Why A My Little Pony Superfan As Lone Bomber Doesn’t Add Up

A five-year manhunt ends with a suspect who loves My Little Pony and DoorDash—and a prosecution team tied to heavy-handed confessions. We dig into timelines, gait comparisons, and evidence gaps that make the “lone bomber” narrative wobble, then follow the thread to the gatekeepers who shape outcomes: the DOJ, Inspectors General, and the media figures who blessed a tidy story with few answers. If the public is asked to trust the process, the process has to earn it.

From there, we zoom out to the power struggle at the top: can a president fire insulated agency heads who steer policy long after elections end? We unpack Supreme Court arguments over Humphrey’s Executor, Chevron’s downfall, and the growing tension between “expert independence” and democratic control. If experts are accountable to no one, are we governed by credentials instead of consent? Scalia’s reminder hits hard: unconstitutional acts are null from the start, and institutions should fear the people’s judgment more than their own continuity.

We also confront public health trust head-on—alleged suppression of vaccine risk signals, federal funds funneled to brand the right message, and the long shadow that still hangs over churches, leagues, and communities. Add in a hard look at blue slip vetoes, lawfare bottlenecks, and a 2026 plan to weaponize turnout with Trump on the trail, and a pattern emerges: power hides in procedure. If you want cleaner outcomes, fix the machinery.

Listen for a clear map of who holds the levers, where oversight dies, and how citizens can push back with facts, timelines, and process. If this breakdown helped you see the moving parts, follow, share, and leave a review so more people can cut through the noise. What part of the story do you question most?

Chapters

• 0:57 Live Open And Set The Stakes
• 1:13 Pipe Bomber Arrest And Odd Backstory
• 3:42 Media Credibility And New Gatekeepers
• 3:44 Meet The Prosecutor: Ballantine’s Role
• 5:20 Tactics, Deals, And Coerced Confessions
• 9:10 Trump Asked About The Case
• 13:09 Timelines, Evidence Gaps, And Gait Analysis
• 15:38 Congress, The Finder, And Statute Limits
• 17:12 DoorDash Alibis And Fednapping Parallels
• 21:02 Media Briefings And Bungled Optics
• 23:09 IGs, SIGIE, And Deep State Continuity
• 31:20 Reforming Watchdogs And Accountability
• 35:18 Garland, Independence, And A “Fourth Branch”
• 38:47 Money, Midterms, And Party Machinery
• 41:31 Trump Vs MTG And Populist Rifts
• 45:10 Breastfeeding, Policy, And Lobby Pressure
• 51:40 Vaccines, Signals, And Institutional Trust
• 59:42 Speech, Censorship, And Online Siloes
• 1:04:23 Migration, Culture, And Local Strain
• 1:09:04 Blue Slips, Courts, And Lawfare
• 1:16:21 Safety, Judges, And Public Backlash
• 1:22:12 Strategy For 2026 And Turnout
• 1:27:04 Supreme Court: Firing Authority Debate
• 1:37:07 Humphrey’s Executor And Agency Power

Transcript

SPEAKER_14: 0:57

With those people. With those people. Good morning, peasants. Welcome to another episode of The Peasants Perspective. We're live. Our sound's working. We're good. We're good. Excellent. So the last couple days, really, it's ever since this pipe bomber revelation came out, right? The uh that the pipe bomber allegedly was a Capitol Hill police officer matched with the gate analysis. Someone in intelligence was like, oh my goodness, this is one of ours, right? The highest intelligence agencies in the land have been. And we're like this in the finally, we're getting we're somewhere. Finally, and it's exactly what we expected. It was a fence erection. And then we end up with someone arrested that is a furry. Again, pipe bomber. This is from Brianna Morello. She reports for InfoWars as well as some other independent outlets. The suspect accused of placing pipe bombs outside the RNC and DNC headquarters was an avid fan of My Little Pony. He produced artwork of plastic pony figures, creating remixes of songs from the series and writing My Little Pony fan fiction, according to the New York police.

SPEAKER_18: 2:09

Oh man.

SPEAKER_14: 2:10

Or New York Post. I'm so glad the FBI got the guy. DC pipe bomb suspect Brian Cole Jr. has secret online life obsessing over My Little Pony. Wow. Wow. It's almost too good to be true, right?

SPEAKER_17: 2:22

That's the only crime he committed.

SPEAKER_14: 2:24

Another Trantifa terrorist, except this one likes MAGAS. So they're actually, they're not just busy living out his furry life. He's writing fan fiction for My Little Pony, right? He doesn't even have friends to go hang out and dress up with. Really? This is a guy who fled the FBI for five years, you know, most wanted person, half a million dollar bounty on his head. And he's living in mom's basement writing My Little Pony remixes.

SPEAKER_17: 2:51

In between making pipe bombs.

SPEAKER_14: 2:53

Do we have to believe this? Do we have to believe this? Now, certain outlets that have gotten a lot of juice this last little bit have been reporting on this. I have to say another thing, too. Oh my goodness, I am so grateful it's 2025 and not 2017, where we have three or four credible, credible, air quotes, credible news outlets to digest this stuff, right? We've got News Nation, you've got Fox, which clearly is no longer anti, anti, anti-Trump. They're just anti-anti-Trump. You know what I'm saying? Like, um, you have Newsmax, uh, Newsmax, which has come out. I already mentioned News Nation, and then of course Lindell TV. InfoWars has made a big comeback with total credibility. Trump's tweeting them out, they've got press correspondence now. So it's nice that we at least have some other reporting on this stuff. So when the Brian Cole Jr. got arrested and people found out who the prosecutor was, it raised quite a few eyebrows.

SPEAKER_01: 3:48

So a lot of interesting things going on, especially with the people who are prosecuting the case. That would be Jocelyn Ballantin, Jocelynton Balinantine, who Enrique Tario has words to say about, and I know all about her. She was one of the people who tried to force a false confession out of Enrique Tario. She presented him with papers saying if you link uh President Trump to the Proud Boys through Roger Stone and you sign this paper here, then you can go home today, basically, was the deal that was presented to Enrique Tario before trial, literally trying to get him to frame President Trump uh in exchange for his freedom. So this is the type of person that's now interviewing the pipe bomber, the alleged pipe bomber in that four-hour quote unquote confession with her, from what I understand, was not an attorney present and an FBI agent by the name of Hannack, who also tried to get some members of the Proud Boys and did get some members of the Proud Boys to commit perjury, according to them. That would be Jeremy Pertino. He said that these agents uh pretty much told him what to say. He committed perjury, and it was all because uh he was afraid he would go to jail for a very long time. So these are the same people that are handling this pipe bomb case right now, which obviously leads to a lot of people who really follow this to be suspicious of that confession, Emerald.

SPEAKER_28: 5:00

I was skeptical before I found this out. I had no idea that that Valentine was involved with that. Obviously, you and I have talked about her on this show before as it relates to those um, you know, allegedly false confessions. That's extreme.

SPEAKER_14: 5:15

If this had been like a legit Bulu boy or something like that, I could almost believe it. But the fact that even people on the left, like the Antifa folks, are like, listen, if somebody got away with planting a pipe bomb, they'd have been talking about how to get away with planting a pipe bomb for the last four years. Like there's zero chance Antifa knew this was, quote, one of their people. There's clearly no chance MAGA thought this was one of our people, but that's okay. He's just my little pony friend that hates the government and thinks Trump lost the election. So this is Enrique Antario telling the story about being asked to snitch on Trump in exchange for his freedom.

SPEAKER_16: 5:50

Before trial, they put me in a room, and we talked about this part. They put me in a room, they slid a piece of paper across a desk with a narrative on it. And they're like, if you sign this, you'll have a bail hearing next week, and we guarantee you you won't do a single day in prison.

SPEAKER_14: 6:13

Now, I know a lot of January Sixers who took this deal. Took the deal. I've sat with them over baloney sandwiches while they weeped and cried, grown men crying because they compromised all of their integrity and they compromised their name and they realized exactly what they had done as they awaited sentencing and the deal that they thought they cut didn't really come. But they threw Trump under the bus, they threw the people that were claiming there was election fraud under the bus, they threw the entire MAGA movement under the bus, thinking they would get a little bit of freedom. But their confessions, their plea deals were put on headlines, and then I'd watch them over a baloney sandwich in orange jumpsuits, weep and wail for having compromised themselves that way. This happens all the time. They stack charges on you, your defense attorney sits and tells you, Well, you got a 50-year sentence, and if you don't plead this, you know, 15 is a lot less than 50. I remember one man who swears up and down that he's completely innocent, still fighting his case 15 years into a 30-year sentence. But they were looking at life, and he's like, I'm absolutely innocent. And his defense attorney was like, Well, you know, one day you could wake up, get up, walk the track when you're 70, and then that day you could get let out, and you could actually have a life from 70 on. I mean, I know it doesn't sound like much, but it's something. Otherwise, you don't take the deal, almost guaranteed you die in prison. So he took the deal. You're leveraging life against years. You know what I mean? So, yeah, they do this all the time.

SPEAKER_16: 7:44

I looked at it, and basically what the document said was that the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, through the means of a third party, told me to uh storm the Capitol for the United States to stop the certification of the election.

SPEAKER_08: 8:08

May I stop you just for one second? Who's asking who's signing this paper and who's asking you to sign it?

SPEAKER_16: 8:14

Her name is Jocelyn Valentine, and she works for the Department of Justice. And she was the head of the Capitol Siege Division uh for the Department of Justice. She's the one that offered it. I said no. Um she told me to lie about the president in order to go home. And there is no doubt in my mind. There's no doubt. There's no doubt. Because at that time, Jack Smith hadn't been appointed yet. There's no doubt in my mind that one of the people that were working with Jack Smith to prosecute the president because it was a January 6th case. Uh she works with she definitely worked with Jack Smith. Um there's no doubt in my mind that Jocelyn Ballantyne work with Jack Smith to prosecute the president of the United States. Right? Because there's no there's no other person, there's no other person, right, that knows more about everything that happened at the Capitol than the head of the Capitol Siege division at the DOJ.

SPEAKER_08: 9:22

But but and and I presume you'll correct me if my assumption is wrong. Had you signed that, they would have used that, Ballantine would have used that to prosecute Trump.

SPEAKER_16: 9:32

Well, she would have given it to Jack Smith at that point. Uh Jack Smith, again, wasn't the timeline is that Jack Smith wasn't appointed until much later uh a couple months later. Actually, yeah, a couple months later. Um so but I'm 100% sure she would have been uh the person working there with it. Um she was the one that gave the offer. Um so the person that was gonna help Jack Smith put the president away, um Jocelyn Valentine still works for the DOJ.

