
experience Shirpa Matt Kittle. You know I have the good
fortune of talking to some of the most interesting people
thought leaders in politics and culture. Today there's shining light
on some very dark places in our government and fighting
for the foundational values of this republic, this last best
hope for liberty, and that's what we do every day
at the Federalist. We can't do that without you. The
Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit and we depend entirely on
our listeners and readers, not corporations. If you value fearless
independent journalism, please consider a tax deductible gift today at
the Federalist dot com backslash donate. That's the Federalist dot
com backslash. Donate. Your support keeps us going. Merry Christmas
in a blessed new Year from your friends at the Federalist.
And we are back with another edition to the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com follow us on exit FDRLST. Make
sure to subscribe or if you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee. That committee has done exceptional work,
along with its counterpart in the Senate, in exposing the
corruption of the last administration. And that's a mountain of work. Jim,
thanks you, thank you so much for joining us with you. Matt,
thanks for having you well, thank you. I want to
start first. You joined us fresh off of a hearing.
Can you tell us what was going on?
Speaker 2: Came, I came, came from the floor. We went on
a number of promoting bills that are that I think good.
You know you want you want growth in your economy.
You cut taxes and you let families and business owners
and Americans keep more of their money. One of the
key differences between the parties is Republicans believing empowering people
and families. Democrats want to empower government, so cutting taxes
and producing the regulatory burden on job creators and and
uh and small businesses. So we had some bills in
the Florida Day that we're in that ladder category, which
is a good thing to do. You put those things together,
you start getting economic growth. So, uh, that was that
was what was on the floor today. But we have
been busy in committee with a number of different hearings,
and of course we had a deposition with jas Smith
on yesterday.
Speaker 1: I want to get to that in just a moment,
but let's let's stay on the economy for a moment.
President Trump talk to Americans this week, and you know
what was talking about. Hey, listen, we're doing some things
to get the turned around what we experienced in four
years in the Biden administration. So you've got a mountain
to climb there and you will start to reap the
benefits of the big beautiful Bill and these other things.
Of course, we saw the consumer price index at two
point seven percent in the last month. That is obviously
significantly lower than it was, but still affordability is the catchword.
And Democrats, interestingly enough, are pounding this term after they
gave us inflation busting, our inflation increasing bills like the
ill named Inflation Reduction Bill.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Democrats, we created this problem, but oh we're going
to We're also going to be the ones that are
going to talk about how someone else did and how
we can fix it. Of course, if they get power,
they'll just make it worse, which is what they do
all the time. No, I do think A really described it.
Because the inflation, the pricing preasing was so high Underbidy.
Speaker 3: I mean, the curve is like this.
Speaker 2: President Trump has brought that and Republicans have brought that
way down, but it's still way too high.
Speaker 3: So you know, people still.
Speaker 2: Feel it when they go purchase things that they need
for their family. But I do think the Big Beautiful
Bill is good legislation. I always tell folks, you know,
it's a good bill because the left hates it. And
as I was saying earlier, they hated it because it
actually empowers people and families, not government. And so you know,
I tell people in the largest tax cut in American history,
largest investment in border security in American history. First time
we put school choice, which is totally pro family, let
moms dads pick where their son or daughter goes to school.
Gives a tax incentive for doing that, and put that
in the tax code. And then, of course the welfare
reform component that was in the bill, able bodied adults.
Speaker 3: Guess what from.
Speaker 2: Now on, if you're gonna get tax payer money, you're
gonna have to work good for everybody, good for the economy,
good for taxpayers, good for them.
Speaker 3: So all that was in the was in the bill.
Speaker 2: But yeah, Democrats are gonna, they're gonna they're gonna say
the other. But I think I think the president's speech
was right on target. I mean I always, I always say,
we make this job too complicated. It's pretty simple. What
did you tell the voters you were going to do
when you ran for the job. If you get elected,
go do what you said. Nobody, nobody does that better
than President Trump. He said he cut tacks as he did.
He said he secured the border he did in record time.
He said he get men out of women's sports.
Speaker 3: He did. He said he would make sure I ran
didn't get nuclear capability. He did. He said he'd bring
the hostages back to Israel. He did.
Speaker 2: He said he would increase recruitment and enlistment in our military.
