Latest / Brian Thomas / Inside Scoop with Breitbart News - Bradley Jaye

Transcript

Inside Scoop with Breitbart News - Bradley Jaye · Brian Thomas

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: 8.05 here at 55 KRC Detox Station.
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: Happy Tuesday.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: I always look forward to this time of the week
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: here on the 55 KRC Morning Show. We are blessed
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: by the inside scoop of Breitbart News. B-R-E-I-T-B-A-R-T.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Bookmark it.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: You'd be glad you did after you got done bookmarking wethepeopleconvention.org.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Bookmark Breitbart because that's where you read from the writings
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: of political editor Bradley Jay. Welcome back to the 55
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: KRC Morning Show, my friend. It's always a pleasure having
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: you on.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Good morning. It's always fun to be with you.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: I appreciate it, man. I appreciate what you guys do
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: at Breitbart every day. I always say 55 KRC Morning
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Show does rely on Breitbart as a news source and
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: some excellent news you have there, including news about Jack Smith.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Jack Smith apparently going to be testifying today, beginning at
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: 9 a.m. in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about, well,
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: his antics going after Donald Trump and seeking indictments against
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And I saw your article about this violation
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: of purchasing rules. But before we start into that, he
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: has testified previously. Are we going to run into a
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Fauci Fifth Amendment assertion today, or is he actually going
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: to answer questions? Do you have any insight into that, Bradley?
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: That's a good question.
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: Senate Judiciary Committee is anticipating him speaking today. I mean,
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: nothing is for sure until he does. But if you
• 1:19
  Speaker 3: think about how Fauci became conducted himself i remember he
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: had the fake pardon we think it was an auto
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: pin pardon yeah it only covered up to a certain
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: amount of time after which uh it like you would
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: think that fauci would have to go before congress and
• 1:38
  Speaker 3: actually talk uh so there were all these kinds of
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: questions we don't have that with jack smith jack smith
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: did not receive a pardon uh so i don't know
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: i'm i'm uh optimistic that we see him today. And
• 1:51
  Speaker 3: I know that Republican senators are as well. And frankly,
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: I think that a lot of the Democrat senators would
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: would not want to deal with the headache of him
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: pleading the fifth either.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: Well, and that's a valid point. But at least insofar
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: as Fauci is concerned, there was, I think, you know,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: from a lawyer's perspective, which am somewhat legitimate argument that
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump or rather Biden couldn't pardon him for state
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: crimes and that some crafty, uh, state attorney general could
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: easily come up with something to charge Fauci with in
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: terms of violating any given state law, like Florida, for example,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: jumps out as a, as a state that might pursue him.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: So he still has potential criminal charges against him, which
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: I think is the, was served as the basis for
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: his assertion. Um, Smith, however, no pardon. So that's not
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: a question, not an issue here, but then again, the
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: absence of a pardon even suggests perhaps he may have
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: more reason to, uh, to assert the fifth. Now, um,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: I guess you have to do a little explaining here
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: because you wrote about the Smith's office violating its own
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: purchasing rules to acquire some forensic video software prior to
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: indicting Donald Trump. There was some urgency here. So we
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: have rules in place regarding purchases, which, as you report,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: were violated. But the urgency with which this information was expressed,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: we need this quickly. Break the facts down for my
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: listening audience, would you please, Bradley? Because I think this
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: is really important. Of course, it's probably going to come
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: up today.
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: I believe it might come up today.
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: So what I reported, and this comes from files that
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: were obtained from the Oversight Project via a FOIA request.
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: The Oversight Project does a fantastic job with a lot
• 3:28
  Speaker 3: of this, and they've been leaders in trying to expose
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: so much of what Jack's done. But you had to
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: go back to June 26, back in 2023. This was
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: after Mar-a-Lago had been raided. This was after Jack Smith
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: had been appointed as special counsel illegally, it turns out,
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: by Merrick Garland, Biden's attorney general. So back on June
• 3:51
  Speaker 3: 26 of 2023, Jack Smith had already indicted Trump once.
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: He had already indicted him over the business records case. Remember,
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: he claimed that Trump had obtained classified documents or whatever, fine.
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: But he was already moving towards doing more. And it's interesting,
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: and I note this in the article, that after the election,
• 4:18
  Speaker 3: which Biden, of course, ended up not being on the
• 4:21
  Speaker 3: ballot because he was replaced by Kamala, but Biden reportedly
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: expressed his disappointment in appointing Merrick Garland because Garland and
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: Jack Smith didn't move fast enough to go after Trump.
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: So that's an interesting tidbit here.
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: But anyways, so back in June, what Jack Smith did
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: is he made a very unusual request to a company
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: called Axon. Axon is a large investigation, telecommunication, electronics organization.
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: But what Jack Smith wanted.