SPEAKER_14: 10:04

I remember when I got my plea offer, and it was, you know, it wasn't early in the deal, but it was after the first summer, and I saw it and it was like, you know, 41 to 58 months, and I was like, no way. Like that's that's about where I ended reading. You know, that's like where I was like, I can't take this deal, I'll get a better deal. But it had uh, you know, it had statements on there that just weren't true. Like I chose to go to the Capitol and seize the siege the Capitol, and you know, because of my role, I hereby, you know, submit. It was like I couldn't, I couldn't do it. Julie Kelly posted this regarding some of the docs in the Proud Boys case, really get uh reading, rereading some of the docs in the Proud Boys case really gets my blood boiling. These guys had no chance given the conspiracy between the court and the DOJ to convict, which I completely believe was happening. Right. Uh here Jocelyn Ballantine told Judge Kelly, who quickly agreed in March 2023, that the accidental disclosure of FBI text revealing one agent had been instructed to delete evidence represented a classified exchange. And here it is, right here. She goes, uh, there is only one set of messages that I'm concerned, based on what I know, may implicate a classified equity. Well, you're putting these people on trial for life and limb, and there's a national security interest that outrage the weighs the rights of the individual. Now think about that for just a second. Our founding fathers would have been absolutely disgusted by this concept because everything they tried to do was preserve the right of the individual against the masses. So here you're saying the masses have a classified security interest. What could that classified security interest be? Well, turns out because they accidentally included the hidden folder that had these deleted messages, it was collusion and conspiracy against rights of American citizens. That was what they found. And she said, and the message from a special agent to special agent Nicole Miller about being directed to destroy, I believe, 338 evidence of evidence by her supervisor that could impact a classified equity. So I would ask that that not be a portion of the arguments. Everything else that has Council One has raised to us, does not. So yeah, we we gave them what we wanted them to use. Oopsies that they saw what we didn't want them to use. Yes, it should have created an instantaneous mistrial, but there's a classified equity there. Oh, and what is that classified equity? The evidence. The evidence, the collusion. Exactly. It is painful to watch this. Now, Donald Trump got asked about this. There are certain messaging things where we can read the tea leaves a little bit. And one of the things you can read the tea leaves with is how much is Donald Trump talking about it? Is he being asked about it, right? Now, the mainstream media is not asking any of these questions. They've had what, five or six days now? Well, finally, a Lindell TV reporter got a chance to ask Donald Trump specifically about this. And his answer to me raises some eyebrows.

SPEAKER_01: 12:57

I'm Kara from Lindell TV, Kara Cash Mill, but I'm not faking this, just so you know. And um, everybody's talking about the pipe bomber over the weekend, the suspect that was taken into custody. I reported on Biden's Kangaroo court for four years, and I this is an important question to me. Everyone knows that J6 was actually set you and your supporters up. So my question is what's your gut instinct about the new pipe bomber suspect taken into custody? Does your instinct tell you that he acted alone? And also, Mr. President, how do you feel about the lead prosecutor on the pipe bomber case? Jocelyn Valentine is the same prosecutor that allegedly asked the J6er to lie to freeing you for J6 when you did nothing wrong.

SPEAKER_05: 13:34

What are your telling us? Well, thank you. I I really appreciate that question. It's sort of a statement, and I appreciate it very much. Uh Jocelyn is being looked at. They all have to be looked at. What they're doing is so bad. This was a whole Democrat hoax. The whole thing was a Democrat hoax, and it's all being looked at. I appreciate that. But by who?

SPEAKER_14: 13:54

But by who? It's all being looked at, but by who? You're destroying a man's life right now. Brian Cole Jr. is having his life destroyed. His family can't sleep. They're in upheaval. They are they are crying themselves to dehydration. Okay. But don't worry, we're looking at it. Who? Who is looking at it? Who? Inspector generals? Military intelligence? A different department at the DOJ that's clearly underfunded under Ed Martin that's being investigated by Todd Blanchett's cronies? Who is looking at this?

SPEAKER_17: 14:29

The Space Force.

SPEAKER_14: 14:30

Oh, oh, oh, thank goodness. Who is looking at this? Sorry. Who's this higher, highest intelligence in the land that Steve Baker took his information to that they said, this is one of ours? So why is this woman still working at the DOJ? I thought she would have been a day one fire. We know people got fired. There were FBI agents who took a knee over George Floyd that got fired and are suing the FBI for back pay and pensions and blah, blah, blah. They took a knee and got fired. But somehow in all of this, the guy who raided Mar-Lago and was in charge of that raid ended up being the private pilot for Cash Patel for six months. And you've got the lead capital investigator that prosecuted thousands of J6ers and oversaw the Fed Sirection trials, is still involved as the lead prosecutor on the pipe bomb case.

SPEAKER_17: 15:27

And I know where you're going with this. It feels like the apparatus that we're trying to dismantle is just continuing to operate.

SPEAKER_14: 15:37

So have we done anything? I don't know. Like this is I I have not felt fear since I've been back. I felt fear this week. I'm like, these guys aren't done. They're still over there. They still have all the files. They haven't gotten rid of evidence. They haven't taken my name off the list. They're just in waiting. It honestly makes me feel trepid, like a lot of trepidation. Yeah because I'm like, you know, I want to go to J6 for J6, right? I want to go to DC for J6. And everybody in my world's like, you really shouldn't go. That's dangerous. I'm like, why? I'm not wanted. I'm not going to do anything. I had the same attitude five years ago.

SPEAKER_17: 16:16

Yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 16:16

You know what I mean? And I'm like, what's going on? Who's looking into this? This is Viva Fry saying the DOJ has now put itself in a really rough position here.

SPEAKER_08: 16:29

If what they're saying is true and no one believes it, it's a problem. If what they're saying, if they believe it, but it turns out not to be true, it's a problem. When you say, like, you know, maybe the Trump administration didn't know who this person was, maybe Janine Pierrot didn't know who this person was. They know now the problem. So if they don't do anything now, that's a problem. If they didn't know, that's a problem. If they did know, it's a problem. And some people are gonna raise the argument.

SPEAKER_14: 16:52

I gotta say here, look at this. Look at this photo here, this video that I've frozen with Dan Bongino, Cash Patel, Janine Shapiro Piro here. I couldn't be more disgusted. Yeah, these are heroes, these are people that should be heroes. I couldn't be more disgusted. This was a circle jerk of a news conference. They provided no information. Congratulations, we got the pipe bomber. We had the information all along, but now we're on it. You know, we've got this guy, you know, no more threat. This was a viable pipe bomb. People could have been hurt. They emphasize that. Okay, but you got Jocelyn Ballantyne on it. Like on its surface, it looks wrong. I can't believe that the My Little Pony fan is the guy that evaded the FBI for five years. So the next indictment should be some DOJ official for cover-up or FBI or CIA or some agency, somebody covered this up.

SPEAKER_17: 17:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 17:50

So, okay, this guy was directed to plant pipe palms. Great, put him in jail for 12 months. Don't go be a Patsy anymore. That's wrong. It is against the law to be a Patsy. Okay, I'm good with that.

SPEAKER_08: 18:01

But what's coming next? You know, they need bulldogs who are gonna go in there and really get that conviction. If you're getting that conviction through uh, I won't say brady violation, it might not be the right term, but through violating the rules of procedure that you don't results in hiding exculpatory evidence that results in an injustice that requires a pardon, if that's the type of bulldog prosecutor you need, you're screwing justice as well. And so there's no good reason for why this woman still had a job, how she ended up on this case, if they didn't know, it's a problem. If they did know, it's a problem. And going back to it, then you know, we're expected to believe that this autistic 30-year-old borderline semi-nonverbal with exceptionally short legs, who, according to friends and family, would never have done this, was a DoorDash driver. We don't know when, but I think that's going to come back to bite some butts at the end of this. Um, if we're to believe that he acted totally alone, but was buying materials upwards of two years earlier, and we don't have an explanation as to how he made the black powder at home, because there's no allegations that he bought sulfur, charcoal, whatever the heck else is needed for black powder, uh, you know what? It starts to smell a whole hell of a lot like what happened in the Gretchen Whitmer Fednapping plot, which we all acknowledge was a fed.

SPEAKER_14: 19:11

And the same FBI director of the division that was in charge of the Whitmer kidnapping plot around the time that this guy starts buying materials, got transferred to the DC office, and was in charge of the the lead up to January 6th.

SPEAKER_08: 19:27

Incredible. Incr-napping entrapment, at least for two of the defendants, where they find people who are mentally vulnerable.

SPEAKER_14: 19:36

Pony Boy says he was fueled by Capri Sons and Hot Pockets to duck the FBI this whole time. Exactly. It's incredulous.

SPEAKER_08: 19:44

Down on their luck, downtrodden, easy to manipulate, and they use them as their patsies to carry out uh uh or carry out a thwarted attack that they never would have gotten involved in but for the involvement of their agent handlers. You look at Massey's poll, 80% of the people believe he was either not alone with. Wolf or is innocent. And that's a problem. If in fact we are, you know, if he did in fact do it and he's a lone wolf, it's a problem. Nobody believes it. But I don't think people can be blamed for just not believing this wild 180 turn out of the middle of nowhere, uh, a lone, semi-verbal, autistic 30-year-old who was hated in the eye for five years, and but for looking at the evidence they already had, they you know he might have gotten away with it.

SPEAKER_14: 20:23

This makes Dan Bongino, Janine Pierrot, and Pam Bondi look very stupid. I mean, we're talking stupid at a level that it's like you should just resign. I thought you would be the heroes.

SPEAKER_17: 20:34

Uh it's it's uh it's it's foolish level stupid.

SPEAKER_14: 20:38

Here's my belief. Here's my belief. I believe that Dan Bongino was led. Dad, I'm sorry, I'm gonna swear, I don't even know if you're listening to something. I think he was led fed a crock of shit when he got into the DOJ. You've got these investigators, they're on it. We're looking, we've got new leads. You've already interviewed like a thousand people. Give me a break. Okay. And then all of a sudden, the Blaze story breaks with Steve Baker, finger gets pointed at a Capitol Hill police officer, and then we know, and it's been semi-denied, but also totally confirmed that they swapped out investigators for this J6 pipe bomb case. At some point, hey, you guys got to go put some new eyes on this. New eyes come on it three, four weeks later. We have an arrest. Brian Cole Jr. No new evidence was used to find him, no new tips. Everything was in the file previously. I think they let him a crock of shit. They brought somebody back in, picked up the file, they had this guy fingered, and they went ahead and executed on it and went and reported to Dan Bongino and Pierrot and Bondi. We got it, we figured it out, and now they're sitting here holding a flaming bag of shit. That's my belief. I believe they woke up and went, oh, Jocelyn was the Proud Boy prosecutor. And she's on the case. Well, yeah, of course. She's still in charge. Nobody removed her? Well, no, you guys were focused on the guys that kneeled down for George Floyd. You know, you missed the important people, like the guys who actually executed the Mar Lago raid or the lead prosecutor in the J6 cases. You know, you forgot those guys. Now they've also said, well, we let some of them stay on because they know where the bodies are buried, and we pinched them. We pinched them, and now they're they're singing and dancing and showing us where all the hidden burn bags are and stuff like that. But not so much. Oh, okay. Okay. So you've pinched her now. So she's gonna arrest the guy, destroy his life, drag him in front of a judge, put a criminal record on him, whether or not he's convicted or not, this is forever gonna live forever and ever and ever. Every Brian Cole Jr. for you know, do you go around and name your kids Adolf? You know, do you go around and name your kids John Wilkes Booth? No, okay, there's certain names that die. This is one of those names that could go down in history, is no one's gonna name their kid Brian Cole, right? You're destroying these people's lives to unravel something that you should have just come down on top of. Viva Freig posts this. He says, This is exact, there is exactly one and only one, and he is an attorney, one scenario in which Biden's FBI knew that Cole was the pipe bomber and didn't arrest him because he was working with being used by FBI, Capitol Police, andor other intelligence as a part-time Fed surrection. That is the only scenario in which Biden's FBI would not have arrested a man who we are being told planted the bombs because he didn't believe the results of the 2020 election.

