RADIOOctober 04, 2023

Pelosi’s Head of Security Likely PERJURED Himself With Jan 6 LIE | Blaze Media EXCLUSIVE

How much of the January 6th "evidence" that our justice system used to convict Americans has been a lie? Investigative reporter Steve Baker has done a year-long deep dive into the CCTV footage and REAL facts of Jan. 6 and has released his first report with Blaze Media. Baker joins Glenn to reveal the evidence that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's head of security, U.S. Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus, gave false testimony about his whereabouts during a key encounter with members of the Oath Keepers. If this false testimony led to the imprisonment of Americans, what else have we been lied to about?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve baker has been on the program, a few times. And he is a -- an investigative reporter, that has been doing some work and it's now exposed on TheBlaze.com.

He has been working on the January 6th puzzle for a while now. And his efforts had been frustrated, over and over again, by the politics in Washington when he's just trying to find the truth.

The story that has just been released this morning.

Did Pelosi's security chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial? Has wide, wide consequences.

Welcome, Steve. How are you?

STEVE: Glenn, I am living proof, that a man can live on coffee alone.

GLENN: You started this a year ago, today.

STEVE: It was one year ago, yesterday.

October 3rd. During the oath keeper's trial. Was the first cent that there was something wrong.

Something happened in the trial. First thing that morning. When the lead prosecuting attorney, Jeffrey Nessler, assistant U.S. attorney, approached the lectern and the bench. And said to Judge Mehta, we have a problem. He said, we have a rogue attorney that is about to release some FBI 302s. These are interviews of one of the characters in this story, that we release this morning. And that if he does that, this is going to -- these are sealed documents, that are not publicly available, and we can't have that. And Judge Mehta did something, that I've never seen before.

And I don't know anyone in the media room where I was sitting in, had ever seen this before.

He actually directed the media pool, to put out a tweet, and threaten this particular attorney and let him know, that if he released those sealed documents, we would have him held in contempt of court.

And right then, I went, what are in those documents?

GLENN: So what was in those documents?

STEVE: They're still sealed. But I will tell you, the documents themselves were actually the FBI interviews of one of these Capitol police officers. And the primary problem that the government has with those documents, is that the testimony was changed. His testimony about his interaction with the Oath Keepers. Which in the first testimony, he revealed to be a positive interaction. That the Oath Keepers were lined up between him. And the more agitated protesters.

And assisted him in keeping them off of him.

And helping him de-escalate.

That was in May of '21, that interview.

In August of '21, this officer was brought back in, and the testimony was changed into an aggravated, contentious event with the Oath Keepers.

And as well as the creation of a second event, to explain the first FBI interview that never happened.

GLENN: So it is amazing to me.

Reading your story, it is so well laid out. However, what makes this different. It's not he said/she said. Or he said/he said.

It's because you had permission to go into the 14,000 hours, of videotape. You knew what you were looking for.

Right?

And in the story, you knew what time it even happened. Because the testimony was gunshots. You know, gunfire.

And so that marked it, at a certain time, when they -- they shot an innocent.

So tell me about what you found.

What the story was in the -- the testimony. And then what you found in the tape.

STEVE: Well, the story in the testimony from special agent. Now, this is Capitol Police special agent David Lazarus.

Is that when he heard the gunshots, at 243, 244, broadcasted over the radio, that shots had been fired.

That he was down in the tunnels, escorting senators from the Rayburn Building to the other Senate office buildings. And that's quite a long distance away from the House chamber, where allegedly these shots were fired. He said, at that moment, at 244, he began turning around and heading back. Well, because we knew what to look for, we immediately went there and we started working our way backwards.

And we found him in the tunnels, at that time.

The problem with it, is that when he emerged from the Senate building tunnels, and the subway system below the Capitol.

And, by the way, Glenn, these were videos that were never released to the defense attorneys in this trial.

GLENN: If we were living in normal times, the people that had been convicted, with any of the testimony, in -- revolving around these guys, they would be released. Any other time in American history, they would be released.

Because this is perjury. And somebody set this up. Somebody.

STEVE: And we're working on that trail as well.

GLENN: Good.

STEVE: But going back to Lazarus, so he emerges. And comes back into camera frames, on the Capitol TVs with absolute proof of the exact time, down to the second, of when he emerged back in the camera.

