Asymmetrical Information

You can feel it when a story is being “loaded” for you, not explained. We start from that gut sense and give it a name: asymmetrical information. When institutions, media, and political operators work from one dataset while the public gets a different one, the gap fills with speculation, manufactured certainty, and moral panic. We talk through why that dynamic makes smart people argue past each other, and why the antidote is boring but powerful: sources, timelines, evidence, and the humility to say “we do not know” until facts show up.

From there we move across a string of headlines and lived experience that all rhyme: conspiracy claims that collapse when pressed for proof, celebrity tragedy that exposes how curated public images can hide brutal private realities, and geopolitical messaging around Greenland where officials openly admit the public is not seeing what they see. We connect those dots to media behavior around Russia collusion and later admissions about who was actually running the Biden White House, showing how “truth” often shifts only after it becomes politically convenient.

Then we get concrete about government transparency and accountability: commutations sold as one thing while details tell a messier story, broken FOIA incentives, court hurdles, and cybersecurity failures that make data leaks and information warfare feel inevitable. We also dig into election integrity, voter rolls, and how selective coverage creates completely different realities for different audiences. Finally, we break down the suppressor tax stamp shake-up and the real-world risk of changing rules, plus a macro look at Bitcoin and the M2 money supply as a lesson in how information edges shape outcomes.

If you’re tired of being told to “trust the system,” this is your reminder to trust the work: verify, compare, and think clearly. Subscribe, share this with a friend who disagrees with you, and leave a review with the biggest information gap you want exposed next.

Transcript

Morning Banter And Peasant Mindset

SPEAKER_11 0:28

Let me take the screen every time we get to the shirt. Peasants, man. We're just peasants. Every one of us. You watch those little movies. You see the peasants in the background with the kings and kings walking around. We're those people. We're those people. Good morning, peasants. Welcome to another episode of the Peasants Perspective. It's Monday. Yes. Think about that. Sometimes these weekends, man, they're just like one thing or another. Verazer, good morning from Boise. Welcome, welcome. He's the only one here yet so far. It's amazing. Monday. Wow. It's a foggy foggy morning, too. It is a foggy morning. Yes, it is a foggy morning. A lot of stuff happened over the weekend. A lot of good stuff. A lot of new information coming out. Gosh, I don't even know where to start. That's the thing. Don't even know where to start start. That's unlike you. Yeah, I know, right? Totally. All right. Let's uh last thing I'm gonna put up on the show for today. Last thing. I got it. I think I got what I want. Okay. Okay.

unknown 1:55

All right.

SPEAKER_11 1:55

Let's see. Who else do we have in here? We've got John Tacis. Morning, morning. It's already starting to be out to be a great week with the peasants perspective. Yes, it is. It's so good. So

A Gun Range Trapped In Court

SPEAKER_11 2:05

good. So this weekend, I got a chance to go speak at the Kitsup Rifle and Revolver Club's 100-year anniversary. It was really good. They've been in a nine-year legal battle with the county. They've been shut down. They are the last range standing, still trying to, you know, get their get their approvals or whatever. Anyways, I know you're involved with that to some degree as a in a professional capacity as an engineer, but wow, those guys have really, really worked hard to get that range back. Oh, yeah. I sure hope they do. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that it can't be open. It is absolutely uh, it's funny when they were going through the list of everything that's happened. It's like, man, this county has just broken their own rules. Like they're not even denying them applications, they're just timing them out without giving them a yes, no, or a conditional, which is what's required by law. It's pretty messed up. Monty Easel says, good morning, Taylor, and I'll include Ron in that. Carlit says, good morning, y'all. And Pony Boy, good morning. Yes, we're all in the house. We got the crew. We got the crew here today. All right. I know why you guys show up bright and early every day, 6 30 a.m. It is for the simultaneous sip. And all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank, a tankard, a chalice, or a stein, a canteen jugger flask, or a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. Ron, what do you have today? Dr. Pepper. I got some coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hint of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip, and it starts right now.

SPEAKER_18 3:36

God's plan is like a beautiful tapestry. And the tragedy of being human is that we only get to see it from the back.

Tapestry Faith And Hospice Perspective

SPEAKER_18 3:45

All the ragged threads and the muddy colors, and we only get a hint at the true beauty that would be revealed if we could save the whole pattern on the other side.

SPEAKER_11 3:59

It is perfect. I do believe that we are just one thread in a tapestry that our great creator is weaving. Had an interesting clip that I can't play because it was on the Joe Rogan show, and they give us a strike if we play anything with Joe Rogan. But it talked about how civilization is at a hospice moment. And this one doctor said, you know, working in hospice is so much better than the ER or any other place because these people are making peace, right? They know they're at the end. And he said the thing that's so unique about hospice care is a lot of patients look back at their lives full of tumult, crisis, problem, challenge, and they look back and they see it as beautiful. They see it as all the broken pathways that led them to whatever perfect moment they're experiencing right before they go to the other side and they make peace with it. And I thought that is really the case. Every challenge we have is an opportunity to grow, an opportunity to learn. And we should look at it as such, right? And I think that gives us a lot of patience for the journey and it wakes us up. It helps us recognize that we are actors in this. And there's no good story. No hero becomes a hero without a crisis and a challenge to overcome. It's not going to happen. So be the hero in your own story. Overcome your crises, right? And that's the thing with us as a nation. Our government and our country is a direct reflection of us, the constitution of the people. What do we acquiesce to? What do we allow? And the less we allow, the more limited government becomes, right? The less we rely on them, the less they need to overlord over us. So that's what we have to focus on. I think we are just a thread in the great tapestry of things that are out there.

