Right News Round Up Information Overload hour eight hundred and nine for one sean if you want to be a part of the program. We went into great depth and lengths discussing the raid of Project Veritas James O'Keefe, founder CEO of Project Veritas in his home as it relates to this this diary of Joe Biden's daughter. Now, what's so fascinating about this case is that James O'Keeffe never went with the story because he was never able to authenticate the story. If you work in the news industry in any capacity, you have sources. Sources brought this to him. He has now said publicly that he was told that it was obtained legally. They did all their background checking and they could not corroborate the authenticity of it. And he about a year ago, James O'Keeffe, on his own voluntarily went to the police and handed it over to the police in case maybe it might have been stolen, Maybe they could corroborated and did the right thing. A year later, then it doesn't it doesn't justify his home and his office being rated, But that's exactly what happened. He's only done one interview and it's with me, and let me remind you part of what he said. Here he describes the pre dawn raid on his house. They confiscated my phone, they rated my apartment. On my phone were many of my reporters notes, a lot of my sources unrelated to this story, and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization. Sean, so I've heard the phrase the process is the punishment. I didn't really understand what that meant until this weekend, and Sean, I wouldn't wish this on any journalists. Now. A judge has since ordered the FBI to stop looking into the materials that they confiscated here, it's going to make its way through the legal process. But then James went on to describe how this is an attack. And of course nobody in the news media likes James O'Keefe because maybe he doesn't share their left wing, liberal, leftist status point of view, but they consider themselves members of the press. And I think beyond this show and a few other conservative radio hosts and a couple of us on TV, most everybody else you know, didn't you know, didn't utter a word in defense of the First Amendment and a free press and This was James take on that. At what point then, did you go to law enforcement on your own, unsolicited and tell them that you had this in your possession and it might be somebody else's. Well, Sean, I mean we you know, we get sources come to us all the time. We have thousands of sources come to Project Veritas. Routine nature of journalism too to be shown information from a variety of sources. But this is an attack on the First Amendment by the Department of Justice. We didn't we didn't publish the story. We couldn't authenticate the story. So our journalists looked into it, and we couldn't this story because we could not authenticate it. Then we now have. It's now been taken to another level thanks to Senator Tom Cotton from the great State of Arkansas, who will join us in a minute, and he is demanding answers. Rightly so from Merrick Carland after the DOJ rated Project Veritas CEO James O'Keefe's home, and he wrote in part, the Department of Justice follows rules and regulations when investigating members of the news media. The regulation state the Department of Justice views the use of certain law enforcement tools, including search warrants to seek information from or records of non consenting members of the news media as an extraordinary measure, not standard investigatory practices. Given the execution of these search warrants were not standard practices, I have great concern about the origins of the investigations, the motivations of the investigators, and tack thinks of your department. I share Senator Cotton's passion in the fact that we need answers here. Senator Cotton, welcome back to the program. Hey Sean, it's good to be back on with you talking about this very important matter where it would appear at first blush that the Department of Justice violated its own regulations against using extraordinary investigative measures against members of the media, in no small smart because they believed that representative the media, James O'Keefe the Project Veritas, was both a conservative and might have done something to embarrass the president. Well, okay, so he didn't. He'd never published the information. He certainly if he didn't publish it, that means he didn't have any way to authenticate whether or not it was real. He voluntarily brought it to the police a year later. This rate happened supposedly because of this reason. Can you explain that to me? No, I can't explain it at all, Seawan. And let's just assume the very worst case scenario, the very worst scenario, that someone from Project Veritas did in fact steal this diary. James Okafe knew that. I have no reason believe that's true. But let's assume that's the case. Since when is it a federal crime? When is it a matter of federal concern that a diary was taken? I mean, really, does an FBI the Department of Justice not have something more important to be doing. That's one of the reasons why I asked in my letter that they give over examples of when they've been charging people with transporting stolen goods, or why they think Ashley Biden's diary might have a market value of greater than five thousand dollars this National Stolen Property Act requires, or how this is consistent with the First Amendment protections is articulated by the Supreme Court. Because at first Blush, it appears they don't have any good answers for those questions. Well, and you raised a number of questions in your letter to Merik Garland among them. Please provide the search warrants for any cell phones collected from O'Keefe and as associates, as well as supporting applications. Now, by the time the court order came down, Senator, I've got to believe they probably he did a complete deep dive into that phone and those computers already, so the court order at that point would probably be meaningless, and they probably found what they were looking for or learn things that they never had a right to learn. Yeah, and Sean, the way this search warrant was executed as well, appears to be an abusive power at first blush. As we just heard from James O'Keeffe six am on a Saturday morning, they had a battering ram, blinding white lights. They pulled him out, half dressed. I would point out something that he didn't mention that they had searched associates homes in the two days prior, which meant they could no longer argue in good faith that somehow they had to do this lest evidence be destroyed. It appears they did this solely because they wanted to harass James O'Keeffe, and they wanted to send a message that any reporting about embarrassing family matters of Joe Biden will bring the full wrath of the FBI in the Department of Justice down upon you. That's why I think this letter of Marrick Garland, I promise you I won't let this matter go until we get answers from him and from the FBI. But we already know the Department of Justice has been politicized by Merrick Carlin, don't we, Because let's, for example, look at the new voting law in Georgia that allows for seventeen days of in person early voting, and Joe Biden state of Delaware there are zero days of in person early voting. In every precinct in Georgia. They allow it's them a matter of law to have a drop box for people to drop off their ballots. There are zero drop boxes in the state of Delaware. At no time in the five thousand years that Joe Biden represented the state of Delaware did he lift a finger to make voting more accessible for the people in the state of Delaware. But Merrick Garland chooses to go after the state of Georgia and the state