He even passes under an analogue clock in the subway, at exactly this moment.

And it's at 2:48 p.m.

When he finally reaches the other side of the tunnels from the Senate office buildings. And when that happens, the oath keeper Officer Dunn encounter is almost already over by then.

He's nowhere near it. And he still has a long way to go. And then we were able to triangulate. Because he will go out of camera frame for a while. Then he'll enter camera frame again from another camera.

And then he's down another hall. And then he enters another hallway. Then he goes up on the Senate side. Then by the time he reaches the bottom of the stairs, that lead up to the rotunda, and it's in a little area, variously called the mini rotunda or the Speaker's lobby. When he reaches the bottom of those stairs, it's now 2:56:45 p.m. and the Oath Keepers are long gone.

GLENN: Okay. So now, let me give you the exact verbiage from the testimony in the court case.

Lazarus, the guy you've just been talking about -- explained that one rioter asked, who are you? Who are you? Then according to the trial testimony, he testified. And, you know, one attempted to. I mean, I had my lanyard on, with my ID on it. And, one, they were videotaping, and one attempted to pull at my ID. And I kind of grabbed it back, and looked to make sure it was still there. And then I saw an opening.

So there's just kind of like -- I walked fast, to get into the office. And check on the staff again.

He then detailed description of what took place. What Lazarus described, as a very antagonistic in three or four times, that he passed by these Oath Keepers. Every time I interacted or came by, yes, it was very antagonistic. He said this under oath.

When he was then shown in court, a -- a video clip of four Oath Keepers, standing in front of Dunn, Lazarus was asked, are these the individuals you observed?

Yes. Yes.

At any point in these three or four interactions, in this space, at you observe any sort of anything, but antagonistic conversation?

No that's correct.

Here's the problem: They were already out of the building. At the time we know, them on camera, we have the videotape.

The Oath Keepers had been gone for almost ten minutes.

STEVE: It was not quite ten minutes. But when you're in the Capitol video room, viewing this.

We can put multiple cameras on the screen, at the same time. And then we hit one button, and it synced all those cameras to the exact time line. So we're able to watch Lazarus moving through the building in one quadrant of the screen. Then we can watch when the Oath Keepers leave. So as the Oath Keepers leave, and they're walking out through the Rotunda, about to exit through the Columbus doors on the east side.

It wasn't until that moment, that finally Lazarus reaches that area, where in great detail in the trial. And we have the trial transcripts, obviously.

In great detail, he describes what he saw. It just did not happen.

GLENN: So this was a -- an important part of the trial, right?

STEVE: It was a huge part of the trial. Because the one thing that the government was absolutely intent upon doing, was not allowing anything that could be exculpatory. Or anything that pointed the Oath Keepers in a positive light. And this wasn't the only positive interaction that Oath Keepers had with law enforcement that day.

You've interviewed Lieutenant Tarik Johnson. Lieutenant Tarik Johnson, used two Oath Keepers. Literally recruited them to help rescue another 16 officers out of a dangerous situation.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEVE: That was never allowed in the trial.

GLENN: So and I learned something from the article. Let me see if I can find it here.

I had no idea. Oath Keepers. Seditious.

Blah, blah. Federal prosecutors claimed, while they were inside the Capitol, members of the group were involved in contentious interaction.

I don't know where it is now. But you talk about the Oath Keepers. How they've never -- they've never had to hear.

Thirty-five thousand due's paying members, had more than a decade's worth of spotless record, providing disaster relief and security during riots and other large events.

They have never once been accused or charged with a crime. In thousands of operations.

I had no idea.

STEVE: One of the things that the government could not do in that trial. They could not counter that little piece of information. And, of course, it didn't matter in front of a DC jury.

The DC jury, it was fait accompli, for day one and in terms of what the outcome of that trial was going to be.

But one of the things that the defense did successfully present is the fact that in years and years and years of disaster relief operations, security details, and all kinds of -- other times when they actually went and were recruited and hired by minority businesses, like in Ferguson.

Like in Louisville, Kentucky. And those rights. Where they were recruited by minority businesses. To come help us to protect our businesses.

The defense was rather able to show some of those videos.