Charlie Kirk Theories Versus Evidence

SPEAKER_11 5:33

So this weekend, one of the big things that made a ton of circulating clips was this interview between uh Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens. Did you hear about this? No. Oh man. So Candace Owens, obviously, ever since the death of Charlie Kirk has been doing tons and tons and tons of stuff about French legions and Egyptians following Erica Kirk around and Israelis having a motive to kill Charlie Kirk. And Tyler Robinson can't possibly be the only shooter. In fact, you brought this up the other day. Tyler Robinson may or may not be the shooter. Well, my opinion is Tyler Robinson is the shooter. I kind of land on Andrew's side of the argument. Okay. Not that we don't have questions, not that we don't see things as irregular or odd, but rarely in murder cases or conspiracies do we ever get the full picture, even out of trial. It's just a question can we get past the shadow of a doubt element? Hey, we might not know everything, but we know you pulled the trigger. Does that make sense? Sure. And so this is kind of one of those situations where sometimes we're crossing definitions. Like when I would say, well, the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson was the shooter. Why would that be? Well, a confession, family confessions, certain other pieces of evidence, right? Do we know every step of the way? Do you know everything we did? Do we know if he was working with other people? Maybe not. Maybe not. But we pretty much have a lot of evidence that Tyler himself was the shooter, right? Now, is he a Patsy in a bigger scheme? Who knows? We can ask questions. But this debate really highlighted the fact that Candace Owens has been making money off this grift. Whether she's sincere in her questioning or not, which I would tend to believe she is. Okay. Whether she's sincere in her questioning or not, she's absolutely turned it into her money-making shtick.

SPEAKER_21 7:16

Well, she doesn't have to be on the wrong side of it to grift from it, you know. You know.

SPEAKER_11 7:22

You would think that. You would think that. But she got paid $300,000 to sit for this interview. And PBD, Patrick Brian David, uh moderated this podcast. So this was the final thoughts of Andrew. And this is what pretty much anybody who watched this. There's a couple people that are just absolute either shills for Israel or they're just on team Candace no matter what, right? But she got something like 18,000 words in, and Andrew got like four or five, 4,500 words in. So they let her talk. And this was the conclusion. And I think most rational people would come to the conclusion from this debate. Okay. And so before we wrap up, final thoughts, I'll come to you first.

SPEAKER_10 7:59

Yeah, she had nothing. Just nothing. Any for all of her claims of Patsy, nothing. She didn't have a single claim. She didn't have a single solid piece of evidence. She had no positive evidence Israel's involved in anything. No positive evidence that um France is involved in anything. No positive evidence TP USA is involved in anything. No positive U evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, it's just funny. It's just fun and you know? Or yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down and ask some questions, but uh or answer some questions, but you know what? Um I don't even know if she has. Like maybe she has, I have no idea. Yes, I'm gonna have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence, that's just fine. Hey, it's it's hearsay. If that's good enough for the state, it's good enough for me. But my biggest problem with the state is that they're admin admitting all this hearsay. It's like it's she's a contradiction machine. On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this, more than anything else, was to just demonstrate one thing. Yes, it's true. I'm not perfect on the case. I'm not going to ever pretend that I am. And never did. But what has been very made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all. None. Zero. And the continuous uh kind of expression we're running an investigation. What kind of investigation builds a timeline out on a on a receipt that they they don't even confirm? What kind of investigation uh tries to make these bold claims that Israel's involved and France is involved and all these different players are involved and never shows any evidence. We're just asking questions. It's my it's again, like I said, my opening, it's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. You Andrew, how many times do you hear this today? Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah, nobody's trying to tell you how to think. But you should rationally come to your conclusions based on evidence and facts. And the truth is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuition based. It's can't it did. It came to me in a dream. It's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all. Just I'm skeptical because these people over here said things, and that makes me skeptical. It's like, but no evidence. Note this to the audience, to everybody watching. You might hate my guts. That's fair enough. I get that. I'm not the most likable man. I understand that too. But there was nothing, I mean, no evidence at all that Tyler Robinson was a patsy that was ever uh put forward by Candace this entire debate. Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says I found the evidence convincing, I uh an unconvincing. Andrew says he found the evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough. Maybe you can't do too much about that. But there was nothing. She had nothing for Robinson being a Patsy, nothing for any of her conspiracies, not a zero zilch, and she backed away on a bunch of them. This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the Twigs thing. First time I've heard her back away from the Erica thing, back away from TP USA, being very cautious about making any of those claims now. Whereas on her show, much more likely to be making those claims. So she just had nothing the entire debate. Zero. Candace.