of Texas, both states which offer far more accessibility of voting than Joe state of Delaware. That tells me that the Justice Department is being politicized yet again. Yeah, Sean, Merritt Garland and the radicals working for him is have deeply politicized the Department of Justice. As you pointed out, they have hauled Georgia in Texas for the grave crime, the grave crime that those states legislatures made it easier to vote there than it is in Joe Biden's Delaware or Chuck Schumer's in New York. Or how about the fact, Sean, that Merritt Garland sicked the Feds on parents who want to go to school boards to protest that their kids aren't learning in person. Or you are great when you challenged him on all of the go ahead. Yeah, and that's so. These are just this is just one more example of the Department of Justice being politicized. This perhaps is the most chilling example, though, that the Department, in apparent violation of its own regulations, would execute a search warrant in such an aggressive fashion with no apparent justification to pursue a crime that I cannot imagine the Feds have ever pursued. Again. I mean, when was the last time you heard someone making it a stolen diary a crime. Sean, by the way, it wasn't even because he didn't feel it, and he's the one that turned it over to Loone for exactly. Let's go to the last point though, and this was your moment where you confronted Mark Garland on his abusive powered directly, and this is what you said. She was raped in a bathroom by a boy wearing girl's clothes, and the Loudon County school Board covered it up because it would have interfered with their transgendered policy during Pride Month. And that man, Scott Smith, because he went to a school board and tried to defend his daughter's rights, was condemned internationally. Do you apologize to Scott Smith and his fifteen year old daughter, Judge, Senator, anyone whose child was raped as the most horrific crime I can imagine, and is certainly entitled and protected by the First Amendment to protest to their school board about that, but he was sided by the school Board Association. It's fine mestic Harrist, which we now know that letter and those reports with the basis for your journal. This is Judge, this is shameful. Here, this testimony your directive. Your performance is shameful. Thank god you are not on the Spring Court. You should resign and disgrace Judge. I agree with that, as do many other people. There are multiple examples now where he's politicized the Department of Justice. Yeah, well, thank god he's not in the Spring Court. I mean, maybe Merritt Garland was good at his job when it involves sitting up in his ivory tower in the courthouse and reading and writing him at the law, but he is plainly overmatched by events at the Department of Justice. He he's got a bunch of radicals working for him and the key positions. They're doing things like, um, you know, executing these search warrants on members of the media on a Saturday morning in violation of their own regulations over a purportedly stolen diary, which, as you said, John, we don't even know if it was stolen, and even if it was, whoever heard of a stolen diary being a federal case. Like almost any other theft, it's a matter of state and local law. But it just happened that it's the diary of the president's daughter. And as we know that Joe Biden's extremely prickly if you say anything negative about his son, Hunter, and apparently if the diary of his daughter gets exposed as well. You know, I've actually spoken to people that have copies of Hunter Biden's hard drive. My attorneys have forbidden me from getting a copy of it because based on what my sources tell me or in it, I could be charged with a crime because apparently some of the materials that they have described to me, I've not seen it myself that that material is illegal, and if I have illegal materials in my possession, even as a journalist, that I would be in legal jeopardy. Do you agree with that analysis? And my lawyer, you know, under Judge Garland's Department of Justice perhaps or sean, even if it's not illegal in its own right, based on the theory of the case that appears to be applied to James O'Keefe, maybe Merritt Garland would sick the FEDS on you for the receipt of stolen goods in this case, Hunter Biden's hard drive, in that case, Ashley Biden's diary, which again we don't even know that was stolen, Especially we don't know that James o'keefer anyone associated with Project Veritas did anythink other than they had a source that handed them a diary that they said was Ashley Biden's. They couldn't corroborate the authenticity of it. And we haven't even talked about yet. The fact that this was reported in the New York Times just moments after it happened. New York Times is obviously serving as a conduit for leakers inside the Department of Justice to embarrass the president's political critics. I mean, if you want to talk about the receipt of stolen information or violation of our laws regarding classification espionage, the New York Times is one of the worst offenders in America. Quick break. We'll come right back, more with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton on the other side than your calls eight hundred and nine for one seawan. We continue now with Senator Tom Cotton, great state of Arkansas. But this isn't. One of the biggest problems we now have is that even though the Horrowitz report made specific referrals, for example, lying to Congress James Comey Andrew McCabe, then you can bring in the issues a struck and Page and others. Now that The Washington Post has now retracted every single mention of the dossier, the Hillary Clinton Boughton paid for Russian dossier. Where's the rest of the media? Number one? I guess I should give them some credit. They're only four years behind this program. But I give them some credit for at least acknowledging their mistake. But that dossier was then used and four separate occasions as a FISA application. Without the dossier, there would be no warrant given that Andrew McCabe told us that, And it was used to spy on a presidential candidate, his transition team, and then a president. And yet nothing seems to happen. Senator Yeah, all examples shine of misconduct inside the Apartment of Justice and the FBI. Just another example of the politicization of the Department of Justice. Look at Steve Bannon's indictment. Look Steve Bannon has claimed an executive privilege at the direction of the former president. I don't know the legal merits of that case. It's a novel question. But when you have a novel question of law like that, you don't jump immediately to criminal indictments. You follow a motion to compel the testimony or you would give you a long list of people held in contempt to Congress that weren't arrested, starting with Henry Kissinger, Janet Reno, Harry Admires, Josh Bolton, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Brian Pagliano, Bill Bill Barr, and Chad Wolfe. There you go, yeah, or how about yeah, Eric Holder? When Eric Holder was held in contempt. I mean again, the fact that they would immediately jump straight to criminal contempt charges as opposed to going through their more ordinary procedures is just another example of how deeply politicized Merritt Garland's Department of Justice is. Let me say this, anyone in the Department Justice or the FBI who's taking these actions ought to be very mindful. Then in about fourteen months, Republicans are going to have subpoena power in the col Senator, you're doing a phenomenal job, and I don't say that very often about many politicians. Thanks for all you're doing, and thanks for being with us. Thank you, Sean. Great to