But the one thing that the government could not prove. That at any time, since 2009, when the Oath Keepers were founded, that there had ever been a single time where an Oath Keeper had committed violence in any of those operations, or ever had committed a crime. Or any charges had ever been filed.

GLENN: And when you think of the Oath Keepers.

You think, oh, they're just really bad.

Isn't that remarkable? How that has been portrayed and carried by the press?

Okay. So there's obviously some sort of conspiracy here.

Because these guys, they don't -- they're both saying the same story.

But it seems to switch, where one is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

And the other guy is saying, no. I saw them at the top of the stairs.

They couldn't even get their story right.

STEVE: Yeah. It's inexplicable, that the editor of Harry Dunn's forthcoming book did not check the trial transcripts. Because when Lazarus -- special agent. Nancy Pelosi's head of security. Tells his version of events. He says, when he runs to the top of the stairs, that he sees this large, imposing figure.

Because Dunn is six-seven. Three hundred pounds, plus all the gear he had on. And he sees this large opposing -- imposing figure in a contentious -- yeah. Moment with these Oath Keepers that were giving him the business. All right?

And that's his testimony. In Dunn's book, he explains, that when he ran to the top of that stairs and reached that stairwell landing at the top, that Lazarus was already there.

And he was being confronted by protesters.

GLENN: Okay. So the questions that we need to ask, and what this actually means. I'm afraid. Stu was talking about it this morning. That at any other time. Any other time, in American history, this case would be thrown out now.

They would -- they would file a charge. Got to throw this case out.

And it would be done. And people would care.

I'm not sure people care. I mean, that's where our justice system is.

It only moves because somebody says something. Somebody -- the American people just won't take it.

I wonder what the -- I wonder what the real fallout of this will be. And you probably have a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. What is next in this?

And I know you talked to people in Congress. But is this going to move anything in DC?

STEVE: I can tell you, that not only working with weaponization committee investigators on this story, as well as the high-ranking staffers, I can't get into specific on the record details.

That there will be talks about hearings. And we know what hearings result in. Far too often.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: But there has to be something next.

Because, Glenn, this is -- this is literally an existential threat to our republic. What is taking place, in our courts right now. In DC.

GLENN: This is our government not getting it wrong.

This is our government setting American citizens up. Withholding evidence, that is exculpatory.

Sentencing them to long sentences.

And apparently, several people are involved in this.

This is -- this is as bad as it gets.

STEVE: Even in one of the specific Oath Keeper's cases, during his sentencing hearing. This is the Oath Keeper, Ken Harrelson, who you can see in video, holding the crowd back from Officer Dunn. He literally has his hands extended, and he's holding them back. As they were agitating and trying to get it done.

And there's four Oath Keepers lined up, with their backs turned to Dunn. He's at the top of the stairwell, holding an M4 rifle. And these guys are holding them back.

And -- and his case, particularly, Judge Mehta and his sentencing hearing, actually said these words.

Mr. Harrelson, I do not believe you're the man that the government has made you out to be. If I could speak to Mehta right now -- Judge Mehta, I would tell them, now we know that he is not the man who the government made him out to be. And you need to send him home.

GLENN: Have you talked to their attorneys yet? The Oath Keepers?

STEVE: I talk to them every day.

GLENN: And now that this is out and you're able to prove this, are they going to move?

STEVE: Obviously, they're in transition from their trial representation to their different legal teams. That will be representing them in appeal.

GLENN: Right.

STEVE: But these guys are -- are --

GLENN: Hot.

STEVE: They're hot. And, of course, they -- they -- they all know how this was set up. And this is where the next part of this story is going. Is that, look, we know -- we know that there was the equivalent of a star chamber set up, like, how will we get these guys?

And we see the process and the pattern of events of how they led to that, as well as here. Absolute proof of the creation and manipulation of testimony. And of something that never happened. And presented in that trial.

GLENN: This story, is a year's worth of a man's life.

You must read it by Steve Baker. Did Pelosi's Security Chief perjure himself in the Oath Keeper's trial. It's only part one of a series, that Steve is working on.

And you'll find it from Blaze Media, at TheBlaze.com.