He did, and a bunch of other things I can't
think of right now. But so to me, it's been
an amazing year. But of course the Democrats are going
to talk about affordability, and oh, how we need to
prop up Obamacare even more, which everyone knows Obamacare was
such a charade.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is the height of hypocrisy, isn't it. I
mean they are fighting like hell right now to hold
on to these pandemic era subsidies, Obamacare subsidies in a
fraud filled Obamacare system that was doomed from the start.
Where do you The House this week passed legislation Republican
legislation looking to attack the healthcare problem in America, healthcare
insurance problem in America. Where do you think that's going
to go in the Senate? We're going to see passage
of that hopefully.
Speaker 2: I mean, what we don't want to do is just
keep extending these already expanded subsidies for Obamacare to insurance companies.
Speaker 3: Because everyone knows economics one oh one.
Speaker 2: Substies increase price, choice and competition lower price. So if
you have to do the subsidies, you can't do that
by itself, because that'll just exacerbate the problem. What you
got to do is choice and competition, which is what
we passed this week. Health savings accounts, association, health plans,
those types of things that's that's what has to happen.
And frankly, I think we need to tell the tell
the American people. You know, Republicans tell the truth and
fix things. Democrats tend to do the opposite. So let's
tell them the truth. When they passed Obamacare, they said,
you like your plan, you can keep your plan, like
your doctor, keep your doctor. Premiums will go down. They
were zero for three, So we just need to remind
voters that doesn't work. Obamacare doesn't work, and continuing the
subseason is not going to lower premiums. May help that
small percentage of the population who are on those subsidies
may help them a little bit, but it won't help
overall premiums come down. So let's let's actually address the problem,
the real problem with high prices and healthcare. And then
if we do all that and we have to do
something temporary on the subsetase, that's a different question. But
to just do the substas makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 1: The definition of insanity right there. You alluded to it
before a very important Congressional committee hearing. Jack Smith, former
special counsel who presided over I think one of the
clearest examples of the weaponization of Justice. You on the
Judiciary Committee, of course, have been looking into this Arctic frost.
Look how much has come out of that of late. Thankfully,
we would not have had that information had you folks
not been in control of that committee as well as
in the Senate. All of that said, this is what
NBC News reported this week, and of course you're going
to get the NBC News version. You get what you
get with NBC. Of course, former Special counsel Jack Smith
told a Congressional committee Wednesday that his team found proof
beyond a reasonable doubt the President Donald Trump engaged in
a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the twenty
twenty election. According to parts of the opening statement obtained
by NBC News, NBC News knows only so much. What's
the real story here?
Speaker 2: Well, Jack Smith might think that, but that's different than
a jury appeers in the court of law. So you know,
he can jump to the conclusion, but that's not how
it works in the American justice systems.
Speaker 3: He can say whatevery darnwell wants.
Speaker 2: What I know is nothing in that seven hour deposition
yesterday changed my belief that this was largely political, you know,
kind of in the in the vein of Fannie Willis,
Alvin Bragg and all this other stuff, and you know
Jim Comey and Crossfire Hurricane when they said President Trump
was somehow coordinating and coluding with the Russians during the case,
like crazy stuff, Robert Muller, and so nothing changed my
perspective on from mister Smith on that seven hours, We've
already deposed three of his deputies. Two of them took
the fifth each seventy one and seventy three times respectively.
One of those individuals he took the fifth that many times.
We actually referred to the Justice Department for obstruction of
our investigation.
Speaker 3: We don't do that very often. I mean, it's got
to be warranted.
Speaker 2: And we sent mister Wyndham, We sent that to the
Justice Department for one of his top deputies. So look,
I can't get into the details until we actually review
the transcript, and that transcript has made public. But one
of the things I can talk about, because we all
know this has been out in the public, is they
subpoenaed the phone records, the toll records of the Speaker
of the House after he became speaker, like a week
and a half after he becomes Speaker Kevin McCarthy, they
subpoena his toll records for two years prior, and they
do it for a two month period of time. And
so for two months from election day twenty twenty until
January seventh, twenty twenty one, they know every call. They
know who Kevin McCarthy called, who called him, how long
it lasted, when it took place, and if Kevin McCarthy
initiated the call, they know where he was at when
he did.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: Now you talk about patterning someone's life, looking at who
they're talking to before key votes, totally infringing on separation
of powers in the Speecher debate clause in the Constitution
that gives us the ability to do our jobs and
communicate with people. And then they had the goal to
tell the judge, Hey, judge, don't let at and t
tell its customer, the guy who speakure the House number
two in line of the President, that we're getting his information.