be on with you. Eight hundred nine one sewn our number. You want to be a part of the program, quick break right back, all right, twenty five now till the top of the hour on Jury Watch, they've been asking for different things throughout the day, including copies of the jury instructions, specifically even pages one through six, very complicated forty some our pages A lot for a jury to go through. Anyway, let's get to our busy telephones here. Many of you've been wanting to weigh in on this and everything else we've been talking about. Let's say hi to Gary's in the great state of Alabama. How are you, Gary? What part of Alabama are you in? I used to be in Huntsville, well, actually Athens officially. But what's going on? Daniel Mobile on the coast of the best seat food in the world. I bet, I bet you've bet at the four Obama once or twice. I'm just guessing, well a few times, and oh yeah, I love your show. You know I don't drink the kool aid. I don't always one hundred percent agree with you, but a lot of the stuff you say I do line up with, and one of those being you know, you look as far as at the evidence and draw your own conclusion. You know what's happened with the Riverhouse. You know, I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention. He's you know, I'm not going to be called to beyond the jury or whatever. Well, when the trial came up and you had a guy called yesterday and he was you know, what was he even doing down here? Why was he even in there? Um there was I got searching for the video to see so I can make my own decision. They which the sight that I came across. They said that the defense had done this slick video trying to tain it, but no, they just showed what was going on. And you they showed where you had the protesters were taking dumpsters, catching them on fire and running them into businesses. I mean it's almost like something out of the Middle Ages, you know, like running up to the castle and hitting it with the fire. And you had the guys who were there to protect the businesses running up and shooting them with things to put the fire out. And that's what Ritterhouse was doing. That's what a lot of these guys were doing. We're trying to keep these places from kitchen on fire. You know, the police can be everywhere. The fire department was taxed. You had all these people out in the street kind of like I said, just randing dumpsters into buildings, you know, their own fire. So he was there actually, you know, he honestly looks like he was trying to be there to help out and stop and do something that you know they couldn't do. Listen, what I if it was my kids and they wanted to do that, what I advised them to do it? I would not. I have talked a lot on this, But when you if we're going to follow the law in this case, the law is clear. You have a specific right to self defense if in fact, you believe your life is in jeopardy or that serious, significant, or reasonable person would determine serious, significant bodily harm will occur. Okay, let's go through three cases. You got this kid hit with a skateboard. That's a weapon. You got a guy about to stomp on his head and pound his head into the pavement. That would be something that could cause great bodily harm and even death. Then you've got the one key witness of the prosecution, their star witness, admitting he aimed a loaded gun at kyle rittenhouse before he shot him. Those are the facts. If you follow the law, the law is clear. They should have quit. Now. I can't predict what a jury's gonna do. But if they come back with the verdict based on the law, that would be the verdict of not guilty in my opinion. Oh yeah, I mean the skateboard alone. You're talking about a three quarter inch thick board or fiberglass. I can beat the crap out of somebody with something like that. I mean, you know, that's a weapon. And he's hitting him over the head. You know, if that's me, you know, And he only shot one time. He didn't just unload on the guy. He shot one time. And when he shot the guy on the arm, he shot him and then he stopped. He did not continue on firing. He was trying to just protect himself and get out of there. I mean, points a gun at me. I'm gonna that your life's on the line. Your life right at that moment is on the line. Well, I didn't mean to aim it at him. Well, we got the picture you're aiming it at him. We also have the videotape of Kyle Rittenhouse not running, racing as fast as he can away from a crowd of people chasing him. That would be called the mob where I grew up and they caught up to him and then he was on the ground and then he was about to have his head pounded into the pavement. At that point, his life is in jeopardy. He's at risk of serious bodily harm. And the law cannot be any more clear than it is. And again, if the jury follows the law as written and looks at the videotape evidence, looks at the testimony of eyewitnesses and the star witness for the prosecution, I would think that they very easily equit. I don't know, though, I can't tell you what the jury is going to do. Now. The jury is outside the courtroom even as we speak. And what is the jury hearing of this time they're hearing If Kenosha don't get it shut it down, well, I would assume that the probably the jury's hearing those chants. They know that this is a high profile case. They weren't sequestered. They're very aware that their verdict could have consequences that puts undue pressure, in my opinion on them. I think we ought to have more cases where you have a change of venue. I really do for the very reason and I know a jury of your peers you can define out a lot of different ways. If you're an American, I would argue a jury of peers, but I do think that we should have trials high profile like this sent to other jurisdictions. That's my own humble opinion. I totally agree with you on that I could not, for what I've seen, in good face, convict this boy. What I saw, he was defending himself. The first group of police officers he ran up to, and they were in vehicles. They were heading to where the first shooting were and they were hollering him to leave out because they didn't know that he was the one who had shot. So he leaves from them, running to a second group of police saucers. When he got caught, he was trying to get away. Everything I've seen as far as on this, there's no way I could convict him. I couldn't. I couldn't either. Savannah in Texas, thank you, Garry and Alabama, Savannah. How are you hey? How are you Sean? I'm good, glad you called. Thanks, I appreciate you taking my call. Just the real quick. I'm gonna try to get straight to it. So I know that recently the mandate has come out by OSHA and CMS, who regulates Medicare and Medicaid facilities. I work in the medical field, been in the medical field for fifteen years. Currently in the process of going back to school for my nursing and my MP license. Hopefully. By the way, congratulations on that. Good for you, Thank you, thank you. So my question is if because I am terrified of getting this vaccine, there have been there's no scientific proof. In my opinion, there's so many just contraindications and possible side effects and things like that that I don't want to get this vaccine. And with CMS and OSHA now mandating it, do the lawsuits that have been filed will those apply to OSHA and CMS as well? Or should I be looking for another job. I don't know the answer I would put in for an exemption. I'm assuming you never got COVID. You don't have to answer that question. I believe in medical privacy, but I'm assuming that. So, look, the best advice I can give you, I don't know how much research you've done, But by research, I'm not talking about putting on a lab coat, as