Ladies and gentlemen, the following segment of the podcast is presented exclusively by Hillsdale College.

Now, in its 175th year, Hillsdale is a truly independent institution, where learning is prized and intellectual enthusiasm is valued.

Thank you for listening, and my sincere appreciation to Hillsdale for their sponsorship.

Somewhere under the brick and steel of a non-distrib building, we once again made contact with our leader, Mike Lodin.

Another exclusive bombshell by the New York Times, but guess what? There's nothing to it. Again, get ready. This will be a lot of this, by the way.

Bombshells around the president, and then you go, wait, what's the story? I don't get it. More of that coming every single day.

Welcome to the show. The Mark Lovins show. The great one is off tonight. He is celebrating Ross Shashana, and I wish all of you a happy New Year who are also celebrating as well.

Rich is the only from his home base in Philadelphia, where Mark grew up, WPHT. Yes, the New York Times about a half hour ago broke another explosive story this time involving Australia.

Now, I know what you're thinking at first. Why does Australia matter? Well, it doesn't, but it does. But it's also a non-story, as I will explain.

877-381-3811-877-3813811. So New York Times comes out with this big story.

Clamming that, this is, quote, now from them, a president Trump pushed the Australian Prime Minister during a recent telephone call to help attorney general William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation according to two American officials with knowledge of the call.

Okay. And they write, and like the call with the Ukrainian president Zelensky, the discussion with the Australian Prime Minister shows the president using high level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests.

What are his personal political interests? The Mueller probe, I don't understand, it's over. The Mueller investigation is over. What is the president trying to get here by talking to Australia about the Mueller probe that's already over?

Because again, now the framing here is that this is a pattern. This is what the media wants you to believe that the president has a pattern picking up a phone, calling world leaders and then asking for things that help him, all personal benefit. And then there's a quid pro quo.

But as you'll understand with the Ukraine issue and as you'll understand with this Australian thing, president's not getting anything out of this. Nothing.

He's just trying to get to the bottom of corruption lots and lots of corruption. Corruption that goes all the way back to 2016, corruption involving Democrats, the DNC, crowd strike, Russia, investigation, a fake investigation, the dossier and so on and on and on.

Now think about this for a couple of reasons. Number one, Australia is involved here because Australia, Australia. I mean, so far away. Why is it even involved here?

Quote from the Times, Justice Department officials have said it will be neither illegal nor untoward for Mr. Trump to ask world leaders to cooperate with his attorney general and his within the attorney general's powers to speak with far and law enforcement officials about what his prosecutor needs from them.

Okay. Great. So they want to understand about issues of corruption. There's nothing odd about the president asking these questions of Australia. Australia contributed information into what's known as the five eyes.

The five eyes system that eventually informed the Mueller investigation and then of course the rest of history. So Australia is involved in the Mueller investigation. Did you know that? Did anybody know this? And this is of course an issue.

I think the president wants to get to the bottom of what led to the Mueller probe. I think the attorney general wants to get to the bottom of what led to the Mueller probe.

I think a lot of people would like to know this considering how many Americans had their fourth amendment rights violated by fake, phony, phyzer warrants that had absolutely no credibility whatsoever. And foreign intelligence surveillance act judges who went along with them because essentially now the FBI under James Comey, well, they lie. They mistated facts. They left out facts. They misrepresented facts. And they went before a judge and since the five of court signs off on, I don't know, 99.9%.

...