SPEAKER_18: 23:37

Right.

SPEAKER_14: 23:38

Failing that scenario, he is a pure patsy andor has been falsely accused and charged.

SPEAKER_17: 23:44

Right. Can you imagine if this kid was a MAGA guy? Oh, geez.

SPEAKER_14: 23:48

They did not do gate analysis. This guy's got two short of legs, his body dimensions don't match. At the end of the day, when they get into court and they play these videos, they're gonna show who they say is the man walking in the gray sweats is not this man on the stand in front of you. His proportions, it's it's a black and white situation. It devies belief that they haven't considered this. And like Viva Fry said, he bought pipes and in caps, but did they recover any black powder? Do they have any sulfur or tannerite? Anything?

SPEAKER_17: 24:21

Is this gonna be one of those cases where the government's just gonna lie to our faces and we just have to eat the lie? Sure feels that way.

SPEAKER_14: 24:28

Now, there's also inconsistencies. He plants this pipe bomb 14 hours prior. It's got a one-hour egg timer on it with 20 minutes left when they find it, right? So the thing either isn't working or who knows what. Now, the person who found the pipe bomb happened to be affiliated with Capitol Hill Police. Okay, and this woman's been identified. Now, there's inconsistencies with her story as to when she saw the pipe bomb, reported the pipe bomb. She was doing laundry, very precise schedule that goes against the FBI narrative. So now you've got one of these, these are mutually exclusive. One both cannot be true. Well, Representative Louder Milk has called her in to testify when? On January 6th, conveniently the day that the five-year statute of limitations runs up.

SPEAKER_29: 25:09

We also have some major news to get to you regarding the DC pipe bomb investigation. Chairman Barry Laudermick of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that's investigating January 6th asked the witness who first discovered the pipe bomb outside the Republican National Committee to appear for a transcribed interview with the subcommittee uh later this month. The witness who uh later publicly identified herself as Karen Younger said she found the pipe bomb in an alleyway while doing laundry on the day of the Capitol riot. That's the news previously reported on that. And Younger's account conflicts with some of the FBI's timeline, which shows the bomb was planted the night before, despite alerting law enforcement to the bomb. The FBI also did not interview Younger until five days after the incident. Now that's the old FBI, the Chris Ray FBI.

SPEAKER_14: 25:53

That's the old FBI, the one that didn't hire corrupt prosecutors or investigators. Yeah, that's the old FBI.

SPEAKER_29: 26:00

Right. FBI, but we're gonna be uh covering that. Uh the Congress has wanted to talk to this woman for some time. They're escalating the pressure. We're gonna keep you up to speed on that. Now, we also have some major news to get you.

SPEAKER_14: 26:11

Not a lot of faith in that. Now, Julie Kelly's working theory of the case was the pipe bomb was planted on January 6th in the morning, not on January 5th, and that the January 5th thing was kind of a ruse that whoever that is walking in the backpack, we don't actually have the image of that person planting the pipe bomb. Okay.

SPEAKER_17: 26:28

Suspicious at best. Now, yeah, I mean it wasn't it doesn't look like the guy was out for exercise. No, clearly not.

SPEAKER_14: 26:36

Clearly not. You know what's gonna be funny? Well, you know, he's a DoorDash driver, and people are like, has anybody grabbed the DoorDash receipts?

SPEAKER_15: 26:44

Right.

SPEAKER_14: 26:45

Because during this time, the only time he ever went down to DC was for DoorDash, and it's not that late at night, 7-8 p.m. So it's very reasonable he made a delivery DoorDash. I mean, how great of an alibi would that be? A ring doorbell camera of him being like, Here you go. All right, here's my little pony script to go with it.

SPEAKER_17: 27:01

You know, you've been reviewing it for me. Hold on. But wait, what if he turns around and he's walking away and he's got a big pipe bomb sticking out of his back pocket?

SPEAKER_14: 27:08

Back pocket, guilty as charged. It defies belief. Now, when when you have a corrupt bureaucrat or you have a corrupt officer of the law, someone who's taking an oath, who who do you turn them into? Ron, do you know the process? If you have suspicions, something's a little shady. Do you know who takes care of it? Who polices the police?

SPEAKER_17: 27:28

Well, we're gonna talk to my bishop.

SPEAKER_14: 27:31

I talk to my priest. Who polices the police? Um inside the government. No, no, no, no. Every branch of government has what's called the inspector general. Okay, these are the police of the police, the IG, right? In in uh new and law and order, they call it internal affairs. So you got an internal affairs investigation. Those are the cops investigating the cops, okay? So every department has an IG. This is where we get things like the Horowitz report, and we get the uh, let's see, um, no, Durham served as a special prosecutor, but you have internal invest, you know, internal investigators that are supposed to go after corrupt cops and look for things like violation of civil rights and stuff like that. And throughout the government, there's between like 40 to 80 of these IGs, and they play musical chairs. They go from one department to another. And Laura Logan had on Dr. Timothy Schindelar, who's like got multiple PhDs, and he represents government whistleblowers as well as private citizens like myself who make claims against the government that should be investigated. Okay. And he represents somewhere between seven and eight hundred of these people. And he has figured out exactly how the deep state runs its continuity scheme, how it self-enforces, how we end up with Valentine never ever being critically looked at. It's because of the IGs. So this is a snippet from this podcast where they talk about this is the deep state. This is what has to be dismantled in order to fix government corruption. You have to fix the investigators of the corruption.

SPEAKER_31: 28:59

So when people talk about the deep state, in a sense, this is the command and control of a major part of the deep state.

SPEAKER_13: 29:06

No, it is the command and control of the deep state. Congress said we want uh comprehensive oversight on both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we want to plan for oversight. And we're going to delegate this directly to the chair of the CIGI.

SPEAKER_31: 29:24

I see. So you already worked for the chair of the SIGI.

SPEAKER_14: 29:27

Well, this is the interesting council, just so you know, because he's going to say this, it's the Council of the Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency. So it's called SIGI. It's the board of all the inspector generals that that collaborate together.

SPEAKER_13: 29:40

Who worked for the chair of the CIGI. Well, this is the interesting piece. He in turn delegates it down to the IG at the DOD.

SPEAKER_31: 29:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_13: 29:50

And I'm working for him.

SPEAKER_31: 29:52

Yeah. So you're working directly for the Inspector General at DOD.

SPEAKER_13: 29:56

But for the Siggy, actually.

SPEAKER_31: 29:59

But in effect, you bet. You really were working for the the the SIGI. You bet. And who at the CG?

SPEAKER_13: 30:05

Michael E. Horowitz.

SPEAKER_31: 30:06

Oh. Wow. Come on. Horowitz? Yes. One of the worst. Yes. One of the absolute worst. Horowitz of Russia collusion fame.

SPEAKER_13: 30:17

Yes.

SPEAKER_31: 30:18

Who now is at uh is not out of the government, who now is at the Federal Reserve.

SPEAKER_13: 30:23

Right.

SPEAKER_31: 30:24

Waiting. Waiting to come back.

SPEAKER_13: 30:26

Right. I'm glad he's there looking into Lisa Cook's fraudulent mortgages. Still probably providing emeritus status on the SIGI.

SPEAKER_31: 30:35

What was his position officially at the DOJ?

SPEAKER_13: 30:37

He was the DOJ IG.

SPEAKER_31: 30:39

He was the Inspector General at DOJ.

SPEAKER_13: 30:41

And he was he replaced Glenn Fine, who went to DOD.

SPEAKER_31: 30:45

Wow, it's a really nice tight rotating of the same people.

SPEAKER_13: 30:48

And his deputy then went on to become the DOD IG. And his deputy was spent 30 years over in the U.S. Attorney's Office District of Columbia.

SPEAKER_31: 31:00

They really have it all sewn up done there.

SPEAKER_13: 31:02

The uh assistant FBI Director for Integrity and Ethics work for Glen Fine and runs the DO runs the FBI. Yes. Think of the CIGI as an integrated command and control center.

SPEAKER_31: 31:14

So the buck stops are with them.

SPEAKER_13: 31:16

Yes.

SPEAKER_31: 31:17

Because every complaint that is made in any agency whatsoever goes to the Inspector General. And from those IGs report to the CIGI.

SPEAKER_13: 31:28

Yes.

SPEAKER_31: 31:28

And it dies.

SPEAKER_13: 31:29

And are investigated by the CIGI.

SPEAKER_31: 31:31

And are investigated by the CIGI and it all dies.

SPEAKER_13: 31:38

If it's against the members of the SIGI.

SPEAKER_31: 31:41

Unless it's in their interest to prosecute it.

SPEAKER_13: 31:44

Yes. Politically, yes.

SPEAKER_31: 31:46

So when people talk about the deep state, in a sense, this is the command and control of a major part of the deep state.

SPEAKER_13: 31:54

No, it is. Okay. The command and control of the deep state.

SPEAKER_31: 31:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_17: 32:00

Okay. Wow. Are we getting somewhere? What do you mean? I mean, that feels like a legit path that we need to be checking out.

SPEAKER_14: 32:11

Oh, yeah, going after the IGs. One of the things Donald Trump presented when he was elected, right? And he came out with all those little videos. One of the things was they have to separate the IGs from the departments that they oversee. Physically separate them out of the building. You cannot have an office in the building and go to lunch with the people that you might eventually be investigating. Because that is where the conspiracy and the collusion happens, is over coffee at Starbucks, not in the boardroom. That's taking meeting basically start.

SPEAKER_17: 32:39

Huh? That's the most basic start. Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 32:43

Yeah. And these guys should get man hours rewards for locking up bureaucrats. Although what they end up doing is they just prosecute one side. This is how you call the herd. Oh, whistleblower complaint. Someone's complaining that uh uh Obama is dropping drones. Drill that guy down to the wall, you know, destroy his life.

SPEAKER_17: 33:01

This is the same effect as having a um a mandate in your state for vaccination. Or you lose your employment.