these idiots and the media claim that Hannity's telling people to go and put on a lab coat and do research. I'm like, are you really that dumb? But the media really is that dumb. But I'm saying to research, for example, the vaccines. You have the m RNA vaccines. We actually had the creator of the technology that made this technology available that allowed for the creation of the FISA and Maderna vaccine. Then you can look at the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Then you could look into the therapeutic known as the therapeutics known as monoclonal antibodies. If you do get it, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, only you know your unique medical history, your current medical condition. You couple that with the right amount of research, and then I urge you strongly to have a serious conversation with your doctor, your doctors and medical professionals you trust, and then you're going to have to make the decision from there. Now I understand vaccine hesitancy. You know, if you look at the CDC every other day, something is changing. Their standards change, you know, by the hour at times. I understand why why people feel the way you do. I also believe in freedom. I also believe in medical privacy. I believe in doctor patient confidentiality, and I believe in science too, and I believe in vaccination science. I can't offer you that advice. I'm just urging you to take it seriously, and I'll tell you why, because I know people that have died from this thing. I know people that have been on ventilators and didn't survive. And I know people that have been on ventilators as long as forty days and barely survived. And I just want you and your family to be safe now that we have breakthrough cases, something they didn't anticipate. You know, it's a game changer. That's why I think Governor DeSantis created these monoclonal antibody centers in Florida that were very successful. I know that doesn't answer your question because I don't know where they're going to go, but I hope it helps clarify what I would highly recommend you do. If you get a positive COVID test, your first call needs to be to your doctor and you need to say what are your thoughts on monoclonal antibodies because if you get COVID and I know this from people older and unvaccinated that got it within twenty four hours of a positive test and breakthrough cases people fully vaccinated and got monoclonal aunt of bodies and they all have done well. This is anecdotally I'm speaking. So I would just you know, keep that that that word that nobody seems to want to talk about in your head. God forbid you you catch this thing. Um Does that help at all? A little? Um? I was more. I was more looking for because I believe in all that I, like you said, I haven't had COVID this whole time. I've been working in it around it. My son's had it. Um. You know, I was his caregiver. Never have I tested positive once. I've been tested eight to ten times. UM. And I'm young, I have no comorbidities. And so that's what's frustrating me is the fact that now in order for me to keep doing what I love and to continue on, which I know. You've spoken with several people, and you're very you know, UM see, I'm particularly angry. You work in the medical field. Everybody, all these nurses is a nursing shortage. A big article in New York Daily News about all the nurses that were diving on COVID grenades every day, many of whom got COVID in the worst moments of this pandemic. They're being fired, and now we have a nursing shortage all over New York. Now we have situations where, you know, twenty percent of twenty five percent of houses have been closed in New York. Now we have a situation where EMTs, hey call nine one one, it's gonna it's twenty minutes longer. That means you might die if you're in the middle of a heart attack, or you might have permanent damage if you're in the middle of a stroke. So it's it's frustrating because you know, you, those of you in the medical field, were the heroes in this, and now we're gonna say thanks, but no thanks, you're fired because you don't agree with their mandate. What happened to the option that Joe offered, which was testing that would your hospital, would your medical facility allow for you to be tested that I don't know, I haven't gotten that far with them, and that be an option for you. Would you feel comfortable getting a test on a regular basis? No, because that test is horrible. Like I said, I've been tested eight to ten times, because I've been tested probably one hundred times, so I don't and the test doesn't bother me. I'm not gonna lie, you know, I don't care shoving up my nose. Take whatever you want, and I'll wait the ten minutes and get my results, all right. And so if I guess my main my main question is legally, you know, just like they can I file a lawsuit if I felt like I was discriminated again? Oh, I think you. I think there's gonna be a lot of lawsuits. They already are, and a lot of there's gonna be a lot of legal issues that come out of this. And I would definitely consider hiring a lawyer in your case. Okay, all right, Well, thank you so much for your help. Sean. You have a great day. I appreciate your call. I wish you all the best. Dan is in North Carolina. Hang Dan, how are you doing it? I'm good, my friend, Glad you called. I've been following the Rittenhouse case, particularly the prosecution, and I know there's been some theory spoused a bat whether or not they were trying to throw this because the prosecution was going so poorly and they wanted to retry. I actually think they've tried to stand back their case and throw it, hoping that the judge would dismiss it with prejudice because still, by the way, that could still happen. The judge has not given his ruling on the motion by the defense for a mistrial with prejudice. I think the prosecution really WoT that to happen, because, like Greg Jarrett said, the jury can hear what's going on outside, so can the prosecutors. And I think they're scared to death of the public backlash if they lose this case. I send their articles all over the place today that Kenosha and even other cities are bracing for this verdict. And that's a sad commentary. You know, by the way, where's Liz Cheney's commission on that. We had five hundred plus riots, dozens of dead America, thousands of injured police, billions and dollars of theft and arson, property damage. Where's Liz Cheney? She only cares about one riot. If you don't think a skateboard is a lethal weapon, asked the commission, looking into January sixth, where they're deeming flagpoles and sticks and canes as lethal weapons. You know, look as skateboard can be used as a lethal weapon, a caire, iron and a knife, anything can be if that's your intention anyway, eight hundred nine one saw on our number. If you want to be a part of the program. You could see people by the way, we've been watching it all afternoon, obviously looking for trouble. Clearly you know out there speaking on different sides of this. I'm not looking forward when this verdict comes out. Eight hundred nine is a number if you want to be a part of the play. That's gonna wrap things up with today, all right, full coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse Jury. Greg Jared is going to join us. Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Carter is live in kenoshas Senator Ted Cruz Leo two point zero Terrell, David Shoon, Pete Hegset, Joe Conscha ninetiestern set you DVR news you will never get from the Mob Hannity on Fox. Thanks for being with us. Back here tomorrow as well, and we always remember you make the show possible. We'll never thank you enough. See you tonight, see you back here tomorrow.