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: Is he said that he had video files that he
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: needed converted. It was very, very mysterious. He didn't say
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: what they were. He called them proprietary. But his office
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: said that they needed them urgently. They said, quote, we
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: are in desperate need of this software. The wheels started turning. Now,
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: if anyone who's worked in the federal government knows that
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: there are all kinds of procurement requirements and all this, well,
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: Jack Smith, according to his office, even went above and
• 5:29
  Speaker 3: beyond those.
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: However, all of that was thrown to the side.
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: And I document a lot of that email traffic in
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: my story on Breitbart.com. But why this is so interesting is, well,
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: first off, we don't know what the video is. It's
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: interesting because this is just a couple of weeks before
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: he indicts Trump a second time. this time for alleged electioneering,
• 5:57
  Speaker 3: election interference in the 2020 election.
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: And if you go back and.
• 6:01
  Speaker 3: Look at all these files that Oversight Project has, not
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: only did Jack Smith break his own office's rules to
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: get this software to view this mysterious video as quickly
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: as possible, but there's all kinds of evidence that no
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: one wanted their fingerprints on it. There are all these
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: forms that have missing signature blocks. Anytime there's a description
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: of what this software is supposed to do, what they're
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: going to use it for, they leave it, even for government,
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: they leave it incredibly vague or attach misleading descriptions of it.
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: And interestingly as well, they reference some kind of an
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: audit that they say is making it more difficult for
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: them to pull off something like this.
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: But it's Very interesting.
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: And I think that the American people, the taxpayers who
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: had to pay tens of millions of dollars for their
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: own federal government to try to put a presidential candidate
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: in prison need.
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: To know what this video was, who.
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: Authorized the breaking of office rules, federal government rules to
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: acquire the means.
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: To view this video.
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: I mean, all of this is documented in these emails
• 7:21
  Speaker 3: and why it was so urgent. And if you look,
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: it clearly was very, very critical in the actual indictment
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: of Donald Trump.
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: So this is just.
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: Indicative of how shadowy and opaque the Jack Smith investigation is.
• 7:39
  Speaker 3: We still don't even know all the people, all the
• 7:41
  Speaker 3: federal employees who were involved in it. We still don't
• 7:44
  Speaker 3: know how much it cost. This software and the hardware
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: necessary to convert those.
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: Videos, we don't know where it is. We don't know
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: what happened to it.
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: But also the company, if you look at the files
• 7:55
  Speaker 3: that I reported on, there's a data sharing agreement. So
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: does Axon, does this company, do they have these files still?
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: We just don't know.
• 8:05
  Speaker 3: I expect that just here in under an hour when
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: Jack Smith begins testifying that this is going to be
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: something that will be talked about by Republican senators, and
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: Jack Smith may have to provide some answers.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: Now, you mentioned this all swirls around election interference in
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the 2020 election. Is this the January 6th-related investigation, Bradley?
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: I mean, that was one of the critical components of
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: that 2020 electioneering allegation and indictment against Trump. But Again,
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: there's so many questions about that that we don't even know. Remember,
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: Jack Smith, after the election, he had to drop this case.
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: Judge Cannon down in Florida ended up throwing out the
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: previous indictment on the business records. But she said that
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: Jack Smith wasn't even legally appointed. So then this aspect
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: of Jack Smith's investigation ended up floundering as well. But
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: With all of that going on and the tens of
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: millions of taxpayer dollars that went into it, it's just
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: unbelievable that we still don't have any answers about how,
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: I mean, this critical, critical historical moment in our history,
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: we still don't know almost anything about it.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Well, and it's rather interesting since the case went away.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: they would have had an obligation to produce all this
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: stuff to Donald Trump so he could defend himself. There
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: is an obligation. Prosecutors have it. From a legal perspective,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the criminal rules of justice require the prosecutors to provide
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: the defendant with all of the evidence they have that
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: has any impact or relationship to the underlying allegation. So
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: this video, to the extent it was involved in the indictment,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: clearly would have had to have been provided to the
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: Trump campaign in an effort when they were defending him.
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: So it's almost as if, gee, I kind of wish
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: the discovery component and the evidence had to have been
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: turned over before the case disappeared. We'd have all the
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: answers to these questions, Bradley.
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: It almost suggests that that this was never about the
• 10:12
  Speaker 3: actual court process, but maybe there was a little bit
• 10:17
  Speaker 3: of election interfering going on with Jack Smith and Mary
• 10:20
  Speaker 3: Garland and Joe Biden, right?
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you just talk about an investigation, you throw out
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: an indictment with no intention of following through with it,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: just to, you know, well, hell, they've been after Donald
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: Trump forever. I guess, Bradley, I sort of have to
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: interject my often-asked question. What in the hell, by way
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: of strategy, are the Democrats going to do after Donald
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Trump's gone? I mean, they've been burning that Donald Trump
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: evil orange man fuel for so long now. When he
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: disappears from the political landscape, I'm not quite sure what
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: they're going to be left with.
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they've got that muscle memory.