Speaker 3: You got to be kidding me. So that's that's the
kind of stuff that was going on in this investigation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it's insane. I mean, take a look at
what they did to a number of Republican senators. I mean,
I've talked to a few of them, and you can't
help but feel violated your privacy, And of course it
gets to the heart of, you know, the abuses of
the executive branch under auto pen. President Joe Biden, let
me ask let me ask you this. You talked about
those who took the fifth in these hearings multiple multiple times,
referring them to the Justice Department. Will we see eventually
a you know, Peter Navarro situation, Steve Bannon? I mean,
those guys were held in contempt of Congress and they
had to go to prison for that. Are we going
to see that from these guys who continue to obstruct
your investigation.
Speaker 2: That'll be up to the That'll be up to the
Justice Department if they decide to indict and prosecute for
the people we preferred, we've preferred to people mister Wyndham
in this investigation, and then John Brennan, for we think
he completely lied to us in a deposition from last
Congress on the whole dossier issue from from several years ago.
But we were actually we were actually interviewing them on
a different subject, but we got into the dossier and
we think he clearly lied particularly in light of what
Tulsea Gabbard released this summer about the Intelligence Community assessment,
this report that was put out. So that's up to
the Justice Department if they prosecute, and then it'll be
up to a jury, you know, a court if they
if they in fact are found guilty, and then serving
me whatever their sentence may be, whatever their penalty may be.
But what we've done is get the facts out there,
and where appropriate, where warranted, we will do a referral
to the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: You've been at this for a long time, and over
the last the better part of the last ten years,
we have seen the democrats and the abuses and the
excesses of power. What strikes you most about what we
have learned, thankfully because of Toulsi Gabbard and the information released.
Speaker 2: Well, the general takeaway is I always say it's the
one thing we always get wrong when we start these investigations.
Speaker 3: It's that it's.
Speaker 2: Always worse than we thought every single time. Yeah, I mean,
go back, go back when we first learned Now this
would be probably twelve years ago, I guess when we
first learned about the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS,
it was much worse than we thought, right, And then
you dig into the big I've been on just about
every major investigation, every select committee seemed like the big
Gazi Select Committee.
Speaker 3: What happened there?
Speaker 2: How they just didn't come to the aid of our people,
how they knew they were in just a terrible situation.
Then you get into the whole crossfire hurricane, and you
know somehow that that the Clinton campaign paid the law
firm Perkinsculley, who hired the Fusion GPS public relations firm,
who hired a foreigner Christopher Steele, who wrote a dossier
which was complete garbage, and yet our FBI Jim Comey,
uses it as the basis to get a warrant to
spy on the other party, her opponent's political campaign you
can't make. And then the Muller investigation, then impeachment one,
impeachment two, Fannie Willis, Alvin Bragg raid his home, Jack Smith, like,
it is always worse than we thought. So that is
the one one takeaway I've learned, I guess now and like,
as you point out, in a decade of doing oversight
work in the Congress, it's always worse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, speaking of Jack Smith, we find out this
week that, you know, they there were people surrounding him
who said, I don't think we have the authority to
do this, and apparently the Special Council said, I don't
give it. Yeah, let's go.
Speaker 3: Yeah they're aggressive. Yeah, good, good point.
Speaker 2: We sort of knew this because we had deposed mister
Dan Twano, who was the head of the Washington Field
Office of the FBI, and in his deposition said he
pushed back, I mean we did we did this last Congress.
He said, you know, look, do we really want to
just go do this search, this raid of presidents of
President Trump's home?
Speaker 3: And then they go, yeah, we got to do it.
Speaker 2: He said, well, you know, maybe we should use the
Miami Field office to kind of orchestrate this.
Speaker 3: Let them work down there.
Speaker 2: They know the folks that they go, no, no, no, it's
going to be the Washington Field office. He said, well,
if we're going to do this raid, this search, why
don't we let President trump lawyers.
Speaker 3: Know first that we're coming and we want to work
with them.
Speaker 2: No, how about when we get there, we at least
call his lawyer and we can go through the home together. No,
said no to all that, and they just they just
show up bus, go in and there. You know, we
know what it was like. They went through every room
in the house and it was ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Just absolute corruption. One fine thing. I know you have
to get going around a tight schedule here. I really
do appreciate your time. Looking ahead to twenty twenty six,
I hope that conservatives in America understand what is at stake.
