Type to search


Adam Schiff Defends the Anti-Semitic Appointee Picked by Biden


Barry Nussbaum: Hello and welcome to ATP Report Radio. Thanks for joining in today. I'm Barry Nussbaum. We have two big topics today—

1. President Biden has made a series of inexplicably bad appointments and one that is massively terrible. I am going to tell you about it. In the main part of today's discussion, we will review the unprecedented American historical event. The same President impeached twice, and the trial is coming up next week.

So, let us kick it off with what Biden has done. I am not going to give you a complete summary. We have about ten shows from last week that detail that fairly significantly. Today I will talk about one particular appointment. It is egregious, outrageous, and it should never have happened.

I am shocked that not only the White House authorized it and is defending it but so are Democratic colleagues on the Hill. What I am referring to is the pick by Biden of Maher Bitar as Senior Director of Intelligence for the National Security Council.

Now, last week, we had Daniel Greenfeld on, who has done a lot of research on this character and has put out an article that has just scorched social media. I will quote from it a little bit, and I will also acknowledge Daniel's research that led this to prominence among conservatives for an outlandishly bad decision.

Again, thank you, good friend of ATP, Daniel Greenfeld. So, what has Biden done? He put an aggressively anti-Israel activist and BDS supporter, the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, at the NSC. This guy, Maher Bitar, has called for the destruction of Israel.

Our closest ally in the Middle East. One of our best friends around the world and the first line of defense against Islamic terror. Biden put him in an incredibly important position. This is a guy that hates Israel. A few years ago, at a conference in Georgetown, Washington, for the Palestine Solidarity Movement, which is basically a BDS anti-Israel hate group. Bitar lectured on how best to demonize Israel.

Here is what Daniel says, "Bitar's rise through the ranks, speaks to the abandonment of Israel by the Democrats, and the ineptitude of pro-Israel advocates at fighting the personal battles that define the government." So, what does this guy stand for? Where has he been?

What has he done well? Maher Bitar is one of the executive board members of Students for Justice in Palestine. It is mostly not students and has nothing to do with justice. It advocates for the elimination of the state of Israel as we now know it.

Bitar was one of the principal organizers of a 2006 conference hosted at Georgetown University's SJP hate group. A photo of him shows him dancing in a Cathia in front of a banner reading Divest from Israel Apartheid.

That is a lie, Bitar was celebrating by dancing. Now Biden has picked Maher Bitar as the Senior Director for Intelligence at the NSC. In his own words, this is what Bitar said "Israel's political existence as a state is a cause for Palestinian dispossession and statelessness." He put in the paper, "Israel's rejection of the right of return remains the main obstacle to finding a durable solution".

The so-called right of return means the destruction of Israel. Which means millions and millions of Palestinians, of which there were only 40 to 50 thousand in 1948, there are now millions of them. If they were allowed into Israel, Israel would be a Muslim state, not a Jewish state. Support for an organization that wants to end Israel that is your NSC adviser to President Biden.

Batar could also be found presenting at the Sabeel conference that featured some of the worst bigots who hate Israel. Like Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace who had invited a terrorist to address the BDS hate group, and Richard Volke, who had endorsed a book which wondered whether Hitler might have been right all along?

They were on the same platform, speaking together. Breitbart has picked up the article by Daniel. So has JNS., Caroline Glick, and the Zionist Organization of America. We had Daniel last week, and because of him, the word is spreading.

Fred Fleitz, the President of the Center for Security Policy, tweeted, "This is outrageous," referring to Bitar's nomination, "and should be reversed as soon as possible. Maher Bitar is an Israel hater as well as completely unqualified to oversee intelligence for the National Security Council. Did Joe Biden approve this, or is he unaware of what is going on in his administration?”

Newt Gingrich, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and others are piling on as well. But as you might expect, ATP listeners, the Democrats are jumping on the Maher Bitar bandwagon.

"We are appalled by the recent spurious accusations against our staff. We welcome oversight and scrutiny, but there is no justification for false and ad hominem attacks based on ethnic, racial, or religious identity,” the NSC spokesperson said.

Keep in mind these are not ad hominem attacks. These are quoting Bitar's own words, quoting where he appeared, under what pretenses, and who spoke with him. In each circumstance, this guy's hatred for Israel is apparent. It is obvious and is unable to be sold or spun in another direction.