This Russian nuke warning is HORRIFIC… for an UNEXPECTED reason

Glenn Beck reviews a video of Aleksandr Dugin, known as “Putin’s brain,” warning that nuclear war is inevitable. But this warning from Russia is absolutely terrifying for another reason: it’s NOT REAL …

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Operation Fast and Furious: The TRUE Story of How the Feds were Running Guns into Mexico

The Border Crisis has been ongoing for years, and one of the biggest scandals was the ATF “gunwalking” scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious which occurred during when Barack Obama was President. Glenn Beck talks with John Dodson, the whistleblower who revealed the scandal to get the facts about what happened and why it was a flawed operation from its inception.
Watch the FULL Interview HERE

Glenn Beck & Piers Morgan REACT to Trump's Iran Strike & What Comes Next

Glenn Beck joins Piers Morgan to react to President Trump's decision to strike Iran's Nuclear Facilities and what could come next with the conflict. Is this just the start of a larger conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States, or will this move by Trump put at least a temporary end to the brewing tensions?

Meet the pro-Intifada candidate NYC Democrats just elected

New York City Democrats just elected 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a "socialist Muslim", as the Party's candidate for mayor. But Glenn Beck argues that his radical beliefs are actually communist and Islamist.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

VOICE: Z10852. Something weird is going on. The World Trade Center is on fire.

VOICE: Seriously the top of the building. We're trying to get information.

VOICE: Top level of one of the --

VOICE: To unfold from New York City.

VOICE: A plane crashed just --

VOICE: My sister is in that believe. I hope she's okay. I have to come to New York.

VOICE: It's pandemonium.

VOICE: It's raining papers.

VOICE: Wait a minute! Stop just a second. Why are we -- why are we -- I've got breaking news. Breaking news, yesterday. New York City just elected as their mayoral candidate for the left. And the Democrats, a -- a Muslim radical, who is also a communist!

So, you know, it only took you 25 years. It only took you 25 years, New York, to go completely insane.

Somebody who is -- well, I mean, if I might quote Michael malice today. I am old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.

But you've got a -- you've got a communist jihadist apologist now.

Who was -- you know, well, CAIR put $100,000 behind his bid for New York City mayor.

So you have somebody who is endorsed by CAIR. That's really good.

He also was somebody who said, you know, he was -- he was for the shooting of the United Health Care CEO.

Said he was looking forward to driving down magnum Joan avenue. I don't know. Sounds like supporting people in the streets. Maybe it's just me.

Then he also said that he was going to globalize the intifada, which I think that's -- maybe -- maybe that's just me.

I mean, what do I know?

Tim Miller who is a podcaster. Asked him a few weeks ago. Asked him about his pro Palestinian slogan. Globalized the intifada. And he said, for me, ultimately, what I hear in so many, is a desperate desire for equality and equal rights, in standing up for Palistinian human rights. Oh, is that what you hear, Mr. CAIR?

Really? Huh, that's interesting.

Right. So globalize the intifada.

I mean, I mean, sure, that's -- I mean well, let me go on.

Because I don't want to take him out of context.

He then delved into the semantics of the intifada, citing the United States Holocaust memorial museum's use of a word for a translation for uprising, in an Arabic version of an article, a museum published about the Warsaw ghetto.

Oh!

So this is just a comparison, about the -- the armed rebellion against the Nazis!

I don't know if that makes me feel better!

I mean, if we're globalizing that.

We're the Nazis in this scenario.

Because I don't think it's the Palestinians.

I certainly don't think it's anybody who is like, hey.

Global jihad. I don't think it's those guys.

Or the Nazis. Who are the Nazis in that?

And it seems, if that's what you mean, then it's not just a harmless kind of slogan about human rights. It is a call for violence on the streets.

Because I don't know if you know, that's what happened when the Jews had their uprising against the Nazis.

I'm just saying!

But, hey, hey, free Palestine.

Oh, that's not what that means, gang. That is not what that means, but don't worry about it. He's just going to be possibly the new mayor.

And that's great. By the way, the Columbia faculty members signed a letter defending Hamas.

They were also among the donors to his mayoral campaign.

So, you know, you don't have anything to worry about.

And his father, who used to work at Columbia. Do you know, Stu?

Is his Dad -- is he still a professor at Columbia University?

He said that -- this violent terror thing of Islam, is not a part of Islam. Now, I've read the Koran, and much of the hadith.