Do you think they do? Because Trump is not on
the ballot, but certainly his policies are on the ballot
in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, they are.
Speaker 2: And I think President Trump is going to really help
us by You're right, he's on the top of the ticket,
so he's a have to drive turnout, particularly in these
tough districts, which.
Speaker 3: I think he'll do.
Speaker 2: You know, he gets on the phone, he goes does
events in these districts. He's teletown halls. That'll be very helpful.
I think the big beautiful bills we talked about earlier
will kick in. I think we're recruiting good candidates in
these key races. We've got to replace some people who
are running for higher office and have good candidates there.
I think we were doing that. Matt van Apps like
we won this special in Tennessee. Great candidate. And then finally,
I do think we still need to remind voters how
crazy the left is. Say not all Democrats are crazy,
but the left that controls their party is.
Speaker 3: Think about it.
Speaker 2: The left as it's crazy not to have a border.
It is crazy to say men to compete against women
in sports, it is. It is crazy to just keep
raising taxes. It is crazy to say everyone's got to
have an electric car and you can't have it like
you could just keep going down the list.
Speaker 3: It is the policy.
Speaker 2: Always point out it's crazy to let a Chinese by
balloon fly clear across the country, right.
Speaker 3: And then shoot it down.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I think anyone with people I represent
with before I went across the country.
Speaker 3: So I think we need to point those things out
as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, it'll be interesting these times, certainly are. We'll see
what lies ahead. Always appreciate your time, sir, I know
you're extremely busy, and thank you for taking the time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mary, Christmas.
Speaker 1: Merry Christmas to you. Thanks to my guest today, Ohio
US Representative Jim Jordan. He is the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee that's been doing such
great work at exposing the corruption of the last four
years of the Biden administration.
Speaker 4: Could this latest jobs report be an election decider? Who
watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet. New jobs reports
show that numbers fell way below expectations and small businesses
are laying people off. The real job Edge and his
companies that are less than five years old. Whether it's
happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
you financially.
Speaker 3: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Our guest now is US Senator Ron Johnson, the senior
Senator from the great state of Wisconsin, the Badger State.
As we are talking this afternoon, the Senator, along with
his colleagues are well playing the hurry up and wait
game in terms of waiting for the next vote on
the floor. Good afternoon, their thanks so much for joining
us in the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 5: Well, Matt, I hope you do.
Speaker 1: And well, yeah, speaking of how you're doing, how are
you doing again. I know that as you get to
the end here before the break, there's a lot of
back and forth and a lot of sitting still. Right.
Speaker 5: Well, they want to pass through the Senate the five bill.
They call it minibus. I call it megabus. So I
finally lifted my hold because I got the assurances that
will do everything we can to shut past the Shutdown
Fairness Act, which again, the only reason anybody could oppose
that is if they want to continue to hold federal
employees and the American public hostage in their dysfunctional games.
So again I got assurances with the credible pass for
path for passing that. So I'll love to my hold.
But now we're kind of working through the whole process
of which amendment is going to be loud and it's
always it's always the same old thing. This this, this
place is so dysfunctional.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of lumps in that gravy.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, just on a finer point on that, you have
been working on this thing and talking about it for
a long time, how do you feel about it eventually
looking at least now looking like you could get passage here?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think so. We know, because of the shutdown,
we had two votes on the Shutdown Fairness Act. And again,
all this does it just it pays everybody. They're going
to get paid eventually anyway, so why not pay them
on time, make them come into work. Okay, they can
clean their desks, they can do things. Maybe they're not
able to, you know, send out welfare checks to some
of the fraudulent ineligible recipients, but some alloys. Yeah, but
they can still work. So again, there's no reason not
to have this in law. From my standpoint that the
better bill, the ultimate bill, be the Eliminated Shutdown Act,
but that has greater resistance to it because there are
a lot of people in washingtonc Who actually like this pain.
They want to use federal employees. They want to use
the American public as pawns for leverage in passing appropriation
bills that we can't afford. So that's that is the
well honed process. I mean, it's just functional, but it's
a well honed process. That's one of the reasons we're
thirty eight trillion dollars in debt. So I'm trying to
just at least let's take that gamesmanship off the table here.