Right News Round Up Information Overload hour eight hundred and nine for one sean if you want to be a part of the program. We went into great depth and lengths discussing the raid of Project Veritas James O'Keefe, founder CEO of Project Veritas in his home as it relates to this this diary of Joe Biden's daughter. Now, what's so fascinating about this case is that James O'Keeffe never went with the story because he was never able to authenticate the story. If you work in the news industry in any capacity, you have sources. Sources brought this to him. He has now said publicly that he was told that it was obtained legally. They did all their background checking and they could not corroborate the authenticity of it. And he about a year ago, James O'Keeffe, on his own voluntarily went to the police and handed it over to the police in case maybe it might have been stolen, Maybe they could corroborated and did the right thing. A year later, then it doesn't it doesn't justify his home and his office being rated, But that's exactly what happened. He's only done one interview and it's with me, and let me remind you part of what he said. Here he describes the pre dawn raid on his house. They confiscated my phone, they rated my apartment. On my phone were many of my reporters notes, a lot of my sources unrelated to this story, and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization. Sean, so I've heard the phrase the process is the punishment. I didn't really understand what that meant until this weekend, and Sean, I wouldn't wish this on any journalists. Now. A judge has since ordered the FBI to stop looking into the materials that they confiscated here, it's going to make its way through the legal process. But then James went on to describe how this is an attack. And of course nobody in the news media likes James O'Keefe because maybe he doesn't share their left wing, liberal, leftist status point of view, but they consider themselves members of the press. And I think beyond this show and a few other conservative radio hosts and a couple of us on TV, most everybody else you know, didn't you know, didn't utter a word in defense of the First Amendment and a free press and This was James take on that. At what point then, did you go to law enforcement on your own, unsolicited and tell them that you had this in your possession and it might be somebody else's. Well, Sean, I mean we you know, we get sources come to us all the time. We have thousands of sources come to Project Veritas. Routine nature of journalism too to be shown information from a variety of sources. But this is an attack on the First Amendment by the Department of Justice. We didn't we didn't publish the story. We couldn't authenticate the story. So our journalists looked into it, and we couldn't this story because we could not authenticate it. Then we now have. It's now been taken to another level thanks to Senator Tom Cotton from the great State of Arkansas, who will join us in a minute, and he is demanding answers. Rightly so from Merrick Carland after the DOJ rated Project Veritas CEO James O'Keefe's home, and he wrote in part, the Department of Justice follows rules and regulations when investigating members of the news media. The regulation state the Department of Justice views the use of certain law enforcement tools, including search warrants to seek information from or records of non consenting members of the news media as an extraordinary measure, not standard investigatory practices. Given the execution of these search warrants were not standard practices, I have great concern about the origins of the investigations, the motivations of the investigators, and tack thinks of your department. I share Senator Cotton's passion in the fact that we need answers here. Senator Cotton, welcome back to the program. Hey Sean, it's good to be back on with you talking about this very important matter where it would appear at first blush that the Department of Justice violated its own regulations against using extraordinary investigative measures against members of the media, in no small smart because they believed that representative the media, James O'Keefe the Project Veritas, was both a conservative and might have done something to embarrass the president. Well, okay, so he didn't. He'd never published the information. He certainly if he didn't publish it, that means he didn't have any way to authenticate whether or not it was real. He voluntarily brought it to the police a year later. This rate happened supposedly because of this reason. Can you explain that to me? No, I can't explain it at all, Seawan. And let's just assume the very worst case scenario, the very worst scenario, that someone from Project Veritas did in fact steal this diary. James Okafe knew that. I have no reason believe that's true. But let's assume that's the case. Since when is it a federal crime? When is it a matter of federal concern that a diary was taken? I mean, really, does an FBI the Department of Justice not have something more important to be doing. That's one of the reasons why I asked in my letter that they give over examples of when they've been charging people with transporting stolen goods, or why they think Ashley Biden's diary might have a market value of greater than five thousand dollars this National Stolen Property Act requires, or how this is consistent with the First Amendment protections is articulated by the Supreme Court. Because at first Blush, it appears they don't have any good answers for those questions. Well, and you raised a number of questions in your letter to Merik Garland among them. Please provide the search warrants for any cell phones collected from O'Keefe and as associates, as well as supporting applications. Now, by the time the court order came down, Senator, I've got to believe they probably he did a complete deep dive into that phone and those computers already, so the court order at that point would probably be meaningless, and they probably found what they were looking for or learn things that they never had a right to learn. Yeah, and Sean, the way this search warrant was executed as well, appears to be an abusive power at first blush. As we just heard from James O'Keeffe six am on a Saturday morning, they had a battering ram, blinding white lights. They pulled him out, half dressed. I would point out something that he didn't mention that they had searched associates homes in the two days prior, which meant they could no longer argue in good faith that somehow they had to do this lest evidence be destroyed. It appears they did this solely because they wanted to harass James O'Keeffe, and they wanted to send a message that any reporting about embarrassing family matters of Joe Biden will bring the full wrath of the FBI in the Department of Justice down upon you. That's why I think this letter of Marrick Garland, I promise you I won't let this matter go until we get answers from him and from the FBI. But we already know the Department of Justice has been politicized by Merrick Carlin, don't we, Because let's, for example, look at the new voting law in Georgia that allows for seventeen days of in person early voting, and Joe Biden state of Delaware there are zero days of in person early voting. In every precinct in Georgia. They allow it's them a matter of law to have a drop box for people to drop off their ballots. There are zero drop boxes in the state of Delaware. At no time in the five thousand years that Joe Biden represented the state of Delaware did he lift a finger to make voting more accessible for the people in the state of Delaware. But Merrick Garland chooses to go after the state of Georgia and the state