And I'm pretty sure the violence is a part of that. But no.

No. This is something entirely new.

And his father while at Columbia university, wanted everybody to know, that this is actually -- this is something that came out of America!

America is really responsible for this.

And, you know, it really started with the Reagan administration, you know, when he started -- when he started with his very religious terms, to finish the war against the evil empire.

So, you know, that's where -- that's where 9/11 came from.

Is what -- don't worry about it! Don't worry about it!

Because who am I? I'm clearly just -- am I an anti-Semite today, or am I an Islamophobic? I can't remember which one.

Oh, it's probably both. Anyway, Islamophobia. Let me just explain Islamophobia. I haven't even gotten to the Communist part of it. Which is really, really -- New York, you're in one for hell of a ride. Buckle up.

It will be a fun rollercoaster for you. My gosh, I've never been happier that I've been away are if New York.

Anyway, I just want I to know, there is Islam. And then there is Islamists. Now, an Islamist is somebody who really wants Sharia law.

That's political Islam!

That's not a faith. That's political Islam.

Now, let me make really -- something really clear. Criticizing Islamism, is not Islamophobia. Pointing out the dangers of, oh. I don't know.

Political Islam. The ideology that seeks to use the tools of democracy, ultimately to destroy democracy, is not an attack on Muslims.

No. Uh-uh.

You know why?

Because Muslims are often the first people in line.

The first victims of the ideology.

So let's draw a bright, bright line between Islam as a faith, millions of people can practice that faithfully and peacefully.

It's mostly peaceful, okay?

Then there's the Islamism.

Islamism is something entirely -- that's a political project.

A theocratic political -- oh. Left loves theocracies. They love it.

Of course, you never see a problem with it.

See it when an Islamist is touting it. Anyway, it's not about prayer. It's not about fasting. It's not about spiritual life.

It's all about power. It's about merging of mosque and state. It's about implementing Sharia, not as a personal code of conduct. But as a governing legal system.

And it's -- it's supremacy.

Absolutely. Faith.

Religion.

It's -- there's one thing that's supreme.

It's misogynistic.

Deeply intolerant of all kinds of things.

Descent. Secularism. Other faiths. Even competing interpretations from inside the faith itself.

It will behead them too.

So let's -- let's be honest here for a second.

You know, CAIR should be labeled an international terror organization.

In my opinion. In my opinion.

Oh, does that make me -- that makes me an Islamophobe. I'm sure. I'm sure they will start a campaign against me on being an Islamophobe.

Stand in line, guys. You've been doing it since 2001, okay?

I don't really care. And I don't think the American people. I think that record, all the grooves are worn-out on that one, okay?

This is not a religion we're talking about. When we're talking about Sharia law. And we're talking about globalize the intifada. What does that mean, actually, to globalize it?

Does that mean we now want to do what is happening to Israel? All over the world?

Has the Palestinian plight become our plight you now, as Americans?

That there has to be an intifada here!

Because it's the kind of the same. You know. It's kind of the same over, you know, with what the Palestinians are going through.

Well, it's very much like what the Jews went through with the Nazis.

That's a weird one. That one makes my head hurt. It's very much the same as that. And very much the same as the fight against Donald Trump.

Oh, this is going to be fun. It's fun!

Really fun. You know, the irony here is, the ones that will scream Islamophobia the most, are the ones in the progressive left, the champions of feminism, LGBTQ rights. And secularism.

They're going to -- no. You want -- they're going to stand with the people, who want to kill them first.

See, this is how smart they are!

This is why it's going to work out well, in New York City.

Let me just say. If you have an ounce of common sense, you run a business, you have an ounce of wealth. And I don't mean wealth like, you know, hey, Lovey.

Let's get on the boat for a three-hour tour with a suitcase full of cash. I mean you saved anything, anything, get the hell out of New York City.

I mean, this is about survival. This is about free speech. This is about women's rights.
Religious pluralism. Secular legal systems. Liberal democracy.

But it's also about failed principles of Communism. Okay?

First, you have to call out political Islam for what it is. Okay?

And we have to do it with the clarity that we call out white nationalism.

Got to do it with that. Got to -- you know, the Klan. Really bad people.

Really bad people.

Anybody who is shouting for globalized intifada?

Pretty bad. Pretty bad people.