• 10:52
  Speaker 3: Just their reflex for 10 years or more has just
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: been orange man bad, attack orange man.
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: And now that that's gone, what's going to happen?
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: If you look at all the different factions of the
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: Democrat Party, they've kind of been held together over the past,
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: really over the past 20 years, somewhat tenuously. They've been
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: aided in the past 10 years or so by their
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: joint hatred of Donald Trump. But I think that a
• 11:19
  Speaker 3: Democrat civil war is coming. Remember, I mean, it's been
• 11:23
  Speaker 3: since 2008, since the Democrats had a truly contentious, contested
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: national presidential election. Of course, Obama beat Hillary. That wasn't
• 11:36
  Speaker 3: wasn't like it was a big brouhaha. There were just
• 11:39
  Speaker 3: two folks on the main card. Then you had Obama's reelection,
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: and they cleared the way with the superdelegates in 16
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: for Hillary. In 2020, they said that the process was reformed,
• 11:51
  Speaker 3: but they didn't. They still delivered it for Biden. And then,
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: of course, the appointment of Kamala. So there are all
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: these different factions in the Democrat Party that are anxious
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: to have their day. And a lot of these factions,
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: I don't think, can exist under the same tent, at
• 12:08
  Speaker 3: least not very easily. So I think that Republicans would
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: be smart to stop fighting amongst themselves, all these old
• 12:15
  Speaker 3: school Republicans who are intent on burning down the party
• 12:18
  Speaker 3: just so they can rule over the ashes of these
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: folks coming after J.D. Vance and trying to kill America first,
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: because they're going to give the Democrats an opening.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: Bradley J., someone just whispered Mitch McConnell into my headset.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: Good job, Joe Strecker. Point well taken.
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: Not so far.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: Going back, Bradley. We're all critical of Mitch McConnell here
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: on the 55 KRC Morning Show, Bradley, because our side
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: of the political ledger, the conservative side, should not be
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: pulling shenanigans like that. That's what Biden did. That's what
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: Amy Acton, a current gubernatorial candidate, they hide and they
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: don't want to actually provide information. So anyway, this back
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: to the information that Jack Smith or wherever the video
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: evidence is that he wanted this Axon investigations to crunch
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: down digitally. I find it surprising, as is the case
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: with any Senate hearing or even a House hearing, that
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: they are deprived of the documents, that our own elected
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: officials can't get their hands on this information. Is this
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: in a state of discovery right now? Do we have
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: any hope that this is ultimately going to be produced,
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: or are we just going to be left in the
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: dark about what exactly he was talking about when he
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: had this urgency to get this stuff digitized?
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: So that's a very interesting question. I will say this.
• 13:36
  Speaker 3: The Democrats, they knew that Jack Smith was eventually going
• 13:40
  Speaker 3: to have to testify for months and months and months.
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: They have been trying to hold this hearing. And Chuck Grassley,
• 13:49
  Speaker 3: to his credit, he's the top Republican on the Senate
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee, has held them off. Why? Because his team
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: of investigators was trying to produce this documentation online. all
• 13:59
  Speaker 3: these outside groups like the Oversight Project through FOIA requests
• 14:04
  Speaker 3: were trying to produce as much as they could before
• 14:08
  Speaker 3: they got Jack Smith in front of them across that
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: table at these hearings. I don't know everything that Chuck
• 14:15
  Speaker 3: Grassley has right now. Congressional investigators are always at a
• 14:20
  Speaker 3: disadvantage because they just simply don't have.
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: The staff to do this.
• 14:26
  Speaker 3: But I'm very interested in seeing what Chuck Grassley may
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: have in store today. But also to your point, the
• 14:36
  Speaker 3: congressional investigators who have a constitutional oversight duty and should
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: have access to this information They don't. Yet Jack Smith
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: through Arctic Frost was illegally spying on United States senators,
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: which is illegal, unconstitutional.
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: So, I mean, there's this power disparity here.
• 14:54
  Speaker 3: And Jack Smith has so many questions that he needs
• 14:58
  Speaker 3: to answer today. And this is going to be an
• 15:00
  Speaker 3: absolute blockbuster hearing. I'm very excited about it. And we
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: all of us at Breitbart.com are as well.
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: I imagine so. Get your popcorn out, put your feet up,
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: turn the TV on. I guess it starts at 9 a.m.,
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: and CBS, I guess, is going to cover it. I
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: have their site up, but also I'm sure Fox News
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: and others will be carrying it. Watch live, and we'll
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: all enjoy it together. Bradley Jay, politics editor over at Breitbart.
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: Bookmark the site. Enjoy what Bradley and the folks at
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: Breitbart report on each and every day. Bradley, it's always
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: a pleasure to have you on, man. We'll do it
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: again real soon, and enjoy the political theater today, my friend.
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Looking forward to joining you again. Y'all enjoy it
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: as well. Thanks, brother.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: Have a great one. Don't go away. Folks, we got
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: Steve Gooden, our good lawyer.