SPEAKER_14: 33:10

Yeah, you lose everything. Right? So let's finish this clip here.

SPEAKER_13: 33:14

All right. It's in every bureau, every board, every agency, and every commission. One person. 2.3 million people in the executive branch. I only need about 40 people to run the whole show. As long as you ensure that no one can FOIA my records, as long as everything I do is law enforcement sensitive, and as long as anybody that is a whistleblower can get collective punishment.

SPEAKER_31: 33:37

Which is what you have seen with over 700 documented cases of people who've been retaliated against.

SPEAKER_13: 33:44

We see it every day.

SPEAKER_14: 33:45

That's what we're up against. It's the IGs.

SPEAKER_17: 33:48

Makes you want to be a whistleblower.

SPEAKER_14: 33:51

Makes me want to run a podcast criticizing them. Oh man. You know, you wake up in this situation and you're like, so it should have been the IGs that should have gone after Jocelyn Ballantyne. It should have been the IGs that went after the Capital Siege group. It should have been the IGs that went after Jack Smith and conspiracy against rights. But for four to five years, they're just sitting on their hands. Doing very little. Even something like RussiaGate, where Horowitz does this report, and you know, I mean, it's pretty difficult when you're asked to actually publicly report on like the largest crime in world history, and you're like, well, nobody who touched this has clean hands. Do you recommend uh any criminal prosecutions? That's in my annex, which is in a burn bag in DOJ. Like it doesn't exist. We reference the annex, we tell you that's where the criminal referrals are, but then we put it in a burn bag and deleted the only digital copy. Like they did that, they did that. That happened. That actually happened.

unknown: 34:49

Okay.

SPEAKER_14: 34:51

And we get the annex, and we're like, oh, this is where they mapped out the game plan so future people wouldn't repeat these mistakes. Hey, it's probably not a good idea to actually change an email from the CIA. Give them a call ahead of time and tell them not to write.

SPEAKER_17: 35:04

So should we just end the show or what should we do next? I know, right?

SPEAKER_14: 35:12

Well, fortunately, we can always bank on a little bit of incompetence and people wanting to protect themselves. So, for example, Merrick Garland, who could have really accelerated all the prosecutions against Trump and others, kind of was slow walking it because he did want to dot his eyes and cross his T's. He was pretty methodical, and Adam Schiff's a little pissed about it.

SPEAKER_07: 35:30

Why did Merrick Garland move so slowly? What about his character or tactics or strategy led him to behave that way?

SPEAKER_10: 35:40

The Justice Department in the first Trump was uh abused and made partisan.

SPEAKER_14: 35:49

Uh and he I always think I always just want to go like go to Obama. Like when you say Trump term one, you mean Obama. And when you say what Trump's doing term two, you mean Biden. Like it's his perfect projection.

SPEAKER_10: 36:01

To restore the department's reputation for independence. Now, what they did in the first Trump Justice Department as peanuts compared to today. But nevertheless, uh Merrick Arland wanted to restore the reputation of the department for stretch.

SPEAKER_14: 36:13

That's his way of saying you think what Obama did was bad. You should have seen what Biden did.

SPEAKER_10: 36:17

Nonpartisanship. And that made him very reluctant to pursue an investigation of the president. Too reluctant. Ultimately, that gave the Supreme Court the time it needed to drag things out further and make the case against Trump go away completely when it could have been brought to fruition. And we might be in a very different place today, higher ups.

SPEAKER_17: 36:39

Why did Merrick Garland move so Can you imagine if that was your father-in-law?

SPEAKER_14: 36:47

Oh my gosh. I'd wear a t-shirt, punch a Nazi. I'd do that guy. Yeah, I am wearing my y'all crazy shirt, because really y'all crazy for thinking this stuff is right. So Merrick Garland trying to protect himself. Now, one of the things he was trying to do was establish the DOJ as an independent agency that didn't look like it was getting White House pressure and whatnot. Clearly not the case because they were over there talking at the White House all the time, right? But that was the idea. They want this independent fourth branch of government that's not accountable to the people. Keep that in mind because when we get over to the private chat, we're going to be hearing from the Supreme Court justices yesterday about just that. Is the executive, is the president, is all executive power vested in the person of the president and delegated? Can he hire and fire people at will? This is up to a question. And uh this is what the Democrats want a fourth branch of government. Literally, they want to rewrite the constitution in real time and create a fourth constitutional branch of government that has constitutional protections, even though it's not included in the constitution. They're really trying to do it.

SPEAKER_18: 37:48

Okay.

SPEAKER_14: 37:49

And they've been trying to do it since Nixon. That was the whole thing with taking out Nixon because he was trying to, you know, well, let's cover the. And they are seeing something in the polling, right? I mean, these are conservative polsters, People's Pundit, Rasmussen. They're seeing stuff in the polling that's, you know, pretty scary for the midterms. But then on the other hand, you've got cleaning up election rolls, you've got getting, you know, the investigation into Act Blue, I think is probably going to prevent ACT Blue from doing very much significant fundraising this next campaign cycle. Obviously, the Democrats are actually borrowing money as a DNC, whereas the Republicans, last count I heard what from Jim Walsh, the Washington State GOP chairman, he said the RNC has like 86 million in the bank. DNC had 15 million. And a couple weeks after that, it was reported they had to go take out a loan.

SPEAKER_17: 38:43

Boom.

SPEAKER_14: 38:44

Right. So what's going on? I don't know. Now, one thing I have noticed about Donald Trump is he doesn't mind his haters. Hate is gonna hate. You know, Adam Schiff's gonna be Adam Schiff and Biden's gonna be Biden, and it's not a big deal. If you're on the left and you throw shade at Trump, he'll throw a little shade back. But you know, it's it's fair. But if you're a Trump loyalist, if you're a Trump ally and you turn on Trump, oh, he eviscerates you. That's what he's doing to Marjorie Taylor Green.

SPEAKER_05: 39:12

Trader Green. Or some people call her Taylor Green, some people call her Taylor Brown. Because green sometimes turns to brown, which is a news. But I've watched her say that he spends too much time on foreign.

SPEAKER_14: 39:28

Well, by doing that, and first of all I mentioned this yesterday. Someone close to me said, Well, I wish Trump wasn't spending so much time foreign. And I'm like, that's a talking point. All a lot of your problems have foreign foreign things. Like, you know, affordability, that's a foreign policy problem. You know, national security, that's a foreign policy problem. Uh the military being used, your blood and treasure being spent overseas, that's a foreign policy problem. Free speech being eroded, most of that starts overseas, right? So yeah, you gotta go fix some overseas problems before you can address some of the domestic stuff. Take a lot of time. And there's definitely no allegation that he hasn't been addressing some domestic things.

SPEAKER_05: 40:05

I made one trip. I brought back trillions of dollars on that one trip. I stopped in Japan. I stopped in South Korea. I met with President Xi and then. You went to the Middle East.

SPEAKER_21: 40:15

I was on that trip with you.

SPEAKER_05: 40:16

I went to the Middle East. I brought back uh three trillion dollars from the Middle East. I sold many Boeing airplanes on that trip, like 300. Uh when I go on a trip, I only have one place in mind. It's the United States. So when you know, people with low IQs like Marjorie Taylor Green, she's a low IQ person. When she says it's too but she was a loyal person until I wasn't able to answer her phone calls because I'm just too busy to answer people's phone calls. You can't call me three times a day. And it's just, you know, not appropriate when I have, you know, over 200 congressmen, 53 senators, 212 countries. You know, all of these people are calling, and a family. Actually, the family stuff. It's just harder for me to call back the family. Um, but when you think of what I've done, remember uh rare earth and the problem with magnets and all of these things that was gonna shut down the whole world. I worked it out with President Xi. We have a good relationship. I worked it out with President She, very favorable to the United States.

SPEAKER_21: 41:17

It does come back to the economy. Wait a minute, wait a minute.

SPEAKER_05: 41:20

You made a statement though that I devote too much time to outside of the United States. Uh I've made a fortune for the United States by focusing on the United States.

SPEAKER_22: 41:28

And to be clear, that's not my statement. That's just what some some of your supporters and some others have said.

SPEAKER_05: 41:33

Well, then, you know, I can't imagine their supporters because I made a fortune and spent very little time. All of my time is spent here. Most of my time is spent here.

SPEAKER_14: 41:45

I think it's I think it's a bogus allegation. Now, Marjorie Taylor Green is a powerhouse of a politician, and she's a populist if there ever was one. And she's from a rural county in Georgia. There's a speech where she goes into one of the rural, I'm pretty sure it's one of the counties that she's uh a representative over. And there's like, you know, 38,000 people in the whole county, and some big private equity firm came in there and did some big nasty thing and polluted and took jobs and blah, blah, blah. And she's at a town hall meeting just ripping these people apart. I love it. I'm like, more of that. You got my vote, right? But again, you got politics is politics. You got to deal with what you got to deal with. You can't go target one private equity firm, you got to target them all, right? So Trump is focused on targeting them all by cutting out their funding, by taking away their tax advantages, et cetera, et cetera, while at the same time balancing the equities because private equity does move capital. And sometimes when you need a business idea, you need capital, right? So it's balancing that. You can't just strike it all out and then make the buses free. You got to somehow keep them and make the buses free. You gotta do them both. Now, Ilan Omar up in Minnesota is the hole is getting deeper and deeper and deeper. We'll see if anything happens. This is another one of those examples. She clearly married her brother to commit immigration fraud. Clearly married her brother. Her father didn't qualify for them to come over. Like the things that she did are bad, right? Talk about take advantage of the loopholes in the system and no checks, bad. And now she's an elected representative. We know for a fact from undercunder footage that she had Somalis gathering ballots and paying$200 a ballot. In my opinion, the Somalis bought a seat. Okay. Now, turns out a lot of these people that donated her campaign and supported her, they've been indicted. They're in trouble.

SPEAKER_23: 43:36

Well, now investigators are tracking the web of fraud to other Minnesota Democrats, such as Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Many of the suspects linked to the scheme live in her district, including a restaurant owner who hosted events for her. He has since been convicted of stealing$12 million in COVID funds.

SPEAKER_14: 43:56

Well, now investigators are tracking the web of fraud to a million dollars, and a lot of it ties right back to her campaign coffers. Now she came into office eight years ago. She was worth$65,000. She's now worth upwards of$30 million. Woo! Ragster riches. Yeah. Now Marjorie Taylor Green did a similar thing. She came into office worth, you know, around a million. She's now worth about that$30 million mark. Wow. So she's engaged in some of this quote unquote insider trading or something. I mean, I know I don't have a full-time job and get offered the most profitable deals of my lifetime.

SPEAKER_17: 44:33

How long was uh Marjorie Taylor Green involved in politics? I mean, she got elected in 2020, so five years. Wow.

unknown: 44:40

Jeez.

SPEAKER_17: 44:41

Yeah, I know, right? Wrong point. Maybe I could do five years. A sentence. Seriously.