This has nothing to do with prejudice. This has nothing to do with some sort of well, sounds like he has an Arab name, so he can't be there. It has to do with the fact that he hates Israel. Our closest ally, and now he will be the liaison between the President of the United States and the National Security Council. Listen to what Adam Schiff had to say.

You know, Adam the ‘I hate Trump guy’ from the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Impeach the President every hour and a half. "Maher Bitar is exceedingly smart, principled, insightful, and strategic. These attacks on his religion and ethnicity are beyond the pale.

NSC is fortunate to have people of his talent just like we are. Our nation is more secure with patriotic public servants like him," Adam Schiff tweeted. Adam Schiff did not respond to questions about Bitar's backing for BDS.

Here is another defense from the Democrat Congress, "The spurious attacks on my former colleague Maher Bitar, recently appointed to the NSA are disgusting, racist, and unacceptable. Maher is a brilliant, committed public servant who has dedicated his considerable talents to defending our country.

These attacks must cease immediately," from Daniel Goldman, who is with Schiff on the impeachment inquiry. Goldman did not respond to inquiries about what the attacks were. What was said about his religion, ethnicity, or how to justify his BDS.

Joaquin Castro, a very left-wing progressive, tweeted, “I work with Maher Bitar on House Intel. He is a dedicated public servant, and we will work hard on the NSC to keep the American people safe. Any insinuation that he can't do his job based on his religion or ethnicity is downright offensive and unacceptable.”

It seems that it is okay to appoint someone who is a racist, anti-Zionist, and an anti-Semite. But if you quote his words, you are the racist. You have some sort of ethnophobia, and you are probably Islamophobic. It is clear, and I want to be abundantly clear nobody is faulting this fellow for his religion, his background, and certainly not his ethnicity.

They are fighting him on his own words. Where he claims positions that are opposed to what was up until a few weeks ago, and for decades, American foreign policy. Which is support for the state of Israel.

What is happening is the Democrats who support this nomination within the House are spreading lies that Bitar is being attacked because of his background, which is not true. I can't find one quote that attacks his background.

They do not defend anything he says. They just say that attacking the nomination must mean that you are a racist or Islamophobic. I am disgusted by it, and I wish we could return to the days of discussion on policy, rather than throwing all kinds of distractions at the discussion to distract.

Roger is calling in and wants to know what happened to our pro-Israel stance that a guy like this could get such an important job. Great question, Roger. I think it speaks to the fact that Joe Biden is President, and he claims to be moderate.

He is not. He is a left-winger. He claims to support Israel. I am getting more and more concerned about that. But the reality is certain members of the Democrat Party, specifically within the Squad, have made it very clear they do not like Israel.

They support anti-Israel hate groups, and it is obvious. That is why Bitar is there. We have gotten so buried, Roger, in partizan politics within this country that we can't have a discussion on policy or political beliefs without it descending very rapidly into this weird nexus that if you disagree with me, it is because you are a racist, Nazi bigot, misogynist or Islamophobic.

Just pick whatever you want. Those are the reactions. They have no basis, especially in this case, on the reality of what exists out there.

Here is another question. It looks like the fellow's name is Lawrence. What will happen to the peace deals Trump made with this guy being involved now? Oh, my God. That is exactly what I am worried about; great question.

If there ever was a Nobel Prize earned, the Abraham Accords belongs in Trump's hand and Jared Kushner's hands for pulling off a miracle. In the last few months of his administration, Trump, along with Jared Kushner, created peace accords with the Sunni Arab states more than had been done in the previous 50 years.

Make it 70 years since the founding of the state of Israel. He deserves the peace prize. If he does not get it, I mean, what I will tell you, those prizes mean nothing. I was probably already there at the idea that the prizes mean nothing because they gave one to Barack Obama before he was even President based on the fact that he was going to be President, and he had been a community organizer.

I am not making this up. It is true. That is what happened. So, for many people, the peace prizes have become irrelevant. I am one of those. I think you got my point. He is a bad guy, and he is in. Make some noise. Call your representatives. That is your job as a citizen. Tell them you do not want an Israel hater in such a position of responsibility.

Now, let us talk about our big topic. The big topic of today is, President Trump is impeached again. Yeah, I know what you are thinking. He is not President anymore. You are right.