of Texas, both states which offer far more accessibility of voting than Joe state of Delaware. That tells me that the Justice Department is being politicized yet again. Yeah, Sean, Merritt Garland and the radicals working for him is have deeply politicized the Department of Justice. As you pointed out, they have hauled Georgia in Texas for the grave crime, the grave crime that those states legislatures made it easier to vote there than it is in Joe Biden's Delaware or Chuck Schumer's in New York. Or how about the fact, Sean, that Merritt Garland sicked the Feds on parents who want to go to school boards to protest that their kids aren't learning in person. Or you are great when you challenged him on all of the go ahead. Yeah, and that's so. These are just this is just one more example of the Department of Justice being politicized. This perhaps is the most chilling example, though, that the Department, in apparent violation of its own regulations, would execute a search warrant in such an aggressive fashion with no apparent justification to pursue a crime that I cannot imagine the Feds have ever pursued. Again. I mean, when was the last time you heard someone making it a stolen diary a crime. Sean, by the way, it wasn't even because he didn't feel it, and he's the one that turned it over to Loone for exactly. Let's go to the last point though, and this was your moment where you confronted Mark Garland on his abusive powered directly, and this is what you said. She was raped in a bathroom by a boy wearing girl's clothes, and the Loudon County school Board covered it up because it would have interfered with their transgendered policy during Pride Month. And that man, Scott Smith, because he went to a school board and tried to defend his daughter's rights, was condemned internationally. Do you apologize to Scott Smith and his fifteen year old daughter, Judge, Senator, anyone whose child was raped as the most horrific crime I can imagine, and is certainly entitled and protected by the First Amendment to protest to their school board about that, but he was sided by the school Board Association. It's fine mestic Harrist, which we now know that letter and those reports with the basis for your journal. This is Judge, this is shameful. Here, this testimony your directive. Your performance is shameful. Thank god you are not on the Spring Court. You should resign and disgrace Judge. I agree with that, as do many other people. There are multiple examples now where he's politicized the Department of Justice. Yeah, well, thank god he's not in the Spring Court. I mean, maybe Merritt Garland was good at his job when it involves sitting up in his ivory tower in the courthouse and reading and writing him at the law, but he is plainly overmatched by events at the Department of Justice. He he's got a bunch of radicals working for him and the key positions. They're doing things like, um, you know, executing these search warrants on members of the media on a Saturday morning in violation of their own regulations over a purportedly stolen diary, which, as you said, John, we don't even know if it was stolen, and even if it was, whoever heard of a stolen diary being a federal case. Like almost any other theft, it's a matter of state and local law. But it just happened that it's the diary of the president's daughter. And as we know that Joe Biden's extremely prickly if you say anything negative about his son, Hunter, and apparently if the diary of his daughter gets exposed as well. You know, I've actually spoken to people that have copies of Hunter Biden's hard drive. My attorneys have forbidden me from getting a copy of it because based on what my sources tell me or in it, I could be charged with a crime because apparently some of the materials that they have described to me, I've not seen it myself that that material is illegal, and if I have illegal materials in my possession, even as a journalist, that I would be in legal jeopardy. Do you agree with that analysis? And my lawyer, you know, under Judge Garland's Department of Justice perhaps or sean, even if it's not illegal in its own right, based on the theory of the case that appears to be applied to James O'Keefe, maybe Merritt Garland would sick the FEDS on you for the receipt of stolen goods in this case, Hunter Biden's hard drive, in that case, Ashley Biden's diary, which again we don't even know that was stolen, Especially we don't know that James o'keefer anyone associated with Project Veritas did anythink other than they had a source that handed them a diary that they said was Ashley Biden's. They couldn't corroborate the authenticity of it. And we haven't even talked about yet. The fact that this was reported in the New York Times just moments after it happened. New York Times is obviously serving as a conduit for leakers inside the Department of Justice to embarrass the president's political critics. I mean, if you want to talk about the receipt of stolen information or violation of our laws regarding classification espionage, the New York Times is one of the worst offenders in America. Quick break. We'll come right back, more with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton on the other side than your calls eight hundred and nine for one seawan. We continue now with Senator Tom Cotton, great state of Arkansas. But this isn't. One of the biggest problems we now have is that even though the Horrowitz report made specific referrals, for example, lying to Congress James Comey Andrew McCabe, then you can bring in the issues a struck and Page and others. Now that The Washington Post has now retracted every single mention of the dossier, the Hillary Clinton Boughton paid for Russian dossier. Where's the rest of the media? Number one? I guess I should give them some credit. They're only four years behind this program. But I give them some credit for at least acknowledging their mistake. But that dossier was then used and four separate occasions as a FISA application. Without the dossier, there would be no warrant given that Andrew McCabe told us that, And it was used to spy on a presidential candidate, his transition team, and then a president. And yet nothing seems to happen. Senator Yeah, all examples shine of misconduct inside the Apartment of Justice and the FBI. Just another example of the politicization of the Department of Justice. Look at Steve Bannon's indictment. Look Steve Bannon has claimed an executive privilege at the direction of the former president. I don't know the legal merits of that case. It's a novel question. But when you have a novel question of law like that, you don't jump immediately to criminal indictments. You follow a motion to compel the testimony or you would give you a long list of people held in contempt to Congress that weren't arrested, starting with Henry Kissinger, Janet Reno, Harry Admires, Josh Bolton, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Brian Pagliano, Bill Bill Barr, and Chad Wolfe. There you go, yeah, or how about yeah, Eric Holder? When Eric Holder was held in contempt. I mean again, the fact that they would immediately jump straight to criminal contempt charges as opposed to going through their more ordinary procedures is just another example of how deeply politicized Merritt Garland's Department of Justice is. Let me say this, anyone in the Department Justice or the FBI who's taking these actions ought to be very mindful. Then in about fourteen months, Republicans are going to have subpoena power in the col Senator, you're doing a phenomenal job, and I don't say that very often about many politicians. Thanks for all you're doing, and thanks for being with us. Thank you, Sean. Great to