SPEAKER_11 11:27

That's it. I haven't paid super close attention to Kansas Candace. And it's because of my experience with CNN. Going through their app one day. Every day I read the news. Every day I read the news. Fox, CNN, MSNBC. At that point, I'm just trying to get the full spectrum. But one day I'm on the CNN app and I'm like, sources say, sources say, no links, no name sources, anonymous quoting, not one article on their entire page on their app the day that I was looking at like this and paying attention. Like, they don't have any sources. I may as well be reading a blog post. Right. And that held true with Candace. Well, a source told me, he's like, I can say a source is telling me that your sources are lying to you. And now we're just at me versus you. How much do we trust our sources? But we won't name that. It's like, it can't work, right? If there's real evidence, bring it forward. If there's real evidence, talk about it. But a lot of intuition dream, and I saw that I've just literally like two weeks after Charlie, I tuned in and I was like, ah, this is just a desperate woman trying to rationalize a bunch of stuff. This was her friend, you know, and you have to be sympathetic of this. But at the same time, there's a lot of conservatives out there that just don't want to believe that it was a lone actor. You know what I mean? And I'm not saying it was. There was the dude who stood up and said, I'm the shooter. Turned out he was a had child stuff on it. I do think there's a larger operation, but the objective of this trial is who pulled the trigger, right? Once you get through that, then maybe there's more. And who knows? So again, Andrew's point wasn't to say there's not a Patsy. I think we would all love to see a larger conspiracy and more people be involved in this and be taken down. But in the absence of actual connecting evidence, like they ran on this big receipt. This plus puts Tyler Robinson away from the scene. Have you linked it to his debit card or credit card? Well, no. Okay. You know what I mean? The same reason you're saying the video footage isn't right because he admits he changed his clothes, but you don't know. They didn't know she didn't know he had changed his clothes, and that was like part of the whole deal. You can't just identify him from the shoes. It's like actually, you can when you know he changed his clothes. But uh, you've got this guy in a restaurant, same thing. Well, look, he's got the shoes. It's like, yeah, but you don't have the debit card. How many tall, skinny white boys are there in Utah? Converses. You know what I'm saying? Like, come on, man. Seriously.

Hayden Panettiere Tragedy And Hollywood Shadows

SPEAKER_11 13:55

All right. Another tragedy happened over the weekend, and this one's very interesting. Let's talk about this. Some of you probably know the actress Hayden Hayden, I think it's Pantier. She died at 36.

SPEAKER_33 14:06

Start with this Fox News alert. Star, actress, and singer Hayden Panetier has died at the age of 36 years old.

SPEAKER_05 14:14

Ty Pyro is here with the details. Good morning, Todd. Good morning to all three of you. Tough way to start the morning. Her father announcing the young star's death in a statement to the media, saying, quote, It is with profound sadness that we share the tragic passing of our beloved Hayden. She was an incredible light and a force of nature who brought immeasurable love and joy to all who knew her and to the millions who watched her on screen. Penettier began her career young, finding fame, starring alongside Denzel Washington in Remember the Titans, before landing a leading role in Heroes, where she jumped to international fame, playing a superpowered high school cheerleader. She later starred in the hit musical drama Nashville, where she saw both career and commercial success, earning two Golden Globe nominations and having multiple songs break in to the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart.

SPEAKER_36 15:11

Just enough towards no one.

SPEAKER_05 15:27

She leaves behind her 11-year-old daughter, Haya, who lives with Hayden's former fiance, boxer Vladimir Klitschko, in Ukraine. The circumstances surrounding her death remain unclear at this time. Hayden Panetier was just 36.

SPEAKER_11 15:43

I became familiar with Hayden when she was on the show Heroes. She went later on to be on the show Nashville, and she was on a spattering of other shows and movies. She was on Remember the Titans. So she was just kind of a, you know, a nice B, semi-A-less actor that was out there and singer. But recently, in the last week, week and a half, she's gone on a little bit of a podcast tour. I guess she wrote a book recently. And one of the things she described in one of the interviews was when she was 18 and she was getting famous on the show Heroes. She was taken out onto a yacht by one of her friends, and she was taken down into the bedrooms of the yacht, and she was put naked into a bedroom, a bed with a British rock star. And she fought him off and hid for the rest of the trip and took out. Anyway, she didn't name the rock star, she didn't name the situation, but it really painted the picture that a lot of these young women that are in Hollywood are getting moved around and pimped out and stuff like that, even by the friends. And apparently her friend also revealed this in a book, who also died right after the book was written. She said a foreign born A-list actor was in bad shape. He was doing so many drugs he could barely figure out where he was most days. He was filming a movie but needed a break. One of the big secrets was he was hooking up, was who he was hooking up with at the time. She also loved drugs. She loved the idea. This is allegedly the friend of Hayden. She was allegedly uh loved the idea of being with an A-lister. She was almost an A-list actress at the time. She hooked up with a lot of A-listers and even A-plus listers, but they would do so only in secret. Pretty sure that is why she left her list to be found. She wanted to out the A-listers who would only hook up with her without anyone knowing. Anyway, she really wanted to take things public with our A-lister. Our actor takes a holiday break from filming, tells the actress, let's go overseas and spend the holidays on a boat. He wanted that so no one could see them together and not see him doing drugs. He tells her to bring a friend, this is allegedly Hayden, that will be into sex and drugs too. So our actress brings the actress who has been making the rounds this week. We know her version of events. We don't know the version of the actress who brought her, and we don't even know the version of the version of the actor because he was dead three weeks later. So she got on and confirmed her Hayden's part of this story. Anyways, she said this when she was being interviewed, right? She said this.

SPEAKER_35 18:10

Don't believe what you see in a picture. There's so much more going on. So much more. For the first time I was able to put into words what has been going on for the past decade. I was gonna ask if I could read it.