SPEAKER_14: 44:48

I'll do two. I'll take half. Because the stocks will still increase. No, it's stunning. I mean, it's stunning. You know, you put her on a 30, 40-year trajectory and she's looking like like Nancy Pelosi.

SPEAKER_00: 45:00

Wow.

SPEAKER_14: 45:00

It just never stops, right? And that's legion. Like there's really only a handful of members of Congress that don't engage in this behavior. Um, this political reporter asked Donald Trump about Venezuela. Are we are we gonna bomb Venezuela?

SPEAKER_22: 45:13

Can you rule out an American ground invasion?

SPEAKER_05: 45:17

I don't want to rule in or out. I don't talk about it. Why would I talk to you, an extremely unfriendly publication, if you want to call it politico, that got$8 million from Obama to keep it afloat? Why would I do that? Why would I talk about that too, Politico? I mean, I'm doing this because you picked me as a man.

SPEAKER_21: 45:35

I'm just for transparency for their American people because a lot of folks are wondering.

SPEAKER_05: 45:41

I am the most transparent politician, maybe in the world.

SPEAKER_22: 45:45

A lot of folks are wondering what our goals are.

SPEAKER_05: 45:48

Sure, but I don't want to I don't want to talk to you about military strategy.

SPEAKER_22: 45:51

Well, may I ask then? Can you rule out Carlitz?

SPEAKER_14: 45:54

I hope you have fun in Puerto Rico. Good good luck on good luck on that trip. Uh Carlimpa. I believe MCG inherited her father's construction company. Yes, she did. She took over her father's construction company. Um, and I think it provides relevant experience. Like, I don't want to degrade anybody in the trades or in construction. It's an honorable profession. You have to make something to get paid, you know.

SPEAKER_17: 46:17

I think it's pretty funny how um somebody like Marjorie Taylor Green could go from just like, you know, here to zero in Trump's world, like in you know, two minutes.

SPEAKER_14: 46:28

Scott Adams talks about this. Trump, this is part of his persona, right? When when he's you're on his side and you're praiseworthy, he gives you the highest maximum possible reward. Endorsements, praise, shout-outs, whatever. Even if you've been a previous enemy. But the but when you turn on him, he goes max punishment, the work, you know, the max. So that makes the cost, you know, it's not like you can speak against him, steal a little political capital, and you know what I mean? Like, no, he'll come out hard and and make it make you, you know, make you really spend your political capital. He ran Marjorie Taylor Green out of office.

SPEAKER_17: 47:05

He is the currency.

SPEAKER_14: 47:07

He is the currency, right? He ran Tom Tillis out of office. Like they have no viable re-election opportunity in their districts and in Tills Estate and his state without a Trump endorsement, or at least without a Trump uh unendorsement, right? That is a huge deal. Now, RFK told us something yesterday that many of us have always known. Pray the Rosary Daylor says, Why do reporters become combative with Trump? Because they're trying to make a name for themselves. It's that simple. It's that simple. Um, Robert Kennedy Jr. here said something that we've all kind of known. For those of us that are health conscious parents, did you know breastfeeding is better than formula?

SPEAKER_17: 47:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 47:47

All the ingenuity of corporate America, all the resources, all the resourcefulness does not produce an infant formula that is superior in nutrition and all the qualities that we want to the infant formula that God made, which is the infant formula in a mother's breast. We at HHS are encouraging mothers to breastfeed as long as possible because there is no better food for your brain or your gut microbiome or your physical growth or your emotional growth than what's in God-given breast milk.

SPEAKER_14: 48:27

Do you know how significant of a statement this is? Seems obvious to us, right? Seems obvious. Did you know that the poor in America breastfeed less than the wealthy? Like by by like a 70-80% margin. Really? The official position of the CDC and the FDA was breast milk or a formula is as healthy or more healthy than breast milk. In fact, the official policy of the United States around the world is we have sanctioned and we have economically punished countries who have encouraged mothers to do breast milk. There's a big famous story of this down in South America. I want to say it was like Columbia. They tried to encourage nursing mothers to breastfeed. It was healthier. And the United States came in and sanctioned them and made them change it to say that formula was good. Why? Because the formula manufacturers are American-based.

SPEAKER_17: 49:18

Well, of course.

SPEAKER_14: 49:19

Otherwise, this whole thing sounds so stupid. I'm being said serious about this. Trump's first term, the the modus operandi was the business of America is business. And that's still Trump's modus operandi. But the Maha movement has come in and said, yeah, unless the business of America is killing people, right? Or making them unhealthy. This is a huge shift. Like this will be fought by lobby firms because formula, it's like cigarettes, it's like so many things, you need it. Right. It's like diapers. It's like when you got kids, you got three, four years, you're buying diapers.

SPEAKER_17: 49:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 49:51

Right. If you've got kids, you've got three or four years, you're buying formula. You're a steady client. So that has been the business. So this is a big deal that they're saying this.

SPEAKER_17: 50:00

Like man, if if it if at all possible, breastfeed, breast milk is the way to go. If you, I mean, if you have to use formula, that you have to, but that's a have to.

SPEAKER_14: 50:12

There have been campaigns, there have been laws at the local level passed about mothers breastfeeding in public places to discourage it. All of this paid for by the lobbying companies for formula. I'm being very real. Oh, I believe you 100%. And the whole change in this goes right along with um uh insurance paying for it, right? Like circumcision being paid for by insurance. All of a sudden, America circumcises its kids. We're the only country in the world that does that. You know, us in Israel are the only country, and they don't even do it the same way our surgeons do it. Like we get like these full-on circumcision circumcisions, they get these little nippy-nips. Like totally different. Okay. Why? Because insurance was paying for it. There's no real medical reason. Why do we give every newborn a vitamin or a uh um hepatitis B inoculation? Why? Because it's good for money, it's not because they need it. Why do we give every kid insurance or formula at the hospital? Because it gets paid for by Medicaid, chip, snap, all these different things. It's subsidized.

SPEAKER_17: 51:08

That's so sickening.

SPEAKER_14: 51:10

But you know what's not subsidized? Mother's milk. Ah, right? The time to stay home with the kids, the policies that allow mothers to nurse babies and things like that.

SPEAKER_17: 51:20

Sounds like Ivermectin issue.

SPEAKER_14: 51:21

Yeah. Now there's another bigger issue that is that hit us recently in 2020, which is one of the main reasons why we started the show, and that was the COVID vaccines and all the COVID and the stuff they threw down at us. Now, slowly over time, over the last five years, more and more has been revealed about the vaccines and these studies. And now that now that RFK is at um NIH, or I guess he's uh Health and Human Services, HHS, which is overall of it, right? They have uncovered these studies that were done in the lead up to these mandates. And guess what? They knew, they knew that the MMR vaccines caused myocarditis in youth. They knew it caused instant death. This is Ron Johnson railing on this back.

SPEAKER_32: 52:02

He's got now over eight million pages of information. Just in the first tranche, by the way, what we discovered is that CD, somebody in the Federal Health Agency, this is interagency communication, hid the signal. They admitted there was a signal on myocitis and they hit it. They didn't warn the public, they didn't warn doctors. So that's just one instance of corruption and lies told by the CDC. We're we've got a lot of others we'll be uh rolling out, okay? So we held our first hearing in terms of a subcommittee investigation on that hiding of the signal of myocarditis. Uh we've heard a lot of studies, okay? As I've looked into science, it's been thoroughly corrupt. Uh here's data, and I'd like to enter this sheet into the record. I've been publishing this chart for you know since really early 2021, uh, when I'm on, for example, talk radio shows and they talk about this, they get deplatformed or they were, you know, because of all the censorship from the Biden administration. Here's the facts. The Vayor system that was touted in October of 2020, this great safety surveillance system on COVID. A few months later, when they didn't like the results, they started dengrading their own system. But Vayors shows that there have been 38,742 deaths reported on Veyers worldwide associated with COVID vaccine.

SPEAKER_14: 53:28

Which they say Vayors is the 1% reporting. Okay, when there's a when there's something that happens with this, only 1% of cases actually make it to reporting because it's voluntary reporting. So 38,000 times 10, right, is gonna or times 100 3.8 million deaths, which is about where the numbers are that we think happened in the United States. 8,742.

SPEAKER_32: 53:51

9,252 of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination within one or two days.

SPEAKER_14: 54:00

Yeah, so you know, and they hid that from us. They hid that from us, and then they went a step further and they got all the places that the public, the unlearned, the unwise, the foolish, right, the people that don't pay attention, literally, that's the definition of the public. Okay. The public got indoctrinated with you need to go get your vaccine, you need to do this. Meanwhile, they're actually hiding the negative results, making it seem like everybody's doing it. It's totally safe. And they enlisted sports teams and stuff like that.

SPEAKER_11: 54:34

That uh the uh so-called Biden administration is called the, I believe it was called the COVID vaccine core, which dispersed billions of dollars to various recipients. The major sports leagues, the NFL, I think Major League Baseball, they received just an outright bribe. I don't see how else you can characterize this. It's just Uncle Sam is going to give you a bunch of dough, and you're going to basically force this on your league. And there's a reason for that that we will get into. But also the mainline episcopal mainline episcopal Protestant Evangelical churches, Roman Catholic churches, all of their clergy receives money to I don't know how else to put it, push the vaccine. And there were very few um pastors or or priests or rectors uh uh what was it in the Episcopal Church who refuse.

SPEAKER_09: 55:43

And you know, but how how I mean that right there strikes me as a as a violation, well, of the First Amendment, which prohibits state religion, but also of their their duties as Christian leaders. You can't take money from the government to push something like that. I mean, I don't understand. Are these people still in leadership? It was only five years ago.

SPEAKER_14: 56:03

And you might be thinking, well, my church didn't take money. If your church shut down and they applied for PPE relief, they did. Part of the terms of applying for that relief was that your church was shut down. And guess what? You made more money on those PPE forgivable loans, quote unquote, than you probably did in the collection plate. This happened. Yep. Our government covered up a shot that had negative effects and not a few, and then paid sports teams and churches to encourage you to take it.

SPEAKER_17: 56:35

And it and the cover was working pretty good until soccer players started peeling over.

SPEAKER_14: 56:41

Which, you know, there's a whole bunch of well, maybe that wasn't really happening. Well, I haven't seen highlight reel since. You know, there's a highlight reel that went out with the Died Suddenly um documentary, and unfortunately, they used one clip of someone who died pre-clove COVID on the field that collapsed, and that debunked their whole documentary. Oh, geez. Because someone could point to the one clip that was in the trailer and were like, oh well, this didn't happen, right? This isn't COVID related, this is something totally different. Yeah, people, yes, yes, people die unexpectedly on playing fields a couple times a year. It happens, yeah. But it didn't happen like it did in 2021 and 2022. That was like, whoa.

SPEAKER_17: 57:23

There was a couple of months there where they were just peeling over.