Okay?

Now, let's get to communism.

Because that's another cool, cool angle of the new Democratic candidate for -- for mayor of New York City.

That I just -- I think is cuddly and cute. Sure, it led to 100 million deaths. But this time, New York is going to be radically different. Oh, did I use the word radical?

I didn't mean to use that. What's radical about this guy?

Nothing. He's just like you!

Well, not exactly.

But let's talk about communism, next!

Now, the new mayoral candidate that's running there in New York City. That so many young people rushed to defend and vote for. He's promising free buses.

That's going to work out.

Where are you going to get the money for free buses.

It's free!

City-run grocery stores.

Oh, rent freezes. And finally somebody has done it. A 30-dollar minimum wage.

So under the banner of equity. And, you know, we will tax the wealthy. And the corporations. You know, we're going to squeeze another $10 billion out of them.

Really?

Because they're going to call a U-Haul.

You know, they will call something like U-Haul. There will be a lot of -- there will be a lot of movers that are like, how do I get the truck back from Texas or Florida back up to New York? Nobody is moving up there.

But he's going to do it.

Now, his vision isn't really new. You know, just -- just tax people, so we could have city-run grocery stores. You know, I remember -- I'm old enough to remember those city-run grocery stores in Moscow.

They were great.

The shelves were empty.

But that's just Moscow.

It worked out completely different in Venezuela.

Where, oh, no.

It didn't. That's right. The grocery store.

They were eating the zoo animals.

But it will be different in New York.

Because they have rent controls too.

And that will just choke the housing supply, but don't worry. As a young family.

You know, you voted for it.

You know better.

It will work this time.

So, you know, I like building ideas, I just don't like usually building on the graves of 100 million people.

But, you know, why not? Why not?

You know, use this dogma.

And this time, it will be different. It's not like it was in China. Where the great leap forward, was a gross -- a gross parody of progress. Venezuela, which was oil rich. One of the richest nations in the hemisphere now sees 90 percent of its population in poverty!

Yeah. Darn it. You know what they did?

They decided to take state control of things.

You know, like grocery stores. And it worked out well. How is that free busing working out in Venezuela?

I just want to -- I just want to know.

Anyway, then you've got the globalize the intifada. Which is going to drop a little violence in, and anti-Semitism in with your communism.

Which is weird!

Because violence and anti-Semitism, always happen. When it -- when it comes to -- when it comes to communism.

This is weird!

I've got to play something for you. Because this has talked about on me earlier this morning.

Oh, wow.

Wait a minute. This is -- this is the whole coalition coming together here.

So this is going to be good. New York, this is going to be great.

It's going to be great for you.

No. He's going to uplift you. Then the social fabric of New York City is just going to be -- just one.

It's going to be fantastic. Don't worry about your 120 billion dollars in debt. Or your 10 billion-dollar deficit that you have right now.

You are going to charge the rich more taxes, and they will stay right there.

They will be like, you know what, that 46 percent in taxes that I'm paying, this is just not enough. It's just not enough.

I need to pay 60 or 70 percent to be able to pay my fair share. So that's good. That's good. That's good.

You know, they're not risking 100 million people. It's just 8 million people.

This time, it's just 8 million people.

But, hey. For those of you in upstate New York. That aren't going to be part of this experiment.

Don't worry, you get to pay for it. Because they'll kick it up to the state. The state will have to subsidize everything. And don't you love it?

Really, don't you want to subsidize the really crazy ideas of New York City?

I mean, why don't you have a -- why don't you have a democratic socialist. A/k/a communist mayor.

Why haven't you done that? Are you not progressive enough? Are you not looking into the future?

Are you stuck in the past?

I don't know. I don't know. The graveyard is pretty big. I have a hard time getting past that one. You know, yeah, so I'm stuck in the past. Because I can't seem to pass that graveyard, and get to be down the path with you. But it's going to be a paradise.

Forget arithmetic. You know, or human nature. This time, it's going to work. It's going to work. So all right!

Wish I lived in this morning.

No wait. Nope. I don't. Nope, I don't.

And Ted Cruz, stop it. Stop writing, hey, come to Texas. No. No. Don't come to Texas. Don't come to Florida. Go to California. It's beautiful this time of year. Go there. Go there.