Let's not use these people's pawds anymore. It's sick, big
of debt. You have been trying for a very long
time to get your colleagues to consider the fact that
thirty eight trillion dollars in debt is not sustainable. I
don't know if you call it the report out from
open the books. We had a piece on it at
the Federalist this week, but you know it should come
as no surprise, but it still should, I think be
appalling and is appalling to most Americans. If you look
at debt, the nation's debt over the last one hundred
plus years, beginning with Woodrow Wilson in World War One,
the American individual, each man, woman, and child now is paying.
Speaker 1: Just about what is it. A family of four is
somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty plus thousand dollars. That's
the family of four's share of debt, and that debt
load has increased ten thousand percent since what nineteen fifteen?
Something like that. Again, are we going to get anybody
serious about really looking at the root cause of the
high cost of living?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 5: Again, there's many ways of describing this that are all
eye popping, but unfortunately here in Washington and I would
say in the general public too. Most people are just
whistened by the graveyard, and we then in we've had
massive deskice now for years, decades. What we had in
the beginning of this century pales in comparison to what
we're looking at now. We're order magnitude higher than we
were at the turn of the century. Well, actually we
had surpluses at the very turn of the century. But
because it hasn't blown up on our face yet, what
I've been describing is a we've had a chronic debt
crisis for decades. It's called the devaluation of the dollar.
You probably heard me quote these figures. But a dollar
we held in nineteen ninety eight it was worth fifty
one cents. The dollar you held just eleven years ago
in twenty fourteen, it is worth seventy four cents, and
a dollar you held in twenty nineteen before the pandemic's
worth eighty cents. That's why you can't afford things now.
There's other lack of permitting, the war and fossil fuels
that have driven up some commodity price, that kind of stuff,
and with possibility to bring those down quite honestly, under Trump, drill,
baby drill. We brought gasing prices down. You know, we
have less of an issue or handling more intelligently with
the bird flu so we've got renewed flocks and we
have more eggs, so those things are coming down. So
there again there's every item is different. But in general,
the reason people can't afford things is their wages haven't
kept up with the devaluation dollar caused by massive death
of spending that most policymakers here in Washington see are
just whistling by the graveyard. I mean, we're these appropriation bills.
We have about five point two billion dollars of ear
marks in them. Again and this is under Republican control.
We disavowed earmarks when I first got here. That was
the debate between Tom Coburn and Jimmy and Hoff. And
then you know, there's legitimate points to have congressionally directed spending,
but I sided with Tom Cobra and the earmarks are
more the gateway rug and we didn't have them for
about ten years. And then Democrats to control and they
were going to do ear mark. We couldn't do anything
to stop it. And as long as they're going to
do it, we had Republicans say, well, we ought to
do it too, and unfortunately we didn't stop it when
we regained power. But there's a group of us can
do everything we can in the next appropriation process to
rain that in now.
Speaker 1: The Federalist CEO Sean Davis has been talking about that
since he worked for Coburn, and they put together one
of the great transparency acts of all time where you
can actually see just how much spending is going on,
how much of your tax dollars are going into this leviath.
And let's turn our attention to a letter that you
had sent out to Health and Human Services this week,
and it really drives home the point that we've been
talking about for some time, the concern about the COVID
shot and the impact to had and is having still
on healthy kids who were mandated to take this shot.
You sent a letter as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior, requesting
records indicating once again that at least ten children died
after and because of receiving COVID nineteen vaccination. What are
you looking for in terms of the records on that well.
Speaker 5: First of all, I understand that is just the tip
of the iceberg. So let me take you back in time.
We were seeing in the vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,
that's their surveillance system, within a month or two, literally
thousands of people reported deaths associated with the COVID injection
within a couple of months. Back then. Of the couple thousands,
forty six percent recurring on the day of vaccination or
within one or two days, and federal officials under Biden
just blew it off. But we are up now today
to thirty nine and thirteen people worldwide reported to veyor's
death associated with the code vaccine, about twenty three point
nine percent of those just shy of ninety three hundred
occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days.
We all witness during COVID with vaccine. We witnessed sports
figures dropping around the field. We witnessed newscasters slumping over
at their news. Deaths were here. We have a whole
new You know, we've always heard a SID sudden infant
death syndrome, All of a sudden, we have something called
SADS Sudden adult death syndrome. In the media. Is like,
where's the curiosity. Why is somebody asking what's happening here?
So what we found out recently is Tracy Beth Hogue,
a doctor within FDA, looked at what the Biden administration had.