SPEAKER_14: 57:27

Yeah, I in fact, the clip of the comedian that was like, Oh, these people think the vaccine is like the mark of the beast.

SPEAKER_17: 57:36

Yeah, and then she fell over.

SPEAKER_14: 57:38

She's like, God will strike me down.

SPEAKER_17: 57:42

And they all thought that everybody in the audience thought it was part of the bit. Because it was so scripted, yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 57:47

But it literally happened. She had an aneurysm right there on stage, which by the way was listed as one of the potential results, right? One of the things I love about the Trump administration is he's willing to say whatever he has to say, right? He's just gonna say it. I don't like Marjorie Taylor Green. Some call her Marjorie Taylor Brown because you know, grass turns brown when it's when it dies or whatever, right? Um, you know, uh Rosie O'Donnell's fat. We're not we're gonna revoke your citizenship because you're too fat, Rosie. You know, he says whatever he wants. And one of the things that's happening amongst the Gen Alpha, Gen Z crowd, I don't even know which one's which, right? Gen, what is it called? Millennials, Gen Z, Gen Alpha.

SPEAKER_17: 58:26

Uh, who cares?

SPEAKER_14: 58:27

Um, that crowd is very much into this. They're into the, you know, internet flamethrowing, they're into just saying whatever, they're a little bit unscripted. JD Vance is kind of personifying this. He and I are the same age. So I think he sees the world like I do. You've got two sides. You've got everyone who's older experienced one world, and everyone who's younger has experienced a different. And we kind of like straddle the line. We graduated high school without social media, and by the time we got through college, social media was ubiquitous, right? So in that transition period, the world changed. We used to go on the internet looking for cheat codes. Now advertisers bring them to us. You know what I mean? Totally different. So one of the things JD Vance uh said this week, which I think is like the quiet part out loud, it's the thing that many of us have thought many, many times, like thousands of times throughout our life. But those of us that are at least my age and older, we've been conditioned. Do not say these things. These are things your your scary uncle says.

SPEAKER_06: 59:26

You know what it is? Immigrants should speak English. Who's out of the house, is actually evicted from the house because there are people who are gonna pay more for rent. And then what happens is 20 people move into a three-bedroom house. 20 people from a totally different culture, totally different ways of interacting. Again, we can respect their dignity while also being angry at the Biden administration for letting that situation happen and recognizing that their next door neighbor is going to say, Well, wait a second, what is going on here? I don't know these people. They don't speak the same language that I do. And because there are 20, In the house next door, it's a little bit rowtier than it was when there was just a family of four, a family of five. It is totally reasonable and acceptable for American citizens to look at their next door neighbors and say, I want to live next to people who I have something in common with. I don't want to live next to four families of strangers.

SPEAKER_14: 1:00:19

And the fact that we had the quiet part out loud, the thing we've wanted to say our whole lives, but we're like, don't say that, it'll be a bigot. That's the conclusion. How many people have you talked to that have talked about public recreation areas that have been taken over by Hispanics or Indians if you're around this area? You go to like some certain recreation areas over in Seattle, and it's like you could just smell curry, you know. Uh, you go to Utah and you go up to like strawberry reservoir or something, it's just nothing but Hispanics. One of the things I this happened summer before I went to prison. I went to northern Idaho to uh to a lake, and it was all white people. Like I it was awkward. It was so white, it was awkward. It was like sitting in the white section in prison. You know, it was like everybody's white, you know. And then all of a sudden, this black family walked in, and we're talking black, black family, like dark black family.

SPEAKER_04: 1:01:10

All right.

SPEAKER_14: 1:01:10

Walked, I mean, it stuck out like a sort of thumb. I walked by him and they're speaking a different language, they're tourists. Okay, but that is reasonable for people to think. Now, Nick Fuentes, who's a young influencer, is one of these guys that says a lot of stuff that's like, well, I like what he says, but I don't like how we got there. This was from Data Republican Smallar, and uh she was talking to someone who's been infiltrating the Gropers. Who are the Gropers? These are the Nick Fuentes followers. Okay, this is like young Gen Z, Gen Alpha, the online crowd, right? They do their protesting online. And he says this, which is act uh, so this guy's been infiltrating this group, which is actually insightful. This is what he had to say. Also important to note that presence of foreign amplification doesn't mean he doesn't have a big genuine fan base. Short form explanation. So one of the other things that happened too is when Nick Fuentis makes a comment, the pile on connotation is uh accelerated. And we now know where those accounts are coming from. A lot of them are coming from overseas. So either he or somebody that supports him is paying for overseas accounts to amplify his posts and make his stuff get traction. First, he is one of the most misquoted, taken out of context people I have ever seen in any media. That is true. He is the polar extreme in the opposite direction from cancel culture, and he's also an actual product of the censorship machine. Without censorship and deplatforming of him literally everywhere, he may not have ended up so extreme. He's essentially been entirely alone in building an audience on Rumble for years. Even before Rumble existed, he was thrown off everything and still kept going. The result is some of the most polarized and siloed people on the internet. That's true. His followers had to go to obscure streaming platforms to listen to him. They became very dedicated and very siloed because on those streaming platforms there was no counter-advertising or counter-narrative, right? He's a uh their ideas were never properly challenged, never given true push-about because no one saw them or even acknowledged his existence. Now that he has turned into the mainstream, he spent the last 10 years honing his message into something that's translatable to a mass media audience. I'll tell you the problem. He's extremely good. He points his points are actually true. Like not wanting to live next to 20 foreigners who don't speak your language. The problem is he arrives at them, the way is he arrives at them, the problem is he arrives at them are rooted in the wrong direction, just bad sentence, in the wrong direction. That is where you actually see the anti-Semitism. Instead of saying the USA, after the Cold War needed to control the Middle East, and we figured out how to do it by working with certain countries and destroying others. Whether or not that was a good decision or not, that was still the decision of the American government and ultimately American citizens as it is our country, and we are responsible for our own government. Nick's read is the Israelis and the Jews of the world have conspired to control America, the uh the American government so that it can dominate the Middle East. Basically, that's his JQ question summed up. Now the deal is I refuse to believe after watching him to do that for some time that he is stupid enough to think that it's true. He doesn't care which side wins, so long as it leads to the ultimate goal, which is a rise of a Caesar type figure. That is something that Nick Fuentes, when you listen to him, um, and unfortunately, I've listened to him more in the last couple months than I'd like. He does constantly allude to a strong man. He'll even say, When I am in charge, like he's kind of like on the rise. It's kind of trippy. Um, Donald Trump continues this theme of saying the quiet thing out loud, the thing nobody wants to admit. And one of those things is Europe is destroying itself.

SPEAKER_21: 1:04:46

Some leaders in Europe are a little freaked out by uh what what uh your posture is and Europe.

SPEAKER_05: 1:04:52

They should be freaked out by what they're doing to their countries, they're destroying their countries. Well, European Council presidents. Fuck their people I like, I get along with them. You you know that. But they can't let this happen. And it gets to a point where you can't really correct it. There'll be a point, and it's very close to that.

SPEAKER_22: 1:05:11

And what will that mean?

SPEAKER_05: 1:05:12

It will mean that they're no longer going to be strong nations. Or they'll be uh well, it depends, you know. It depends. They'll change their ideology, obviously, because the people coming in have a totally different ideology, but um it's uh it's gonna make them much weaker. They'll be a much they'll be much weaker, and they'll be much different. And what will that mean for our relationship? If you look at your mayor of London, he's a disaster. He's a disaster. He's got a totally different ideology of what he's supposed to have. And he gets elected because so many people have come in and they vote for him now because you know it's like it's uh one of those things. But I hate what's happened to London, and I hate what's happened to Paris. I hate when I see it.

SPEAKER_14: 1:05:53

You know, sir, why wouldn't you hate it? I remember during the 2024 campaign when they're the whole, you know, they're eating the pets, the dogs, the pets in Springfield, Ohio. And a lot of Americans like, oh, look how big it is, pointing out that these immigrants are eating cats, they're not eating pets. And then people are like, where's Springfield, Ohio? Oh, it's a little town of like 20,000 people. Okay, and how many immigrants do they have? 40,000. Oh, okay. Oh, that that seems like a lot. Yeah. And they've taken over the public parks. Yeah. The geese population has declined dramatically. You know what I mean? It's like, okay, but they're not eating the pets. No. But but but there's 40,000 people in a town of 20,000. Yeah, well, what's your problem? You know what I mean? It's like, listen, man, the problem was the 40,000 people. You know what I mean? And they didn't learn to drive on the right side of the road, stop at the stop signs, and not defraud the American government.

SPEAKER_18: 1:06:42

Okay. Perfect.

SPEAKER_14: 1:06:44

Those pets and dogs are private property, they want this. So another thing that happened was Alina Abba officially stepped down as the interim attorney for New Jersey. This stems from the blue slip problem, where the Senate won't confirm eight of Trump's nominees in these quote-unquote blue uh districts. And these judges are forming what amounts to nothing less than a judicial cartel to keep Trump's prosecutors from practicing law in these districts. This is the blue states. The blue states are unable to get a prosecutor that's even remotely not if just loyal to Trump, but loyal to the American people.

SPEAKER_30: 1:07:46

She said this quote, while I was focused on delivering real results, judges in my state took advantage of a flawed blue slip tradition and became weapons for the politicized left. For months, these judges stopped conducting trials and entering sentences, leaving violent criminals on the streets. They join New Jersey senators who care more about fighting President Trump than the well-being of residents, which they serve. So the Garden State will say goodbye to Alina Hoppe, but she will be at the DOJ here in DC, I would assume.

SPEAKER_14: 1:08:17

I hope she goes on to Ed Martin's working uh weaponization group, which is underfunded and understaffed. So they're uncovering all this stuff, but they literally can't do anything about it. Now, this is a sheriff out of North Carolina, but this is the mentality that these judges and prosecutors carry that is extremely damaging to we, the people. He's talking about the people who've assassinated and how they're not really to blame. It's the judges who let out the people who made these killings. He's specifically talking about the Ukrainian immigrant that was killed by the black guy who'd been let out of prison like 20 times, right? He's talking about that. And he's saying, you know, that that the real victim aren't the people who are murdered.

SPEAKER_00: 1:08:53

Behind the scenes thing that you did not see is that our magistrates were attacked violently, verbally, when I say violently, on social media.

SPEAKER_14: 1:09:01

Oh, and oh, oh, so they let out killers and then they had to take some accountability on social media. But that's violent. The social media posts against these judges are violent.

SPEAKER_00: 1:09:14

And we took uh additional measures to protect them because of the violent nature of social media and parts of other media, and also just uh the violence that they received just personally. And so they're living fear now. And I have to say that because for a an entire day we had to talk to the magistrates on how to live safely, how to travel safely, and in the middle of all of that, they were concerned after the shooting of Charlie Kirk because they said to me, Well, what if they shoot me because of this? And so they're gonna be more uh cautious and reluctant to allow people to be released. Um and we know that the law has now provided other guidelines for certain people not to be released, so it will increase they had to change the laws, and we covered this a couple weeks ago, where they're like, We don't know where we're gonna house all the criminals because we can't just let them out on the street.