SPEAKER_02 18:27

I'd really appreciate it.

SPEAKER_35 18:29

Okay.

SPEAKER_11 18:32

And then she goes on to read it. And basically, it's you know, it's what we're what we're talking about. Now we don't need to dive into the juicy little details. This is not a uh, you know, entertainment gossip show. We're not TMZ at all. Although I wish we had the viewership of TMZ. Nonetheless, we're not TMZ. My point in saying this, it looks like Carlitz says on the on the chats, he says, What we can assume is that the authorities tell us about Charlie Klerk stuff is probably a cover up or a lie. There definitely is going, I don't know, man. Like this is again one of those don't ask me to trust the system. The first show, the first part of this is Charlie Kirk and all that stuff, and you know, Candace is lying, and then here we are talking about Hayden. It's like, oh, big conspiracy around her death. Pony Boy says this it was definitely the vax. Her brother died of an enlarged heart. Totally possible. And this is where the challenge lies. There's what's plausible, and then there's what's believable. Is it possible a 36-year-old died of a vax injury that amplified a heart condition that the family has? Absolutely. Post-COVID, hell yeah. Absolutely, absolutely. Isn't the timing interesting, right? So let's just go to God's tapestry. Perhaps this was a natural cause, but we're gonna start asking questions.

SPEAKER_21 19:47

Well, I mean, if this was pre-COVID, yeah, you'd be asking a lot of questions. Post-COVID, now we have this oh, plausible blanket of deniability.

SPEAKER_11 19:58

Oh, yeah, but of course, nobody in official capacity will say it because then they'd have to admit the COVID factor caused death, right? So who knows? Who knows? But I do know this, right? Powerful people want to cover up powerful crimes and powerful sins, and it would make sense, it would make sense that there's something she's out on tour, and there's more than just maybe powerful people.

SPEAKER_21 20:19

Well, it sounded like from that story that everybody on that boat is now dead. Yeah, it does sound that way. It's like, who's left?

SPEAKER_11 20:29

Who's the who's the party left that's covered up the story? No, it just is one of those, huh? You know, now I don't think we're gonna get too much out of this. Maybe when an autopsy report comes out, we do find out in a large heart or something like that. But it is very tragic, but it does expose the fact that what you see is not what's really behind the camera. What you see isn't what's going on. She struggled with postpartum depression. In fact, at one point, a couple years ago, she went on an interview and talked about postpartum depression, and she immediately got dropped from one of her brand sponsors, Neutrogena.

SPEAKER_21 21:02

Well, people need to remember that all of Hollywood is choreographed and makeup and lit, and you know, it's polished.

SPEAKER_11 21:12

Yes, exactly. And so you can't really believe the smiling faces. And this goes true not just with actors, people on Instagram, people just your friends and families. Like, you know, there's a lot of times more depth to people than you'd think.

SPEAKER_21 21:25

If they don't get the message across the way they like, it's okay, cut. Now let's talk about this. Now let's do it right this time. And if it doesn't work out, you're gonna be fired.

SPEAKER_11 21:36

Yeah, exactly. So, anyways, again, it's another one of these things where it's like, hmm, you know, there's things that happen, things that make sense. I understand why Kansas says I think Israel was behind Charlie's assassination. Did they have motive? Apparently, but did they do anything about I got motive? You know, if Joe Biden dies of uh uh stage four prostate cancer, it could be said of Taylor, well, Taylor had motive. To do something. Well, sure. I wasn't a big fan of Joe Biden. He put me in prison, but I didn't do anything about my motive. You know, like, give me a break. I'm living my life. How am I going to let him live his life? So, as far as what we see versus what we what's true, right? I've often said we're only as good as the information we have. If all we have is false, unverified fake studies or reporting, then that's kind of all we have, right? If we're kept from the truth, we can't analyze things very well.

Greenland And Asymmetrical Information

SPEAKER_11 22:33

And one of the bigger geopolitical things that's happening right now, and it's kind of a slow burn, is the issue with Greenland. Right? The issue with Greenland. Wouldn't it be a huge win for the United States to be able to take Greenland as a territory or something like that? It would, right? Are there incentives from other nation states to prevent us from getting Greenland? Yeah. Do you think China wants us to get it? No. Do you think Russia wants us to get it? No. Heck, do you even think Europe wants us to get it? No. Because as long as they have Greenland, then we're kind of stuck defending them because we need to use Greenland. You know what I mean?

SPEAKER_21 23:06

Yeah, they're using it as the same way we want to use it as a buffer.

SPEAKER_11 23:09

As a buffer, exactly. So this is this is Scott Besson talking about Greenland. And pay attention to a phrase he says. I like this phrase. It's asymmetrical, asymmetrical information.

SPEAKER_41 23:19

We impress you on what you have said or national security concerns, particularly as it relates to Russia and China. Senior Democrats say there are no pressing threats on Greenland security from Russia or China. The Danish foreign minister says there hasn't been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?

SPEAKER_39 23:41

Well, first first of all, Kristen, we have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? What evidence was it? Well, actually, there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine, and Joe Biden said, well, just take a little bit of it. But what we know is that the US, that Greenland can only be defended if it is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.