By the way, earlier in this year, we already proved
that the Bite administration knew and admitted there was a
safety signal on myrochaidatists and young children, and they hid
that fact. They knew it, and they hit it, and
they hit it so they could approve the injection for
people that age category. Now, how sick is that? But
Tracy Hogue, doctor Hogue decided to independently take a look
at some of the records they had, and I think
they had somebody access to ninety six autopsies of children.
Now I understand during COVID it was almost impossible to
get an autopsy because the medical establishment didn't want to
know real pool egnents. Right, So they had ninety six
autopsies that they reviewed, and she came to the conclusion
with her review that they proved some of these proved
the COVID injection killed these kids. Well, you know, the
other people in the agency did not want to believe it.
They started leaking her name and started disparaging her. So
Vinet Pissad ordered a thorough, a very formal review with
the bias toward if there's any doubt whatsoever, don't include those.
So the ninety six autopsies that they conclusively concluded that
ten of those children died of the COVID injection, now
well concerns me about that. And one of the reasons
I wrote the letter. It makes it sound like, oh,
that's it. Yeah, So I mean with all the billions
of life saved, you know, that's a collateral damage. The
ten lives is just the tip of the iceberg. Because
the FDA, they weren't looking for autopsies. I don't even
know where they got these things. Part of the oversight.
I want to find out all about this, but they
were in a state of denial. They still are, except
on a new management. Now you got some people looking
at these things. But one thing we know about veers
is a dramatically understates adverse events. So worldwide we're up
to about one point on almost one point seven million
adverse events report on veyers, you know, associated with the
COVID injection. And again just shy at thirty nine thousand
deaths and remember you're product. I'm not sure you're old enough.
In the seventies with the swine flu oh sure, in
that program, gerald Ford shut that thing down when they
were three dozen thirty six reported deaths in about four
hundred cases of Gillan beret disease. They shut that thing down,
worked to thirty almost thirty nine thousand deaths. And it's like,
we don't see anything here. As I said, you know,
it wasn't reported to national media but local news media.
Because I've seen the clips of the sports people, you know,
dropping on the field or on the court, and the newscasters.
It was still a state of denial. So no I
wrote a letter to Secretary of Kennedy I've viewed as
a friendly oversight letter. I want to get to the
bottom of this. I want to see exactly what they're
looking looking at, and I also want to know exactly
who's pushing back on doctor Hoague as she was trying
to expose all of this.
Speaker 1: Well, it doesn't fit their narrative, does it. And that's
what they've been doing for years along with the accomplished media.
And you're right, there is no thirst for asking these
important questions. So this is going to have to come
through committee work and people who are committed to dealing
with this. But you know, this is the thing you
mentioned that ten kids out of ninety six kids that
where medical professionals and autopsy. You know, that's more than
ten percent in that pool. I'm not saying that it's
ten percent of all, but as you mentioned, we don't know.
We just have the opening sense through these autopsies of
just how significant this could be. Do you think you
will be able to uncover documents and communications like we've
seen in the past with Fauci and Collins and crew
saying well we got to keep this on the hush hush,
that sort of thing.
Speaker 5: Well, we know they were well aware of their vulnerability
to Floyer requests. My oside staff, we're the ones that
pulled the the haystack and got that doctor Morin's email
where we say, hey, don't don't contact me official, you
use Gmail. Got a gal here in the Foyer office
to you know, teach us all how to avoid having
documents to provide them for FOYA. So you know, again
we know that they were going to hide, you know,
the wrongdoing. So I don't know what documents that were
never produced. How much of this was always done verbally
versus putting it in electronic communication. And even though Secretary
of Kennedy's absolutely committed to radical transparency, we did get
about an eight million page document. Dumb, but it was
that it wasn't organized. I mean, that's a lot of
pages go through to sift through and try and find things.
We're finding more things. We're not ready to release it yet,
but in this case, we didn't get any of this,
and this information should have been responsible to our request.
I mean, this is exactly the kind of things we're requesting.
We didn't get these documents as part of our eight
million pages. Yeah, I mean, I'm not blaming Secretary Kennedy.
I'm blaming the people in the agencies are going to
keep this stuff covered up and tell us exposed, either
through whistleblowers or some dedicated individuals like doctor Hogan, doctor Rossad,
who's going to try and get the truth out.