How can you impeach someone if they are already gone? Number 2 is going to be the big constitutional battle starting next week. If the purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from the office that is unfit under the constitutional requirement of having committed one of two things; high crimes and misdemeanors.

Here is how you remove them. You impeach them, and they get removed. Make sense? But he is already gone. I know this is like the Twilight Zone. I am sorry. I do not make the news. I am telling you about it and explaining it.

So, let us back up a little bit. Why did he get impeached? We will talk about that. Then we are going to talk about what is going to happen. I will circle back to the constitutional issue. I promise. So, starting in December, Trump repeatedly, in numerous conversations with his base, all 75 million of which voted for him encouraged his base to show up for a big protest in Washington, D.C., on January 6th, which did happen.

Congress accepted the Electoral College presentation. I am going to read you a couple of the different speeches and what he said. You pretend you are sitting in the Senate to judge this speech. In Georgia on January 4th, Trump told supporters, "We are going to take back what they did to us on November 3rd.”

We are going to take it back. What does that mean? I am not sure. I think it means he is suggesting the election was fraudulently decided for Joe Biden, and there would be some way on January 6th to take back the vote.

I am thinking, and I do not know because I am not a mind reader. What Trump meant was the Electoral College, as submitted, was going to be rejected in the Senate. Some senators stood up and rejected the vote, and there were congressmen in the House who did the same.

I think that is what he means. In a speech on the day of the capital riot, Trump praised his supporters for showing up to, "Save Our Democracy," then he said, "We are going to walk down to the capital. You have to show strength. You have to be strong.” That does not sound bad to me.

He is encouraging our First Amendment rights of protest. Now, for a number of weeks before January 6th, he said he wanted his supporters to fight Congress on accepting the Electoral College results, that ostensibly said that Joe Biden won. Here were his exact words, "We are going to walk down to the Capitol, and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.

We will probably not be cheering so much for some of them because you will never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong." I would agree. Now, what happened?

While Trump was speaking, before his speech was over, people that apparently were not at the speech they gathered on one side of the Capitol building steps and made it very clear that they wanted in. I have seen the videos in the beginning, and they were out there making a lot of noise.

Then you can see Capitol Police opening the gates and letting everybody in; I fail to see how that is an invasion. That is more of a tour. Once they got in, a bunch of them got out of control. But the truth of the matter is the gates were opened, and the videos are up for you to see.

Those were uniformed Capitol Police officers inviting in the protesters. Keep in mind, when this happened, Trump was still speaking. We had two ATP reporters there, and both of them said the same thing. You could not have gotten from his speech to the capital while Trump was still speaking to people at the Capitol, who were already there. It is too far to go.

Earlier in the day, there was a Save America rally organized by a group called Women for America First. They promoted the gathering to show protest. Some of them said some incendiary things. Trump did not.

What got the media riled up is Trump said over and over again that the election was rigged. That he did not lose, but it was fraud that gave the victory to Joe Biden.

It sure seems, based on what I have seen, there is a mountain of evidence to support that position. Even if there was not, doesn't it seem that Trump having that opinion is acceptable. Do you realize when Gore lost, based on what happened in Florida, Democrats screamed election fraud for six months?

After George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2000, an extraordinarily high number of Democrats, for years, said ‘He is not my President’. Nobody seems to remember that. Do you remember when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump?

She said it is because the election was rigged. Her followers for four years refused to say, Donald Trump is my President. The election was stolen. It was rigged.

There is a huge difference, ladies, and gentlemen, now there are thousands of affidavits, which are sworn statements given by election observers, state officials, and attorneys that were there. Some serious, qualified people. I am not talking about one or two.

I am talking about Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota. Where in Wisconsin, there are hundreds of witnesses willing to testify. I do not mean a cranky Hillary Clinton I lost the election was stolen.

Or Al Gore 21 years ago, I got the election stolen. I am mad. I mean, thousands of witnesses in the states I just mentioned. It is a completely different situation. Yet, then it was okay with no evidence. Now it is some sort of crime against humanity. His people filed dozens of court cases.

None of them had a hearing on the facts, and various procedural issues were never considered. So, to say Trump lost in court dozens of times is a misrepresentation. Trump never got into court. The hearings were never held.