SPEAKER_11 24:15

You bring, I love that. We have asymmetrical information. So while the news, Kristen Walker's like, well, dead Danish says there hasn't been a warship there in a long time. Um, all of China's boats are warships. You know what I'm saying? Like, isn't that their whole shtick? We have warships, and then we have other ships for war. Okay. Yeah. And uh it's Scott Besson said, we have asymmetrical information, as in you and I are dealing with different data sets.

SPEAKER_21 24:48

Yes.

SPEAKER_11 24:49

Right? We've got our Space Force confidential satellite tracking, blah, blah, blah. You're quoting Denmark, who doesn't want to lose Greenland and doesn't want to have any, you know, impropriety that Greenland is a national security threat or anything like, you know, not controlling it as a national security threat. Asymmetrical information. How often do we end up being victims of asymmetrical information being thrown into our face all the time? Let me give you an example of a timeline here of asymmetrical information, the information that the public was given versus the information they had behind closed doors and how it gets leveraged against us. Half of the United States believed or thought was plausible that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. Why? Because people like Eric Swalwell manipulated the asymmetrical information, just like that CNN app. No sources, but I'm being fed a narrative. Now the scales are being loaded down on one side, right? It's becoming asymmetrical. Asymmetrical. Where's the actual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin?

SPEAKER_22 25:58

It's right in front of your nose, Tucker. When we look back on this in 25 years, we're going to be amazed at how much of it was right in front of us. You're a member judiciary.

SPEAKER_34 26:05

Do you believe the president right now has been an agent of the Russians?

SPEAKER_22 26:08

Yes. I I think there's more evidence than it is. Yes. And I think all the arrows point in that direction. And I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that he's not.

SPEAKER_34 26:15

An agent like in the 1940s, where we had people who are red's to you as an all-term. Like that. In other words, working for a foreign pattern. He's working on behalf of the Russians. Yes. Okay.

SPEAKER_22 26:22

The question has shifted from whether the president is working with the Russians to what evidence exists that the president is not working with the Russians.

SPEAKER_00 26:32

At what point do you draw the line and not accuse the president of the United States without any evidence of being an agent of Russia?

SPEAKER_22 26:38

Yeah, he's betrayed our country. And I don't I don't say that lightly. I I worked as a prosecutor for seven years.

SPEAKER_00 26:42

And I'm betraying the country, by the way, we want evidence before you say that, but you said an agent of Russia.

SPEAKER_22 26:48

Yeah, he he works on their behalf.

SPEAKER_00 26:50

I'm not hearing the evidence that he's an agent of Russia.

SPEAKER_22 26:52

Yeah, I think it's it's pretty clear. It's almost hiding in plain sight.

SPEAKER_11 26:56

Where's the actual asymmetrical information, right? If they can load up the airwaves with this, this, this, eventually it starts to become believable, right? And then it gets, well, now we're going, what evidence is there he's not? You know, I love the double negatives. The judge in my case, when I was remanded to custody, said, There's no evidence that you're a flight risk, but there's no evidence that you will not commit violence on the former president's behalf. There's also no evidence that I will. Otherwise, you'd say there's evidence you will. So there's an absence of evidence that I will, and therefore there's no evidence that I will not either. Do you see what I'm saying there? Like, what? Hear with your ears, see past the asymmetrical loading of the in in the information space. Where is another spot where there was asymmetrical loading on who was running the country? Joe Biden. Was Joe Biden running the country for four years? Was he the lead executive? Kick Tapper this weekend came out in an interview with uh, I think her name is Maggie Haderman. Maggie Hagerman. Anyways, she's a Jewish editor. I think she's the editor now of uh Wall Street or Washington Post. She was, or I can't I can't remember where she was at. Either way, she used to be at New York Times. She wrote against uh um uh when she she's pro-Israel, right? And so the New York Times kind of ran her out because of that. And now she's an editor at I think Washington Post, if I'm not mistaken. It's one of the other liberal rags. Anyway, she's been praised because she's gonna bring reason back and she's a middle of the ground reporter. She's anything but middle of the ground, right? But she had Jake Tapper

Russia Collusion And Media Narrative Tricks

SPEAKER_11 28:40

on. She's talking about the Biden White House. And Jake Tapper now, now, now that Biden's gone, now that he's not in office, and now it becomes patently obvious he wasn't running the place. Jake Tapper's like, oh yeah, there was a pull-up bureau running the country for four years, in total contradiction to what he had implied before. Again, the asymmetrical pushing on the scales. As John Solman said, they didn't just put a finger on the scales, they laid their whole body on it.

SPEAKER_38 29:05

I would say the right-wing meme about Joe Biden was that Dr. Joe Biden was sort of the shadow president, sort of running the country. What your book shows is that that's not totally far off. It's not Joe Biden, though. It's this group, this group of tight advisors around Joe Biden, who I want you to talk about that you call the Politburo, which is an interesting word choice. Tell me about the word choice and then tell me about those people who were really calling the shots around the president.

SPEAKER_27 29:32

So the Politburo, not a term we came up with, was this term from within the Biden administration, uh, as the name would suggest.

SPEAKER_11 29:38

Think about that for just a moment. That wasn't a term we came up with. That was a term within the Biden administration, the people participating in this committee, the Politburo. What's the Politburo? I know a lot of our listeners immediately go, well, that's Russia. That's the that's a peep, that's the committee that runs Russia, right?

SPEAKER_21 29:55

Oh, yes? Yeah, that's the Politburo. I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

SPEAKER_11 29:59

Oh, the Politburo is like saying the president's cabinet.