SPEAKER_14: 1:10:03

So, but the judges are gonna be more conscientious about letting criminals out. But dude, the internal logic of how the system works is so broken. You know, this sheriff's like overly concerned about the safety of the magistrates. Look, I get it, but listen, you you sleep in the bed you made. You know, like you're a judge. Are we considered away you're not supposed to protect the victims? Or you know what I mean? Like the the dude stabs someone in the neck, but oh, online is so violent. How do you think that the girl bleeding out on the bus belt?

SPEAKER_17: 1:10:33

Right.

SPEAKER_14: 1:10:34

You know, all that was very violent. I hope the magistrates don't take any heat over this. It's just unreal, man.

SPEAKER_18: 1:10:40

Yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 1:10:42

Hermeat Gillen in talking about Alina Haba is like, hey, this is a huge problem. And it's not just her, it's the other ones as well. You got a quick comment on Alina Haba stepping down today.

SPEAKER_24: 1:10:53

Yes, I do. I saw her last night. She was in good spirits, as a great public servant, and she has really been the tip of the spear here. She was unfairly, I think, by the district court judges and by the blue slip process, denied uh the right of the president to pick who he wants to be the uh U.S. attorney for the four years. She's in the same boat as my good friend Billisale in uh California, my good friend Sigal Chatta in Nevada, and other friends of mine, I think they're eight in the United States, uh Julianne Murray in Delaware and others. These patriots all stepped down from or stepped away from their private practices of law to serve their country. They weren't allowed to do that. I mean, now some of them are in an interim basis, some of those cases have not gone all the way up to the courts of appeals and they're being litigated. So some of those people are still in their positions, but uh Alina is pivoting. She could have just walked away from it and gone back to her beautiful lifestyle and her family. And instead, she's continuing to serve the DOJ as a senior advisor to the attorney general on criminal justice matters. And it's it's really magnanimous of her to do that. And I really applaud her and appreciate her patriotism for stepping up and really taking, taking, taking it on the chin for all of us. And you don't, I mean, people don't realize how disruptive it is to step down from your work that you created and then, you know, get abused in the press and get smeared by judges. It's so unfair, it's ridiculous. And so, you know, I salute her, and everyone should give her a hug if they see her.

SPEAKER_14: 1:12:22

Yeah, you'd think these judges would understand how violent the comments online can be.

SPEAKER_17: 1:12:28

That's crazy to oh yeah. I mean, I feel like a mercenary.

SPEAKER_14: 1:12:33

I know I'm coming for you. Just kidding. Don't take that out of context. I'm highly sensitive of my words coming back to haunt me later, right?

SPEAKER_18: 1:12:43

Right.

SPEAKER_14: 1:12:44

Oh my goodness, it's crazy. Now, um uh Donald Trump had a little bit to say about this. We'll kind of skip that. He's basically saying, look, man, I could put up George Washington in Virginia. These the Senate wouldn't, I wouldn't get the blue slip clearance, right? Because he's he's my guy. It doesn't matter who I put up. Um, and he's not wrong on that. Um, Susie Wiles is talking about what's gonna be happening in 2026. I am excited about this. Before we play this video, though, Marty Easel, hi Taylor. Yes, hello. Carlitz, have a great show. We'll catch you on tonight's Zoom on the flight from Florida to Puerto Rico. Very fun. He's gonna be in one of their classes this evening. Okay, so Susie Wiles is talking about the 2026 campaign. And while you've got a lot of pollsters and Republican pundits that are really up in arms over what's gonna happen in 2026. Susie Wiles says they're bringing out the secret weapon.

SPEAKER_25: 1:13:34

He's gonna have a fun next year, but we're gonna put him on the campaign trail too. Typically, just a little bit of campaign speak, if I may. Yeah. Um, typically, you in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House. It's you localize the election and you keep the federal officials out of it. We're actually gonna turn that on its head and put him on the ballot because so many of those low propensity voters are Trump voters. Yes, they are. And we saw a week ago Tuesday what happens when he's not on the ballot and not active. So I haven't quite broken it to him yet, but he's going to campaign like it's 2024 again for all these people that he helps. He doesn't help everybody, but for those he does, he's a difference maker. And he's certainly a turnout machine. So the midterms will be very important to us. He'll work very hard to keep the keep the maternity.

SPEAKER_33: 1:14:27

We we can't afford to have this gold. No, and one of the things I keep telling people, and I okay, I'm sorry, we're gonna talk politics, I gotta talk this. I am so frustrated with all of the people that gave abundantly to organizations like ours and others over the last four years to to make sure that that we won. And our objective was was threefold. We didn't just want the presidency, we wanted the house, we wanted the senate, and and we were very strategic on where we went, well, how we focused to get those bombs out. And now it's like they're all sitting on their laurels and going, Oh, we're good. I'm like, I didn't realize how good we aren't. And this with swipe of a pen and one election can change everything. And the majority is in both house houses.

SPEAKER_25: 1:15:06

Right. They are is the good Senate year for Republicans. Every two years is what it is for a house member. So there's candidate recruitment. The president started raising money for the midterms the day after the election, and he's sitting on a huge war chest to help these people. Um, and he'll use it, and he'll use himself and he'll use their money, their his money that he's raised, probably his money too. And um, and and and nobody can outwork him. So there's every reason to be confident, but we have to actually get it done. Yeah, it's everything.

SPEAKER_14: 1:15:38

The election, the midterms is everything. Election rolls, dominion machines, paper voting. Uh, if you can deal with the mail in ballots, man, I mean, but if the the machines are the big one, um, and then get out to vote. I would love to see Trump come to like our neck of the woods. Like, I really believe there's districts like ours. I think ours is Washington 6 that you could flip. Like, you know, the dominance isn't as strong as people would think. There's a there's a low turnout for Republicans because we think we're beat, but you hold a rally in this district, you know, you hold a rally here in Bremerton or something like that, you'll fill a stadium or a ballpark or whatever it is, but you'll get so much excitement. I could easily see if you went into a blue county and that was, you know, a little bit on the margin that's always been blue and it's never hasn't been responsibly challenged. I think you could flip a county because I think the locals could drive to a big rally like that and then from a big rally like that. So I'll be really interesting to see how he does that. I think these guys are smart enough to pull it off. I do. Um and I think if Trump pulls his cards right, he could. Susie Wiles, she's been concerning for many because she's kind of blocked a lot of the more populist kind of thing. She sits that elite politician line, you know, she's about winning campaigns. She's not necessarily about policy. At least that's the way I've observed it. But uh she seems to be pretty good. Okay, guys, it's time for us to jump over onto our private subscription only side where we're gonna be talking to the unoffendables and we're gonna go on a little legal journey. We're gonna be hearing from oral arguments from the Supreme Court. Now, these are fascinating. We're fortunate to be able to have these recordings, and we get to really see into the mindset of our Supreme Court justices and exactly how they think. And then we're gonna finish it off with uh Anton Scalia when he was testifying in the Senate. Or I guess could have been uh could have been uh House. Doesn't matter. It's Anton Scalia talking about what it is judges actually judge. So we'll be jumping over into subscription only. Please don't forget to visit leftbehind andwithout.org. They're in the middle of their gift drive for all the kids with incarcerated parents. Please consider going to the website and making a donation. Every little bit counts, especially around Christmas time. You know, some of these kids are asking for$15,$20 presents, and you know, you can make a difference. So please visit leftbehind and without.org. All right, guys, we'll see you over in subscription only. Okay, so let's jump in here. The first thing this case that's in the Supreme Court deals with Trump's ability to fire people in the executive branch, specifically commissions. So sometimes Congress will set up a commission, like the FTC board's got a couple members on it, and the idea is that those members stick around for a term, 10 years or whatever it is, and it creates kind of a continuity of the department through different administrations. You're not constantly overturning. But the question is if Congress set up kind of a time frame, does the executive executive branch have the ability, specifically the president, to fire those people for any reason he wants, right? So this is Katanji Brown Jackson. Uh she basically argued that, you know, we don't want to be led by a person. We want to be led by experts.

SPEAKER_12: 1:18:48

I don't understand why it is that the thought that the president gets to control everything can outweigh Congress's clear authority and duty to protect the people in this way.

SPEAKER_27: 1:18:59

But Justice Kavanaugh asked, what happens when a president can't effectively carry out his or her agenda because of what a previous administration from an opposing party has done in maybe setting up one of these multi-member agencies or boards, and those members can't be fired by the president?

SPEAKER_02: 1:19:19

A when both con uh houses of Congress and president are controlled by the same party, them creating a lot of these independent agencies with or convert uh extending some of the current independent agencies into these kinds of situations so as to thwart future presidents of the opposite party.

SPEAKER_27: 1:19:37

So to roll for the president, they'd have to turn a overturn a 90 year old president, which has basically been on life support, uh, if we're being honest. But the court's going to consider some of these same questions again, slightly different framework in January when it weights into whether the president can dismiss a Fed governor. The court has indicated that it sees the Fed as a unique institution because it is quasi private.

SPEAKER_14: 1:19:58

Which then goes to say what are We're doing with the Fed? Fourth branches of government that are unregulated by any constitution. And uh they're set up by the Congress, but they can't regulate it once they've set it up. I call foul, right? Now, the I that there's a decision that's 90 years old called Humphreys Executor. And it was basically to look when they set up a commission, you can't fire these people. This comes from like the Green New Deal, or not the Green New Deal, the uh New Deal legislation where they set up a bunch of boards and panels, and they were like, we just don't want these people being fired all the time. It's understandable. Okay. It's understandable why they created that. But one of the things that was commented was well, just like anything, when that was set up, you know, you had a couple commissions, and now you're Congress will go out and create commissions specifically for the purpose of standing against the future executive because they're hiding behind this Humphreys executive.

SPEAKER_17: 1:20:49

And there's probably hundreds of them, right?

SPEAKER_14: 1:20:51

Yeah. Yeah, it's not a couple like when the decision was. So Neil Gorsuch, um, he has a little bit of this is a longer clip, so settle in. It's five minutes long, but he's talking about this this decision, and he's like, I don't think that they intended to set up fourth branches of government.

SPEAKER_03: 1:21:08

Just want to explore just for a brief minute, I hope your your scintilla of conclusive and precise power theory. Um you agree, I assume the president is vested with all the executive power.

SPEAKER_20: 1:21:20

Yes.

SPEAKER_03: 1:21:21

You agree that he has a duty to faithfully execute all the laws, yes, civil and criminal.

SPEAKER_20: 1:21:28

We we agree that the constitution imposes on the president a duty to faithfully execute the laws. All the laws.

SPEAKER_03: 1:21:34

Well, all the some laws he doesn't have to. That'd be news to our friends across the street.

