The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234
Collapse Ad Expand Ad
My Discount Health
My Discount Health
My Discount Health Advertisement
My Discount Health Advertisement

Senator Lindsey Graham On The Clintons’ Fans In The Uranium Business And What A Military Confrontation With Iran Would Look Like

Thursday, April 23, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Senator Lindsey Graham joined me on today’s show to discuss this story about the affection shown the Clintons and their foundation by folks in the uranium business, including Russians in the uranium business:




HH: Joined now by United States Senator Lindsey Graham. Follow him on Twitter, @Grahamblog. Senator, before I go to the Loretta Lynch vote and the Iran deal, I just have to ask you about this New York Times story on the uranium company that was sold to Russia by the Canadians and reviewed by a State Department led by Mrs. Clinton after Bill Clinton got a half million dollars. Are your eyebrows up over this?

LG: Yeah, you know, at the end of the day, this story won’t go away. I think the average American is going to find the whole concept of the foundation taking money from Russia interests and other interests throughout the world, and potentially affecting the outcomes at the State Department something worth watching and reviewing.

HH: Is it worth having Senate hearings into?

LG: We may get there. At the end of the day, I don’t know what the appropriate response is. But the more information that comes out in line with what you’re saying, the more appropriate it would be. I’m in charge of the State Department’s budget. I’m in charge of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. We write money for the State Department. Is this within my purview? I’ll have to look long and hard and find out if it is. But oversight of the executive branch has to be done by the legislative branch. If there’s a nexus here, then we’ll have hearings. Continue Reading

AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

Facing Reality

Thursday, April 23, 2015  |  posted by John Schroeder

I find the contrast between the impeachment of Richard Nixon and the impeachment of Bill Clinton one of the most fascinating comparisons in American history.  There is no connection in most people’s minds; the accusations, personalities, and political environment were extraordinarily different.  History has come to label Richard Nixon a crook and Bill Clinton if not a hero, something close.  But these perceptions are based on something most people neglect.  Nixon resigned and saved the nation the divisive and unseemly spectacle of a Senate trial while Clinton stood on trail and prevailed.  I have read many that believe Nixon could have prevailed in a Senate trail and no one doubts that Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury.  So who is really the crook?  The different historical narratives that surround these men are far more a function of their personal choices than they are the facts of each case or even the politics of the moment.

My first reaction when I saw the NYTimes headlines this AM,

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

…was that her campaign was effectively over.  Particularly when followed up in hours by a Reuters story that the Clinton Foundation was playing some sort of three-card Monty with its IRS reporting.  And yet over at Hot Air, Jazz Shaw says, “I’m not sure if this is a “bombshell” report from the New York Times this morning or if it’s just more of the same old same old when it comes to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.”  The simple fact of the matter is that to Richard Nixon reality mattered, so he stepped down for the good of the nation.  To the Clintons all that matters is public perception.  Thus wrongdoing, or even the appearance of wrongdoing, is not the issue, only that it can be spun.  As Shaw admits, we don’t know if this will be a serious issue for Hillary until it has been through the spin cycle – the facts notwithstanding.  The nation has not recovered from the divorce of reality and public perception wrought in the Clinton impeachment. Continue Reading

The Washington Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee On Her “Fact-Checking” Of Lindsey Graham And Scott Walker

Thursday, April 23, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Almost every would-be GOP nominee has made an issue of America’s declining naval strength.  This morning The Washington Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee gave “three Pinocchios” to Lindesy Graham and Scott Walker for recalling Ronald Reagan’s 600 ship Navy and deploring our drop to 273 ships today.

Not only does Ms. Lee suggest untruthfulness about these absolutely factual assertions by Graham and Walker, she does so without finding even one expert who challenges their assertions about U.S. naval strength hitting dangerous lows.  She joined me to defend her conclusion, but I wasn’t persuaded and believe the Post should issue a correction for putting out as a “fact check” a thinly disguised and actually poorly informed opinion of one of its writers.  I appreciate that Ms. Lee would come on to defend her piece but this issue is too important to leave to the “fact checkers” who aren’t actually checking facts:




HH: I am now pleased to welcome, the first time on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, who is a Washington Post reporter. Michelle, welcome, it’s great to have you on the program.

MYHL: Hi, thanks for having me.

HH: You have created quite a stir today with your piece, The Zombie Claim About Navy Ship Numbers Returns To The 2016 Campaign Trail. I was talking about it last hour with Governor Pataki. He and a bunch of other Republicans just simply reject your three Pinocchios. So would you please explain to the audience what is the zombie nature of the claim that Republicans are making about naval strength?

MYHL: Sure. So this was a claim that Romney had said during the last presidential campaign, and so when it came back up, you know, I was looking back at the analyses that had been done, and sort of revisiting that leading up to the 2016 cycle. So a lot of the criticism back then was that you know, instead of comparing the sheer number of ships a hundred years ago to now, you know, there are other ways to try to make the argument that you know, Romney was trying to make. And so I was getting at that, and you know, I revisited the issue, and remained consistent with the rating that we had given Romney then with the three Pinocchios.

HH: Now why do you call it a zombie claim? Because every naval expert I’ve talked to believes we’re in a crisis when it comes to ship count and strategic ability to project force, every single one. And as I read your piece, I didn’t actually find anyone disagreeing with Lindsey Graham or Scott Walker.

MYHL: Well, the zombie claim is sort of a reader-friendly way to describe that this is something that had been talked about in the past, and that it had been challenged in the past as well. And you know, we sort of use it to say hey, you know, we’ve been there before, we’ll say it again. So that’s sort of a reader-friendly way to put it that way. You know, I don’t think it’s that people disagree necessarily with the claim that there needs to be more ships, or that the current fleet is not sufficient compared to what the combatant commanders say they need. But it’s, again, going back to the idea that you know, the needs of, the need and capability of ships evolve over time. So to compare the number of ships in 2015 versus the number of ships in 1915, ’16, ’17 or in the 1980s is just not an apples to apples comparison. Continue Reading

Former New York Governor George Pataki on 2016

Thursday, April 23, 2015  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

Former New York Governor George Pataki joined me to talk 2016 today:




HH: I am beginning this hour with Governor George Pataki, former four term governor of the Empire State, the great state of New York. Governor Pataki, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, it’s always good to talk to you.

GP: Good morning, Hugh, nice talking to you again.

HH: You have saved my perfect game. I have talked to every would-be Republican presidential nominee except you in 2015. And so now that I’ve got you up at the plate, I’ve at least got a perfect game, so thank you.

GP: Hey, you have a perfect game so far, but who knows, there might be more.

HH: Now I’ve got to ask you, it appears as though you’re running, and I just sort of want to confirm that. Is that the case?

GP: Well, I’ll tell you, I’m closer to making that decision than I’ve been in the past. And I kid up in New Hampshire that every four years, there’s the World Cup, the Olympics, and I show up thinking of running. But this time, I’ve taken a lot more aggressive steps, and I think the reason is very simple. I think the situation in the world and in Washington is worse than it’s been before, and I think the need to change things dramatically has never been greater. Continue Reading

Page 2 of 3348 1 2 3 4 5 3,348
Invite Hugh to Speak
Back to Top