SPEAKER_21 30:02

Okay.

SPEAKER_11 30:03

But it's for Russia, the Politburo. Like these are the stakeholders in the Russian.

SPEAKER_21 30:07

This is the first time I've ever heard the word.

SPEAKER_11 30:09

The fact that they called themselves the Politburo, that would be like a U.S. attorney saying, Hey, I have a Star Chamber trial coming up. Or that would be, you know, I mean, this is like you're using word association that links you to communism. And you know what I'm saying? You're saying, yes, we're the Politburo. Well, no what? Remember, Jen Saki before the election, taking a picture with a Russian hat with a hammer and sickle. These people clearly saw themselves as communists running the country. They call themselves the Politburo. Oh my god. This is like when they slip out and go, our comrades, senior associates? You mean your fellow citizens? Our comrades. Yeah, exactly. No, we don't use commie talk in America.

SPEAKER_27 30:51

Uh, is a tightly held group of senior advisors. Mike Donald and Steve Ricchetti, foremost among them. Uh, you also have individuals floating in and out, Ron Klain, who's chief of staff for the first couple years of the of the president's term, um, Anita Dunn, some uh senior uh individuals on the staff of Jill Biden, um, the the first lady, uh, Anthony Brunal, the chief of staff, perhaps the most pop uh powerful first lady chief of staff ever. Uh, and then another woman named Annie Tomasini. And so I we would assess that it's basically the Bidens, uh Joe, Jill, and Hunter, and this tight group of aides, and they weren't like a star chamber, they weren't like all friends or allies, they all just had their different portfolios and did what they did. And these were the individuals that helped steer the government. Now, is that different from any other president? On one level, no. On one level, obviously, a first family has its priorities and every president has aides, but on another level, yes, definitely. Uh, there was more power vested in these individuals, according to cabinet secretaries that we spoke with, who said um that at best Joe Biden was the senior member of a board, um, and that the the Politburo was coordinating him off starting basically in 2023, 2024.

SPEAKER_07 32:13

All right, so in this clip, big taper is saying that they all knew that Biden wasn't really in charge, he wasn't really the one that was running the country, him being a lead anchor at CNN, everyone else must have known too. But that is not at all what they were telling us when they were reporting when Biden was president. And I have a clip here I'm gonna show you in a minute, but just keep in mind that he is saying now that they knew that Biden was not running things, and it instead an elite group was running things. Let's just take a look at what he had to say when Biden was in office. Actually, we he had a guest on that said that Biden was in mental decline, and he specifically corrected him and said, No, Biden is mentally sharp.

SPEAKER_26 32:54

In our politics lead, President Biden is back on the global stage. This time he's in India for the 2020 summit and a public display of diplomacy. A new book goes behind the scenes of the Biden administration, giving us two years of insider access to how Mr. Biden has tried to manage his presidency and what he has said behind closed doors about his ability to handle the job. Joining us now is Frank Ford. He's a writer for The Atlantic and author of this new book.

SPEAKER_07 33:18

All right, so let's just skip forward to where that part is.

SPEAKER_26 33:21

His public persona reflected physical decline and times dulling of mental faculties that no pill or exercise regimen can resist in private. He would occasionally admit to friends that he felt higher.

SPEAKER_16 33:35

Um does he had does he have the strength of standard for re-election? Do you think you know the question about aging? I've spent so much time talking to people this last week about aging, and everybody brings all of this personal experience to bear because we have parents and we have grandparents, and aging is not a singular experience. Everybody different for everybody. Everybody ages, and there's not a sell by date for human beings. They reach past a point where they're no longer up to the job. I think Nikki Haley has talked about a mental acuity test for presidential candidates, and everything I've seen about Joe Biden, he would you would you would pass that test. Right. He's he's sharp physically. I mean uh uh mentally.

SPEAKER_07 34:15

Yeah, I think at the point, all right. So right there, Jake Schaber said he's sharp mentally, physically. He's saying that Biden would pass this test, but then he's going to tell us right now that they actually knew that Biden wasn't mentally sharp and that different advisors were running the country. Asymmetrical information.

SPEAKER_11 34:33

Asymmetrical information, right? Biden's sharp two years later. Well, the Politburo's wrong place.

SPEAKER_21 34:40

I mean, I I guess if a guy, a journalist like Jake Taper, yeah, you know, taper. If he doesn't like illuminate the nation when he's got you know the camera and all the lights on him, you know, how's the American public supposed to know? You know, all this asymmetrical information. How are we supposed to know?

SPEAKER_11 35:00

This is why my daddy's advice is always so good. Look at both sides, uh, right? Make your own conclusions. Who's lying, who's not. One of the other things, you know, there's so many things that I learned by going to prison. Like, gone. Pop is the bubble, the illusion that you know you should really trust anyone. I was in with a police chief who was murdering and robbing drug dealers. I was in with a man who did cocaine with with Bill Clinton's brother and picked up cocaine out of the back of an Arkansas state trooper man to go deliver his drop. You know what I mean? Like, I've seen some interesting things, I've heard some interesting stories. So you can never take, just like what Hayden said, what you see on the surface is not always what's going on in the background. And that's where we as peasants need to understand there's always more to the story. And sometimes there's mitigating factors. The scandal that we see isn't that much of a scandal, it's completely reasonable. And the completely normal, listen, Joe Biden's running the country. Don't believe your lying eyes when he misspeaks. He's got a stuttering problem, for heaven's sakes, right? There's that, and then what's there's behind the scenes? Like, oh, this isn't, he's not really running the country.