SPEAKER_20: 1:21:41

The take care clause is a duty and it is also a power, but the text of the clause does not provide that the president must have at will presidential. I didn't ask that.

SPEAKER_03: 1:21:54

This is does he have a duty to faithfully execute all the laws?

SPEAKER_19: 1:21:58

We know from that Yes or no? I would say no, in the sense in the sense in the sense that let me there's two different questions, and I want to make sure that I'm answering the question.

SPEAKER_03: 1:22:08

I'm just the question is does the president have a duty to faithfully execute all the laws? The answer is no, why?

SPEAKER_20: 1:22:13

So he can't break the law for sure. For sure. Uh does he have to be vested with statutory authority to actually enforce, directly enforce, or to actually I'm not asking whether he has to bring the indictment.

SPEAKER_03: 1:22:27

I'm asking whether he has a duty to faithfully execute the laws.

SPEAKER_20: 1:22:32

I think the president does not under both history and tradition. Why is this a hard question?

SPEAKER_17: 1:22:38

This is who we're up against, Ron. This is who we're up against. But why is this a hard question?

SPEAKER_14: 1:22:43

Because Katanji Brown Jackson wants us to be under doctors and experts, not necessarily the president. So if Congress passes a law, they don't want to obligate the president to say close the border, enforce immigration law.

SPEAKER_17: 1:22:55

They don't want to have to compel to because of politics, he can't answer the question.

SPEAKER_20: 1:22:59

Yeah, have plenary power of suit of supervision. But in the case of the FTC, he does have some power of supervision, including if there's a demonstrable palpable violation of law, the president could absolutely fire a commissioner of the FTC under the plain language of the statute.

SPEAKER_03: 1:23:14

So the answer is no, I guess. But you say that he does have to have direct supervision and removal authority for someone who has conclusive and exclusive authority to bring five criminal prosecutions, right?

SPEAKER_20: 1:23:29

That is our understanding of this court's decision in Trump, the United States.

SPEAKER_03: 1:23:33

That's your understanding. Yes. But not civil. And then just to be clear, so that means Okay.

SPEAKER_14: 1:23:42

So the Trump, so the president has total authority over people who can bring criminal charges. That's executive power unchallenged by the left side of the argument here, Ken. But but then he says, but not for civil. For civil, no.

SPEAKER_03: 1:23:57

If the government wants to bring a misdemeanor, that person has to be reportable to the president. But if the government wants to bring ruinous fines and penalties and injunctions, that person doesn't.

SPEAKER_20: 1:24:11

I don't know the scope of this court's holding and Trump the United States.

SPEAKER_03: 1:24:15

I'm asking you for your theory because it's a very interesting theory. You're building off of two words from Trump versus the United States and putting a gloss on it that I I'm not familiar with. I I'd understood the executive power, and he has conclusive and conclusive authority of that. But this line, I don't know where it comes from. And I'm wondering, I'll be on a I'll put my cards on the table. Maybe it's a recognition that Humphrey's executor was poorly reasoned and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that's quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. Maybe you're trying to backfill it with a better new theory, but it self-recognizes that we've got a problem.

SPEAKER_20: 1:24:55

The theory that we are referring to, Justice Gorsuch, as we understand it, is not just based on this court's recent decision in Trump, v. United States. It goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. And Marbury does not use the term conclusive and preclusive, but it absolutely says Neither does Humphreys.

SPEAKER_03: 1:25:11

It uses quasi-things.

SPEAKER_20: 1:25:13

It talks about the distinction between authorities that are vested in the president and the president's powers in the constitutional sense and executive power in the constitutional sense. And it actually cites Marbury v. Madison for that proposition. Sure, I would hope it would. For that proposition. And Marbury itself distinguishes in the context of removability of federal offices.

SPEAKER_03: 1:25:33

I guess I'm just wondering, are we going to get if we take if we if we take your your theory to backfill Humphreys and go down this road, how are we supposed to decide which powers are exclusive for your purposes as you understand it, not as I understand it from Trump via the United States, but as you understand it? What powers are going to fall in and what going to fall out? Are we going to have just as much litigation over that as anything else we might do in this case?

SPEAKER_20: 1:26:02

I don't think so. We've had these this modern era of traditional independent agencies for a long time. We haven't had any precedent ever striking them down. And this court has not been, as far as I know, overwhelmed with difficult questions of line drawing. In fact, from 1935 to 2025, we had pretty much unanimity among courts that traditional independent agencies are fine.

SPEAKER_03: 1:26:23

You haven't had a lot of litigation over Humphreys and its limits and its boundaries. We do invoke CILA law as a great decision. We're always going to have litigation over the separation of powers, aren't we? There will always be litigation.

SPEAKER_20: 1:26:41

Absolutely. But the point is that this court's precedence affirming Congress's authority to work with presidents to create traditional independent agencies has not generated any significant problems, still less insurmountable problems. Thank you.

SPEAKER_14: 1:26:55

So the Humphreys executive decision just didn't contemplate Congress using it as a tool to set up these unaccountable entities. The Federal Reserve, these FTC commissions, because it essentially puts them outside the scope of the executive branch, puts them outside the scope of the legislature because they'd need, you know, they need to beat a filibuster to do anything about it. And it basically puts the jurisdiction directly into the judicial branch to decide. Because everything has to be litigated. It's an interesting decision. Let's listen to cut more of Katanji Brown Jackson because again, the mentality here, this is what we're dealing with the mentality.

SPEAKER_12: 1:27:36

Some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts. That Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have. So having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control.

SPEAKER_14: 1:28:17

But what if the experts tell you to take the vaccine because they're getting paid, but it might kill you? What if the experts try to feed your baby baby formula instead of mother's milk, which is way more healthy? What if the experts? Do you see where we're going here?

SPEAKER_17: 1:28:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_14: 1:28:31

This is why the experts have to be accountable to the people. What if the experts tell you that if we throw all of the town's virgins in the volcano, it will stop the next eruption? But they're experts. They're medicine men. How can we not trust them? They read the stars, they throw the tokens on the ground and they read the bones, right?

SPEAKER_17: 1:28:49

Did she get a kickback for this position? What is going on?

SPEAKER_14: 1:28:52

It sure makes you wonder. I mean, she is the autopin judge, right?

SPEAKER_12: 1:28:56

Allegedly tried to dis in her commission. So can you speak to me about the danger of allowing in these various areas the president to actually control the transportation board and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies?

SPEAKER_14: 1:29:13

Well, if you guys make a mistake, every four years the people get another chance to put someone else in charge. That's the point. You know, we vote for these guys to go change things, and then when we don't, we sit back and go, I wonder why they can't. It's because I'm Humphrey's executor from 90 years ago. That's why.

SPEAKER_12: 1:29:29

In these particular areas, we would like to have independence. We don't want the president controlling. I guess what I don't understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress, which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is uh subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything. I mean, I appreciate there's a conflict between the two, but one would think, under our constitutional design, given the history of the monarchy and the concerns that the framers had about a president controlling everything, that in the clash between those two, Congress's view that we should be able to have independence with respect to certain issues should take precedence.

SPEAKER_14: 1:30:18

They did contemplate that. What do we have a president for? They did contemplate that. The president is supposed to execute the laws that the legislature makes, not make the laws. But your problem is he can't fire people who he thinks maybe don't follow the laws or execute in the way they're supposed to. Right now, this a lot of this comes back to the Chevron Deference decision that was overturned by Loper Bright. In the Chevron Deference decision in 1984, the judicial branch said that the executive branch could have experts, and those experts' opinions would be weighted in the court. So the court was now on the hook to accept the experts' advice, and the executive branch determined who those experts were.

SPEAKER_18: 1:31:00

Okay.

SPEAKER_14: 1:31:01

Thereby, if you capture an expert, you can capture the whole thing. And and as as Gorsuch says, oh, so you have the power, the executive branch clearly has the power all the way down to a misdemeanor. But if you want to levy rumorous fines and injunctions and those other things, oh nope, nope, executive branch got nothing to do with it. That's independent. What are we talking about here? Right? Now, this is this is the highlight right here. This is Anton Scalia, who a lot of people believe was killed. Um, this is Anton Scalia talking about, listen, as uh as a as a uh judge, I took the same oath that Congress took to the Constitution. And we just simply ignore bad laws because they're not real laws.

SPEAKER_15: 1:31:43

Take the very same oath that I take. The only reason I can look at a federal statute and say, I have to disregard this because it is it does not comport with the constitution, the only reason is that I've taken an oath to uphold the constitution. You take the same oath. And if indeed they're they're they're not even looking at or even thinking about the constitutionality of it, that that uh uh that presumption should should not exist. So we we don't strike down any of your laws. People sometimes go, Supreme Court struck. We never strike down your laws, gentlemen. It it uh it uh we just ignore them. We're we're we're where your law does not comport with the constitution, it seems to be a law but really isn't. And so we ignore it and apply the the rest of the law, the statute notwithstanding, as as one of our early cases put it. We we don't strike down any of your laws. We never strike down your laws, gentlemen. We just ignore them. Where where your law does not comport with the constitution, it seems to be a law but really isn't. I've taken an oath to uphold the constitution. You take the same oath. Where where your law does not comport with the Constitution, it seems to be a law but really isn't. It seems to be a law but really isn't.

SPEAKER_14: 1:33:01

An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Article six, the Constitution of the and laws of the United States which shall be made in the pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding. It's gotta be constitutional. Taxes in the bill of in the constitution of the bill of rights, accepted from powers of government. This is text from section 29. Powers of government to forever remain inviolate, to guard against transgressions of the high powers therein delegated. We declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is accepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto or to the following provisions shall be void. When they pass these unconstitutional laws, they're not laws from the beginning. Um text one equality and rights of man, that all men are are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights of which they enter into, of which, when they enter into a state of society, a body politic, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely the enjoyment of life and liberty with the means of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. You have the right to be free. Paragraph five, what voids an act. Legislative acts in the violation of the Constitution or the Constitution of the United States are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them. A court can only decide declare what law the law is and whether consistent with the law of God and the fundamental fundamental or constitutional law of society. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Woe unto you, lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge, ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. I heard a wise man say they should put this at the top of every bar association building, right? Because the lawyers prevent us from being free, literally by drawing a box and saying, Don't leave the box. Wisdom is the principal thing. Therefore, get wisdom, and in all thy getting, get understanding. Good stuff. All right, guys, that concludes the show today. Thanks for sticking around to the end. It is important for us to understand our land. We perish for lack of understanding by just not knowing. That is kind of the purpose of the show. It's the peasant's perspective. We gotta live here no matter who's in charge. We should probably start paying attention to who's in charge before this thing falls apart and becomes Somalia 2.0. All right, guys, thanks a lot. We'll talk to you again tomorrow. Bye.

SPEAKER_26: 1:36:25

Matt, sorry. What time that cards were? I'm 37. What? On 37, I'm not allowed to I can't just call you Matt.