Speaker 1: Speaking of foot dragging by government bureaucrats, Well, where do
things stand. I know that your committee has been investigating
the assassination attempt in two thousand and twenty four Pennsylvania
against President Trump. I know that you've been looking into
as well some of the other issues that they have
involved these abusive investigations by the Biden DOJ elsewhere where
do those things stand right now?
Speaker 5: Pretty much the standstill Again. I'm getting my frustration levels growing.
I've got a great deal sympathy for what turned General
Bondi and Director Patel are trying to deal with. I mean,
they are dealing with deep state actors inside their agencies.
I've talked to other people the same thing, with the
Bobby Candy over HH and Chest. You've got people who
are not on board, a lot of people left. They're
having a hard time recruiting because of the lawfare conducted
against people like Judge Troopus. We can maybe talk about
that later, Yeah, for sure, but no, we are not
getting I subpoened the FBI director I've viewed as a
friendly subpoena pony up. It was July, it was the
one year anniversary, and we've done a Biparisian investigation. But
once the Trump administration came to office, I kind of figured, Okay,
they've got the real investatory capabilities. They got the documents.
I figure President Trump is going to want that, so
they'd be uncovering that all of a sudden, It's July
and we're looking at we just don't have much. We
haven't got anything out of the FBI. We still haven't,
so I can't really explain it. I can make excuses
for him, I suppose, But my frustration level is growing.
And you know, the American people deserve these answers. But
the FI, the FBI is it's a it's a bureaucracy.
It's there's entrenched deep staters. Uh, they've got their way
about doing things. And let's face it, congressional oversight has atrophied.
It's very difficult for us to enforce us peanut power.
So administration after administration, bureaucracy after bureaucracy bowls us off.
They're just not they're not responsive. They we'll wait them out.
Speaker 1: That is the administrative state in a nutshell. And you
know firsthand about just how deep the deep state goes.
In fact, they were surveilling your at least your phone records.
Have you gotten any more answers on that front, just
simply as a senator who was you know, let's let's
be honest, let's use the word victimized by this.
Speaker 5: Well, we're getting the rationale for doing it. I mean,
let's face it, Jack Smith tried to criminalize, as Josh
calls criminalizing the US surrounding January sixth, primarily the ultimate
state of electors, like that was some kind of criminal act. No,
it's exactly what John F. Kennedy did and the reason
he got Hawaii's elector Or Voss in the electric dispute,
which was originally given to Nixon. He won, but because
he had an ultima sate of electors, they could actually
vote for him. Al Gore did not. His legal team
wasn't smart enough to have an altimate state of electors
in the disputed state Florida, and so when reached the
Supreme Court, he didn't have a case. Yeah, I mean
even threw word one. He didn't have an ultimately save
electors to elect him president. So Jim Troops was smart enough,
rep saying, President Trump, but we've got this active case.
We have all these irregularities which let's face the Wisconsin
Supreme Court never looked at. Now dismissed it, clocal ashes
and destroy right, but all these irregularities that were looked at,
and Judge Troopers said, well, in case we prevail, we
need also save the electors. He did it totally above board.
The Wisconsin Trading General's office deemed it to the Wisconsin
Election Commission is entirely proper. Or what he did. And
now a year or so after that, now Josh Tray
General Josh call is viewing as a federal of felony
felony forgery. How absurd, and they're going through this you know,
inquisition type of true. I mean, this is this is
such a miscarriage justice. What they're doing to a very
honorable person of high integrity, Judge Troops in Wisconsin, as
well as the mayor up in Wallsa. It's grotesque what
a Trey General Josh Carl is doing to these people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think unfortunately, because the national press isn't
all that interested unless it is, you know, pushing the
narrative of the insurrection and you know, Trump overthrowing, attempting
to overthrow the election and all of that sort of nonsense,
which you know, real investigative reporting has Joan was absolutely
that nonsense. But in the state of Wisconsin you had
a former judge Jim troopis a nationally respected attorney when
it comes to election law and a specialty in recount law,
and that's exactly what Wisconsin had. Right after the November
election of twenty twenty. There were a lot of disputed
and rightly disputed votes that came in. Some of them
broke election law how they were handled, and so the
Trump campaign said, well, wait a minute here, we're not
just going to concede the ten electoral votes of Wisconsin.
We're going to challenge this. And they had the right
to do that, of course, and they had a right
to bring in an attorney who would work for their
best interest. That is what attorneys are supposed to do.