Biden Commutations And DOJ Accountability

SPEAKER_11 36:07

They called one of Biden's uh, one of Biden's staffers in, and this was an attorney, and she was in charge of pardons. Now, what did Joe Biden do in the last days of his time in office? He pardoned around 3,000 criminals in the federal system. Now, the impetus for these pardons generally was Joe Biden's crime bill in 1994 created disparity between powder cocaine sentence guidelines and crack cocaine sentence guidelines. And of course, the crack cocaine sentence guidelines got primarily used in inner cities amongst minority populations, specifically blacks, whereas powder cocaine typically was a more expensive drug and it was more your rock stars and you know that were using it, and they would get probation or rehab. Meanwhile, if you had the same amount in crack cocaine, same drug, you'd get 20 years in prison. You know, it was just huge disparity. So they he basically, through executive order and through the pardon, adjusted sentencing guidelines to make them equal. I actually don't oppose that. It's you got to go one way or the other, in my opinion. Unfortunately, because Hunter Biden is a both crack cocaine and powder crack addict, they went down on the guidelines. But what they told the world, what they told the world on the news was these were nonviolent felons. Well, I happen to know quite a few of these people because there's only like 140 prisons. And when you pardon 3,000 people, commute 3,000 people, there's going to be some of those people in every facility. Okay. So I knew a lot of them. And they would, and what happened was there was a lit. None of these people asked for a commutation or a pardon. It just happened. And they asked for a list and it got posted down in the library. So these guys would go down to the library, and I saw tears of joy when people saw their inmate ID number on the roster showing that their sentence guideline had been adjusted. I saw people calling home, asking their parents to look up what their new sentencing was. When was their outdate? I saw people immediately being removed from prison because they were two years past their release date after the adjustments. So as I'm, in fact, there was one January 6er who his cellmate was one of these people, and he got out on January 5th, and then he got out on or on January 19th, and he got out on January 20th. He's like, what are the odds you had two cellmates in the federal system get pardons from two different presidents one day apart? Right. It's like pretty interesting. Nonetheless, I asked some of these guys, what were your charges? Right. I was one of the few people that could ask that just because I walked around like I had no idea what was going on. I'm like, prison. I did, but I kind of pulled the ignorant card. Sure, sure. So I asked some of these guys, like, Well, what were your crimes? Well, crack cocaine, blah, blah, blah. They had guns. Okay. So you're not supposed to get a commutation because you had guns. Did you was there violence? Yeah, but I plugged those away. Oh, so you were probably violent, but you took a plea deal. Or in some cases, people did have violence. And then we found out there were people on this list that had nothing to do with crack cocaine, like a judge in Pennsylvania that was selling juveniles upstate into facilities where they committed suicide and they were harmed because he was getting kickbacks. Oh, he got a commutation. You know, so we saw this big list. So Eric Schmidt is grilling this attorney who created that list and took it to the auto pin. And she was called into Congress by the Democrats to slander Todd Blanche, to say Todd Blanche was not going to be independent of the president like she.

SPEAKER_32 39:28

I was called here to talk about Mr. Blanche's nomination.

SPEAKER_40 39:31

Yeah, I know that's what you thought you were came here to talk about. But the reality is your credibility is gone. You can't come here and do the political bidding of the Biden administration. And then when you're called out on that and being fired, and thank God you're being fired. You know what I really think? I think you thought you came here and you had you're selling merch, by the way. Do we have the hoodies that are up for sale? You sell merch. That's all the hoodies. I think you came here thinking that you were going to be uh uh ordained the high priestess of the resistance. That's what I think. That's why you're denying simple facts that you authored the memo commuting the sentences. Everyone knows that. And we have documents now from the White House that they use that memo as a PR stunt. And so the idea, you have no credibility to talk about Todd Blanche. You have none. You've come here, you deny basic facts, you you recommended the commutation of murderers. You gave no quarter at all or any time to the victims of these brutal murders. So again, I can't believe you've been called here by the other side, but I'm glad we've had an opportunity to expose your hypocrisy.

SPEAKER_11 40:45

She wanted to be the high priestess of the resistance. And yet she's the one. And there wasn't just the drug dealers, it was also the murderers that got the entire death row in the federal system got their sentences commuted to life. What's crazy was I was in prison with three of these death row inmates. They weren't happy about it. Okay, they were not happy about it. They've been in for decades, they're ready to be done. They were not happy about this. So to one extent, they're kind of overpunished, right? But to the families, they were counting on a end date, right? So pretty sad. Again, what you see is not what you get behind the