be on with you. Eight hundred nine one sewn our number. You want to be a part of the program, quick break right back, all right, twenty five now till the top of the hour on Jury Watch, they've been asking for different things throughout the day, including copies of the jury instructions, specifically even pages one through six, very complicated forty some our pages A lot for a jury to go through. Anyway, let's get to our busy telephones here. Many of you've been wanting to weigh in on this and everything else we've been talking about. Let's say hi to Gary's in the great state of Alabama. How are you, Gary? What part of Alabama are you in? I used to be in Huntsville, well, actually Athens officially. But what's going on? Daniel Mobile on the coast of the best seat food in the world. I bet, I bet you've bet at the four Obama once or twice. I'm just guessing, well a few times, and oh yeah, I love your show. You know I don't drink the kool aid. I don't always one hundred percent agree with you, but a lot of the stuff you say I do line up with, and one of those being you know, you look as far as at the evidence and draw your own conclusion. You know what's happened with the Riverhouse. You know, I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention. He's you know, I'm not going to be called to beyond the jury or whatever. Well, when the trial came up and you had a guy called yesterday and he was you know, what was he even doing down here? Why was he even in there? Um there was I got searching for the video to see so I can make my own decision. They which the sight that I came across. They said that the defense had done this slick video trying to tain it, but no, they just showed what was going on. And you they showed where you had the protesters were taking dumpsters, catching them on fire and running them into businesses. I mean it's almost like something out of the Middle Ages, you know, like running up to the castle and hitting it with the fire. And you had the guys who were there to protect the businesses running up and shooting them with things to put the fire out. And that's what Ritterhouse was doing. That's what a lot of these guys were doing. We're trying to keep these places from kitchen on fire. You know, the police can be everywhere. The fire department was taxed. You had all these people out in the street kind of like I said, just randing dumpsters into buildings, you know, their own fire. So he was there actually, you know, he honestly looks like he was trying to be there to help out and stop and do something that you know they couldn't do. Listen, what I if it was my kids and they wanted to do that, what I advised them to do it? I would not. I have talked a lot on this, But when you if we're going to follow the law in this case, the law is clear. You have a specific right to self defense if in fact, you believe your life is in jeopardy or that serious, significant, or reasonable person would determine serious, significant bodily harm will occur. Okay, let's go through three cases. You got this kid hit with a skateboard. That's a weapon. You got a guy about to stomp on his head and pound his head into the pavement. That would be something that could cause great bodily harm and even death. Then you've got the one key witness of the prosecution, their star witness, admitting he aimed a loaded gun at kyle rittenhouse before he shot him. Those are the facts. If you follow the law, the law is clear. They should have quit. Now. I can't predict what a jury's gonna do. But if they come back with the verdict based on the law, that would be the verdict of not guilty in my opinion. Oh yeah, I mean the skateboard alone. You're talking about a three quarter inch thick board or fiberglass. I can beat the crap out of somebody with something like that. I mean, you know, that's a weapon. And he's hitting him over the head. You know, if that's me, you know, And he only shot one time. He didn't just unload on the guy. He shot one time. And when he shot the guy on the arm, he shot him and then he stopped. He did not continue on firing. He was trying to just protect himself and get out of there. I mean, points a gun at me. I'm gonna that your life's on the line. Your life right at that moment is on the line. Well, I didn't mean to aim it at him. Well, we got the picture you're aiming it at him. We also have the videotape of Kyle Rittenhouse not running, racing as fast as he can away from a crowd of people chasing him. That would be called the mob where I grew up and they caught up to him and then he was on the ground and then he was about to have his head pounded into the pavement. At that point, his life is in jeopardy. He's at risk of serious bodily harm. And the law cannot be any more clear than it is. And again, if the jury follows the law as written and looks at the videotape evidence, looks at the testimony of eyewitnesses and the star witness for the prosecution, I would think that they very easily equit. I don't know, though, I can't tell you what the jury is going to do. Now. The jury is outside the courtroom even as we speak. And what is the jury hearing of this time they're hearing If Kenosha don't get it shut it down, well, I would assume that the probably the jury's hearing those chants. They know that this is a high profile case. They weren't sequestered. They're very aware that their verdict could have consequences that puts undue pressure, in my opinion on them. I think we ought to have more cases where you have a change of venue. I really do for the very reason and I know a jury of your peers you can define out a lot of different ways. If you're an American, I would argue a jury of peers, but I do think that we should have trials high profile like this sent to other jurisdictions. That's my own humble opinion. I totally agree with you on that I could not, for what I've seen, in good face, convict this boy. What I saw, he was defending himself. The first group of police officers he ran up to, and they were in vehicles. They were heading to where the first shooting were and they were hollering him to leave out because they didn't know that he was the one who had shot. So he leaves from them, running to a second group of police saucers. When he got caught, he was trying to get away. Everything I've seen as far as on this, there's no way I could convict him. I couldn't. I couldn't either. Savannah in Texas, thank you, Garry and Alabama, Savannah. How are you hey? How are you Sean? I'm good, glad you called. Thanks, I appreciate you taking my call. Just the real quick. I'm gonna try to get straight to it. So I know that recently the mandate has come out by OSHA and CMS, who regulates Medicare and Medicaid facilities. I work in the medical field, been in the medical field for fifteen years. Currently in the process of going back to school for my nursing and my MP license. Hopefully. By the way, congratulations on that. Good for you, Thank you, thank you. So my question is if because I am terrified of getting this vaccine, there have been there's no scientific proof. In my opinion, there's so many just contraindications and possible side effects and things like that that I don't want to get this vaccine. And with CMS and OSHA now mandating it, do the lawsuits that have been filed will those apply to OSHA and CMS as well? Or should I be looking for another job. I don't know the answer I would put in for an exemption. I'm assuming you never got COVID. You don't have to answer that question. I believe in medical privacy, but I'm assuming that. So, look, the best advice I can give you, I don't know how much research you've done, But by research, I'm not talking about putting on a lab coat, as