There may be some at some point in the future. Either in court or the various states, in their legislatures, or on a congressional level. But Biden is still the President and will remain so, regardless of what is found.

Here is another quote that will be presented at the trial, I assume, next week. This is from Trump, "Republican Senators have to get tougher, or you will not have a Republican Party anymore. We won the presidential election by a lot.

Fight for it. Do not let them take it away." That does not sound incendiary. I think it is a very true statement. They should fight for it because if you do not fight for your democracy, you lose your democracy.

Tweet after tweet after tweet that I am looking at December 12th, he said, "Wow, thousands of people forming in Washington, D.C. for a ‘Stop the Steal’ rally. I do not know about this, but I will be seeing them." On another one, December 12th, "We have just begun to fight."

On December 19th, he tweeted his praise for a report by his adviser, Peter Navarro, alleging election fraud, "A great report by Peter, statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 election. Big protests in D.C. on January 6th, be there."

I'm scanning through about a dozen of these that everybody has retweeted. Where Trump says over and over again, we must continue the fight. We can't let them take the House, the Senate, and the White House.

We are going to fight like hell. We are going to take it back. You know, as far as I am concerned, it is all true. It is all acceptable free speech. It is not an incitement to riot. As I sit here talking to you on the radio today, I have looked at about 30 quotes from Trump.

This is about the most graphic tweet that is being cited as an incitement to riot. I will read the whole thing to you, and you tell me what you think of it. "Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It is like a boxer.

We want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We are going to have to fight much harder. Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he does not, that will be a sad day for our country because he is sworn to uphold our Constitution.

Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy." I agree. Then Trump, in his speech, on the 6th said, "After this, we are going to walk down, and I will be there with you. We are going to walk down I think right here.

We are going to walk down to the Capitol, and we are going to cheer on our brave senators, congressmen, and women. We are probably not going to be cheering for some of them because they will never take back our country with weakness.

You have to show strength." Then here is the most important quote from Trump at the rally on January 6th. "We have to come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, peacefully and patriotically. Make your voices heard." Let me read it to you again. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, peacefully and patriotically. Make your voices heard.”

He continues, "Today, we will not only see whether the Republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

So, before he finished his speech, the crowds were already at the Capitol. Trump never went down there. But he said, “Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful.”

I will read it again. “Please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful.” After he released a video statement, he said, “We have to have peace. So, go home. We love you. You are very special.”

Kathy wants to know: the Biden administration is doing everything anti-constitutional. What is there left for us to do to stop them, including this impeachment charade?

Kathy, I have got a lot of problems with what has happened in the first couple of weeks of the Biden administration. Not the least of which, that he would never be a President that governed by executive order.

Because they are extra legislative, meaning the House and the Senate did not get to opine, approve, or disapprove. There was no public debate. He is just signing the executive orders. More than every President in the last 50 years combined. Are you hearing me?

Joe Biden said, “You could not govern by executive orders. That makes you a dictator.” Joe Biden said that before he was President when he was running for President. He lied and has done exactly what he said he would not do.

Yes, Kathy, he is, in my opinion, is acting like a dictator. In fact, as we put up a week ago, we found the video that the White House released, where Biden says, as he begins to sign one of those executive orders.

They are stacked up next to him, like the return desk at the public library. "I do not know what I am signing." He signs it anyway. Somebody is pulling strings. The man is not in charge. He could not even read what he was being told to sign.

So, what is there left to do, Kathy? A specific answer to your question. Call your representatives repeatedly! Be loud. Do exactly what President Trump told you to do. Make your voices heard. Tell them you think this impeachment is a charade, and quite frankly, that you want your congressman to stand up against it.

So, based on what I have just described. All the things that Trump did, the House impeached him again. No witnesses, just a vote. What did the impeachment managers say in their brief that they have just now released today?

Here is the quote, "Former President Trump bears unmistakable blame for sending a violent mob of his supporters to the U.S. Capitol on January 6th." They continue, "President Trump endangered the lives of all lawmakers when he aimed his supporters like a loaded cannon at the Capitol.

His conduct endangered the life of every single member of Congress jeopardized the peaceful transition of power in the line of succession and compromised our national security. This is precisely the sort of constitutional offense that warrants disqualification from federal offices."