And so you had troopis Ken cheesebro by the way,
who was in two thousand part of that Gore campaign,
the legal team that came up with and looked back
at nineteen sixty and the close race in Hawaii between
Kennedy and Nixon and said, well, we can use that
it's an alternate electionors to hold those electoral votes in
case we prevail in the courts, then we don't have
to give them up. And like you said, Gore in
his campaign, folks said, now we're not going to pursue
that this is all within the law. And Josh Call,
who has been basically directed by National Democrats to make
this a story in twenty twenty six. They have effectively,
there's no effectively about it. They have run this prosecution
into individuals. Like I said before, they have the legal
precedents on their side, but they want a show trial
so that they can knock Trump and they can go
after Republicans and try to take back power. And they're
doing this too with a liberal Dane County judge who
there's a good body of evidence suggest he didn't write
his own order saying that the trial must go on
when the defense was looking to dismiss these these allegations,
these trumped up allegations, if you will, But instead a judge,
a retired judge with a grudge against troopists. According to
document a document expert in this case is thought to
have actually written this, and the judge won't recuse himself.
So is there any way that these guys are going
to get a fair trial in the liberal bastion of
Dane County, Wisconsin and Madison.
Speaker 5: Well, short answer that is no, because any fair minded judge,
based on the miscarriage justice being carried out by Josh
Call would have dismissed the case but again that judge
is now being accused of not even writing the order
that didn't dismiss the case. And Judge troup As apparently
has got forensical linguistic experts which have been used in
court have been used to convict people, so that's a
legitimate thing to do. But the judge who's being accused
held the hearing is whether or not they should hear
the evidence of his misconduct, and he didn't give him
the hearing, and so that could be a civil rights violation,
which was which prompted a letter from me to Pam
Bondi because now this becomes a federal issue, and I
just hope that the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, takes us up,
gets the US Attorney involved, and we start investigating this
so that Judge Troopis gets a fair trial because he
will not get he already has not. I mean, it's egregious.
This case never should have been brought, The indictment never
should have been handed down, It never should have been
dismissed as soon as they file papers for dismissal. The
fact that the trial has actually begun is just a
travesty justice.
Speaker 1: It is, and it's part of the national campaign by
the Democrats, of course in swing states in twenty twenty,
where the Trump campaign, of course challenged those irregularities, to
say the least in those states. Now Michigan, a judge
has already thrown out a similar case saying, listen, you
folks are really barking up the wrong tree. They did
not break any laws here. I believe New Mexico did
the same thing, Pennsylvania did the same thing. But you
still have pending criminal cases going on in places like
Nevada and Arizona. And it is all to feed this
narrative that Trump was trying to overthrow the election, which
of course was all about January sixth, twenty twenty one,
and their narrative about in insurrection. And I guess as
a final thought here, just to get your thoughts on here,
we have seen a lot of what could be characterized
as insurrectionary behavior on the part of the left in
the first uh what eleven months of the Trump administration.
But the left and the accomplished media continue to focus
on this bogus alternate elector's case.
Speaker 5: Well, first of all, it's far worse than conducting lawfare.
To continue this narrative this is This isn't a messaging war.
This is far more destructive than that. I mean, the
process is the punishment. But because the process is the punishment,
it is a huge deterrence from any other attorney who
would ever think of defending Trump or joining the FBI,
or join the Justice Department, or going to work for AHHS.
So that's that's why I'm highly sympathetic with Pam Body
and cash for Tel not being able to give us
all the documents reques. There is resistance within the deep state.
You still partison actors there. They can't purge the entire agency,
and they can't they can't backfield the ones that have
left or that they've terminated, because again, who if you're
a young lawyer, do you really want to be blackballed
by all the legal firms? This is this is far
more sinister, far more destructive, and far more targeted towards
just literally crippling their political oppositions. Not just about Trump.
It's not just about the few members of Congress who
had our phone record snatched. This is a pervasive campaign
to literally cripple the Democrat, the radical lefts political opposition.
And is it is highly effected because most people don't
even understand the destructive of implications here and how unbelievably
effective it is. It's not it's I mean, the narrative
is just a small part of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is this is real weaponization of justice and
using government agencies, big government agencies to perform the bidding
of their masters in progressive power circles. Well, thanks to
my guest today, Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. That committee has been very active, very
busy in getting to the bottom of a lot of
the stuff we've just been talking about. You've been listening
to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon
with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom, anxious for
the fray
Speaker 2: Right.