these idiots and the media claim that Hannity's telling people to go and put on a lab coat and do research. I'm like, are you really that dumb? But the media really is that dumb. But I'm saying to research, for example, the vaccines. You have the m RNA vaccines. We actually had the creator of the technology that made this technology available that allowed for the creation of the FISA and Maderna vaccine. Then you can look at the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Then you could look into the therapeutic known as the therapeutics known as monoclonal antibodies. If you do get it, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, only you know your unique medical history, your current medical condition. You couple that with the right amount of research, and then I urge you strongly to have a serious conversation with your doctor, your doctors and medical professionals you trust, and then you're going to have to make the decision from there. Now I understand vaccine hesitancy. You know, if you look at the CDC every other day, something is changing. Their standards change, you know, by the hour at times. I understand why why people feel the way you do. I also believe in freedom. I also believe in medical privacy. I believe in doctor patient confidentiality, and I believe in science too, and I believe in vaccination science. I can't offer you that advice. I'm just urging you to take it seriously, and I'll tell you why, because I know people that have died from this thing. I know people that have been on ventilators and didn't survive. And I know people that have been on ventilators as long as forty days and barely survived. And I just want you and your family to be safe now that we have breakthrough cases, something they didn't anticipate. You know, it's a game changer. That's why I think Governor DeSantis created these monoclonal antibody centers in Florida that were very successful. I know that doesn't answer your question because I don't know where they're going to go, but I hope it helps clarify what I would highly recommend you do. If you get a positive COVID test, your first call needs to be to your doctor and you need to say what are your thoughts on monoclonal antibodies because if you get COVID and I know this from people older and unvaccinated that got it within twenty four hours of a positive test and breakthrough cases people fully vaccinated and got monoclonal aunt of bodies and they all have done well. This is anecdotally I'm speaking. So I would just you know, keep that that that word that nobody seems to want to talk about in your head. God forbid you you catch this thing. Um Does that help at all? A little? Um? I was more. I was more looking for because I believe in all that I, like you said, I haven't had COVID this whole time. I've been working in it around it. My son's had it. Um. You know, I was his caregiver. Never have I tested positive once. I've been tested eight to ten times. UM. And I'm young, I have no comorbidities. And so that's what's frustrating me is the fact that now in order for me to keep doing what I love and to continue on, which I know. You've spoken with several people, and you're very you know, UM see, I'm particularly angry. You work in the medical field. Everybody, all these nurses is a nursing shortage. A big article in New York Daily News about all the nurses that were diving on COVID grenades every day, many of whom got COVID in the worst moments of this pandemic. They're being fired, and now we have a nursing shortage all over New York. Now we have situations where, you know, twenty percent of twenty five percent of houses have been closed in New York. Now we have a situation where EMTs, hey call nine one one, it's gonna it's twenty minutes longer. That means you might die if you're in the middle of a heart attack, or you might have permanent damage if you're in the middle of a stroke. So it's it's frustrating because you know, you, those of you in the medical field, were the heroes in this, and now we're gonna say thanks, but no thanks, you're fired because you don't agree with their mandate. What happened to the option that Joe offered, which was testing that would your hospital, would your medical facility allow for you to be tested that I don't know, I haven't gotten that far with them, and that be an option for you. Would you feel comfortable getting a test on a regular basis? No, because that test is horrible. Like I said, I've been tested eight to ten times, because I've been tested probably one hundred times, so I don't and the test doesn't bother me. I'm not gonna lie, you know, I don't care shoving up my nose. Take whatever you want, and I'll wait the ten minutes and get my results, all right. And so if I guess my main my main question is legally, you know, just like they can I file a lawsuit if I felt like I was discriminated again? Oh, I think you. I think there's gonna be a lot of lawsuits. They already are, and a lot of there's gonna be a lot of legal issues that come out of this. And I would definitely consider hiring a lawyer in your case. Okay, all right, Well, thank you so much for your help. Sean. You have a great day. I appreciate your call. I wish you all the best. Dan is in North Carolina. Hang Dan, how are you doing it? I'm good, my friend, Glad you called. I've been following the Rittenhouse case, particularly the prosecution, and I know there's been some theory spoused a bat whether or not they were trying to throw this because the prosecution was going so poorly and they wanted to retry. I actually think they've tried to stand back their case and throw it, hoping that the judge would dismiss it with prejudice because still, by the way, that could still happen. The judge has not given his ruling on the motion by the defense for a mistrial with prejudice. I think the prosecution really WoT that to happen, because, like Greg Jarrett said, the jury can hear what's going on outside, so can the prosecutors. And I think they're scared to death of the public backlash if they lose this case. I send their articles all over the place today that Kenosha and even other cities are bracing for this verdict. And that's a sad commentary. You know, by the way, where's Liz Cheney's commission on that. We had five hundred plus riots, dozens of dead America, thousands of injured police, billions and dollars of theft and arson, property damage. Where's Liz Cheney? She only cares about one riot. If you don't think a skateboard is a lethal weapon, asked the commission, looking into January sixth, where they're deeming flagpoles and sticks and canes as lethal weapons. You know, look as skateboard can be used as a lethal weapon, a caire, iron and a knife, anything can be if that's your intention anyway, eight hundred nine one saw on our number. If you want to be a part of the program. You could see people by the way, we've been watching it all afternoon, obviously looking for trouble. Clearly you know out there speaking on different sides of this. I'm not looking forward when this verdict comes out. Eight hundred nine is a number if you want to be a part of the play. That's gonna wrap things up with today, all right, full coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse Jury. Greg Jared is going to join us. Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Carter is live in kenoshas Senator Ted Cruz Leo two point zero Terrell, David Shoon, Pete Hegset, Joe Conscha ninetiestern set you DVR news you will never get from the Mob Hannity on Fox. Thanks for being with us. Back here tomorrow as well, and we always remember you make the show possible. We'll never thank you enough. See you tonight, see you back here tomorrow.