There is more. "Provoking an insurrectionary act riot against a joint session of Congress, after losing an election is not an impeachable offense; it is hard to imagine what it would be."

So, in other words, Democrats are saying President Trump must be held accountable for inciting the mob by telling the lie that the election was stolen. What was written in brief is, "The only honorable path at that point was for President Trump to accept the results and concede his defeat.

Instead, he summoned a mob to Washington. Exhorted them into a frenzy and aimed them like a loaded canyon down Pennsylvania Avenue. It is the right thing," they say, "to convict him, to unite the country." "A president who violently attacks the democratic process has no right to participate in it.

Only after he is held to account for his actions can the nation move forward with unity of purpose and commitment to the Constitution." I am stunned by this idiotic misinterpretation of what happened. I read you the quotes. Those were the strongest quotes.

I left out the weaker ones because they were just conversation. Did you ever hear a quote saying, let's break into the capital, let's attack Congress, let's prevent a vote? No, on a number of occasions, he said, “Be peaceful, respect the police, but make your voices heard.”

This is what our reporters said happened among the millions that attended the rally. The crazies on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, according to numerous videos and numerous testimonies, were mostly Antifa.

They were bused in wearing their black box garb to attack without fear of being hurt. In addition, for some bizarre reason, the Capitol Police let them in. Jonathan Turley was called as a witness in the first impeachment trial to testify in favor of impeachment, quoted novelist Franz Kafka.

Kafka wrote, "My guiding principle is this guilt is never to be doubted." Turley just wrote an essay for The Hill, and he says, "Democrats suddenly appear close to adopting Kafka's standard into the Constitution as they prepare for the second impeachment of President Trump.

They are seeking his removal for incitement. If they do, Democrats will gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech. All in a mad rush to remove Trump.” Turley is not a Tea Party activist or a member of any conservative group. He is a self-avowed liberal constitutional scholar.

Turley concludes Trump's address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. Turley concludes as a constitutional scholar his speech, Trump's speech, would be viewed as a protected speech by the Supreme Court.

Turley concludes incitement to riot is a crime, and it has a specific definition. For someone to be guilty of this crime, the person must have urged the listeners to his speech or other talks to take violent action.

Otherwise, Bernie Sanders could be held accountable because one of his supporters shot and almost killed a Republican member of Congress, Steve Scalise. But Sanders did not urge any of his supporters to shoot anybody.

He just urged them to take action. Nobody even talked about removing Bernie Sanders. Why? Because it is free speech. The Democrats are expanding impeachment, not to mean what it says in the Constitution. Turley says the damage done by the rioters was enormous.

However, it will pale compared to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment speech that is protected under the First Amendment. This is the very threat the framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard.

So, now as we consider what has happened in the last few weeks, the Democrats were pushing Mike Pence and the Cabinet to remove President Trump by the 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment refers to the President's incapacity to continue, i.e., The President's had a stroke-like Roosevelt or was shot like Kennedy. Kennedy survived for half an hour. He was incapacitated. He would not have been able, had he lived in a coma, to continue being President.

That is what the 25th Amendment is for, not because you dislike the guy and his policies. Not because you do not have enough time for impeachment.

The 25th Amendment was not proposed and passed to remove someone you do not like.  It is literally for one purpose only. The President is there and incapacitated. The removal process is impeachment.

Now we get to the next question. He is gone. You can't remove someone who is gone. It is like digging up the body in the cemetery and shooting the body of the guy that died last month. That is kind of gross.

But you are not killing him. He is already gone. So, what is going to happen? Well, 45 GOP senators have already voted to toss the impeachment as unconstitutional. Five wanted to continue. However, to convict, you need two-thirds, 67 conversion votes.

By conversion, I mean all the Dems and a certain number of Republicans, 17, have to cross the aisle. It is not going to happen. The impeachment is dead on arrival. What they are trying to do is tar him again.

To embarrass, humiliate and make him unable to run. Now, here is a constitutional question that nobody seems to be able to answer. What does it mean if he were to be convicted? He is already out of the office.

Would that mean he can't run again? It will probably never happen. There has never been a situation like this. Donald Trump is a private citizen. As Rand Paul said on the floor of the Senate last week, private citizens do not get impeached.

Impeachment is for removal from office, and the accused here has already left office. But all 100 Senators were now sworn in as jurors in Trump's second impeachment trial. Patrick Leahy, a Senator from Vermont, the oldest guy in the Senate who is barely there, will preside because John Roberts said he is not going to do it.

The Supreme Court's head or the Chief Justice presides over a trial to remove someone from office. There has never been an impeachment for someone who has already left the White House. There are going to be ramifications. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski started a new PAC.

He will target the 10 Republicans who joined the Democrats in the House vote to impeach—starting with Liz Cheney from Wyoming, who is now extremely overwhelmingly unpopular in her home state and will be primaried. They are raising money to fight the rest.

In Wyoming, a recent poll said 73% of Wyoming citizens are upset with Liz Cheney for voting to impeach. So, Lewandowsky explains his new PAC's mission is to, "Fight to take back America” and it has started already.

We have this question. I do not have the name. I think it is from Kathy as well. Since they can impeach Trump after he left the White House, can he continue with his lawsuits in swing states? Yes, he can. But I think they are moot.

What I mean by that is legally moot. At some point, there will be an investigation. God willing, and they will come to the conclusion that I believe is the truth. Which is to say the election was stolen. I believe that to be true. I truly do.

Well, I guess it vindicates Trump. I guess it vindicates all the people that testified. I guess it vindicates the belief of at least half of America that there were shenanigans. What is it going to do? Well, it is not going to make Trump President.

But it very well may build huge momentum for 2024, the next presidential election. Will this impeachment possibly block President Trump to run again? Not without a conviction, which will never happen. I am guaranteeing that, but with a conviction, I think so.

It has not happened like this before. Everybody is confused simply because, for no other reason, we are in new territory. I want to make one thing abundantly clear to all of you. You can't remove someone who has already been removed.

I can't say it any clearer than that. You cannot remove somebody who has already been removed. That is what happens in an impeachment. Okay, if you impeach, which is an indictment in the House, and you have a Senate trial the conviction removes the person from office.

There has never been a presidential impeachment to remove a president that is already gone. Am I clear? This is B.S. It is absurd. With all of the emergencies, the country is handling now or should be there is going to be a trial and now nothing else is going to get done except this.

The rumor is they are not going to call witnesses. I mean, I know of two or three that were there that have a videotape that I have seen. It was as peaceful as a Fourth of July picnic at noon. Little kids with their moms, dads, grandparents, and American flags sharing water, food, hugging, singing, and praying.

One guy in particular that we had interviewed said he spent nine or ten hours on the mall waiting to get in and then getting in he listened to the President and then went home. He had no idea what had happened at the Capitol and no idea it had anything to do with Trump until he went home and saw it on CNN, who said Trump did it.

I am sure the Senate, after 20, 30, 50, 100, or 500 of those people were called as witnesses; there were millions there. Millions were there. It may very well have been the biggest rally in American history on the mall according to some estimates.

Bigger than the Martin Luther King I have a dream speech, which was the biggest. This literally will be a circus next week, or maybe there will be a quick vote. It will be over, and people can go back to work. It will probably be the latter because it will be humiliating for the Democrats to listen to witness after witness all saying the same thing which is Trump did not do it. It was peaceful and nice where we were.

Quick question from Anni. What are my thoughts on the California recall of Newsom? Well, when you screw up like what Newsom has done, the voters in California, the Assembly, and the Senate do not remove them. The voters do.

They are almost at the threshold right now to have enough signatures on a ballot initiative to remove Newsom from office. He has single-handedly, and I mean that literally, with his policy decisions, he has destroyed California's economy.

He deserves to go. Before we wrap up, I want to remind you, please sign up for our text message alert system. Type the message TRUTH to 88202. You will be signed up for free, or you can go to our website, AmericanTruthProject.org, and sign up there.

In both cases, you will get a couple of free chapters of my new book, "Because You Asked," as a thank you. Hopefully, you will like it, and you will want to read the rest. So, again, America, we are in for a wild week next week.

Get prepared for more bizarre congressional hearings as the Senate considers the trial of Donald Trump. Thanks for joining me today on ATP radio. I hope you enjoyed it and I hope you will be back next week. Same time, same channel. For ATP radio. I am Barry Nussbaum.

Leave a Comment