Red Teams FOIA And Government Data Leaks

SPEAKER_11 41:23

scenes. I've become aware that most of our government computer systems are frail, they're easy to hack. Given AI now and these frontier labs and their ability to just exploit any code vulnerability. Um, I know in certain states, and I know this now for a fact, that there are what we would call red teams that are going in and they're they're breaking into government websites because China's done it, Russia's done it, everybody seems to do it. So they're going in and they're downloading all this data. Don, this is this is atrocious. Like everything. Everything. They're just sucking it down. We're talking hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of terabytes is being downloaded. And what they plan on doing it is using it to do FOIA. Because now we'll be able to see what it is we're asking for, ask for it specifically, and when it comes redacted, we can then take them to court to unredact it because we'll know what's redacted. Secrets will be exposed. Secrets will be exposed. Any government worker that's been involved with anything shady, your days are numbered. Your days are numbered. This is now information warfare. And we're well beyond the aspect where we believe in truth and justice, right? These guys probably aren't going to get prosecuted because if they get prosecuted, then it would uncover the crimes that they were trying to explain. It's like the it's the back and forth. You see what I'm saying? Why do we never go after China? Because then we'd expose that we didn't do our job to our statutory requirement to secure these websites and on and on it goes. Right. One of the speakers that was at the uh Kit Sap Rifle and Revolver Club, he mentioned this. He mentioned that bureaucrats are scared when they get exposed. And how do you know? They get exposed and then they change the rules, not for what they did, but for how you expose them, making it harder to FOIA information from certain departments. Entire state departments are closed off to FOIA because they've been exposed, not because they got to the bottom of their crimes. And in some cases, what they're finding is 85% of money that the state spends is outright stolen, misappropriated, or leaked out through the cracks through at best what could be explained as incompetence. This is like the IRS clip we played last week, where the guy said, you know, we've got $50 million contracts. What's this for? I don't know. Cancel the contract. Nobody calls. Right. You'd think somebody would notice. You'd think somebody would notice. And all this is festered in an environment post Nixon where the Justice Department is supposed to be independent from the White House. You've heard this before, independent under the law. No one is above the law. The White House can't just tell the DOJ to go prosecute someone. Okay, it sounds good on paper, it sounds good to our ears, but on paper, is the DOJ not part of the executive branch? Aren't they directly under control of the president? Isn't the president himself the chief law enforcement officer and delegates that power to the attorney general? Is that not how I understand it? So in an environment where government is getting busted, who covers up for the government? We've seen it a million times before. The intelligence agencies, things just go to die, right? Prosecutorial decisions don't get made, stuff disappears.

SPEAKER_21 44:34

We're investigating it and we can't talk about ongoing investigations.

SPEAKER_11 44:38

Yeah, and all of this festers because the president or governor, whoever's in charge, can do the plausible deniability. Well, I can't just tell the attorney general to look at the crime, and they wouldn't be independent. They're never supposed to be independent. This has been a thing constantly. The left wants the DOJ to be a fourth branch of government. That's constantly doing that. And Todd Blanch was on Meet the Press with Kristen Walker, and she asked him, Can you pledge to be independent? Look at the vitriol that she says this.

SPEAKER_41 45:08

I appreciate your being here in person. As we just heard uh in your address to the Justice Department staff this week, you said you and DOJ will, quote, uphold the law without fear or favor. You, of course, used to be President Trump's former personal defense attorney. Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?

SPEAKER_13 45:30

Well, what that's there's a big difference between saying we will be we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I'm not gonna pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. If the president, I mean, if I were to pledge that will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country, which is what he has said, what you're saying to me is I should say, no, sir. Not gonna do it. So there's there I will act with integrity. Our prosecutors will act um with integrity. We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor. And that's exactly what we've been doing, and that's what every Department of Justice should do.

SPEAKER_41 46:11

Well, I guess big picture if the president asks you to do something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?

SPEAKER_13 46:18

The president will never ask you to do something unethical or legal or illegal. He never has, he never will. And no, I have I swore um uh to the Constitution of the United States, like every cabinet secretary has done, and like every attorney general before me has done. And so this narrative that's mostly pushed by the left and pushed by the media that the president's gonna pull me aside and ask me to do something illegal is completely a false narrative, not true, will not happen, and hasn't happened.

SPEAKER_11 46:46

Okay.

SPEAKER_21 46:47

Will you commit to treason right now? Will you commit to it? Come on.

SPEAKER_11 46:51

Yeah. There was, however, a meeting on January 5th, 2020, where Barack Obama and James Comey and Clapper and Brennan and Monaco and uh uh what's her other name, you know, all met in a in the White House of get Flynn. Get Flynn. Do we have evidence? No, let's get him, let's get Trump. What do we have? Well, Hillary Clinton fabricated a dossier. Maybe we can use that. Where was this line of questioning then? Right? Where was this line of questioning then? The truth is the DOJ is never independent, except for public-facing political purposes. Oh, we uh the president didn't, you know, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, they didn't direct us to go after uh Donald Trump. They would never want us to do that. No, this is because we have evidence. And where is it? The question is where's their evidence he's not a Russian agent?

unknown 47:42

Okay.

SPEAKER_11 47:44

Rich Cheryl Atkinson, someone that I mentioned quite often, one of the one of the journalists out there that you really got to give a lot of credit to. Remember, her big thing was he uncovered Fast and Furious and started reporting. And in response to that, the United States government sent operatives to her house. They tapped her internet, they hacked her husband's computer computer, and they planted child pornography on it. It derailed her career, it offset the reporting, it enabled the cover-up of Fast and Furious. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for that, but of course, that went nowhere, right? So all of that happened. And of course, Cheryl Atkinson got a whistleblower to come out and explain all this. And she went and sued the government. And she got a lot of legs on this, but what does the government do? It covers for the government, right? Back to blue, they say. As all know what to well, A.G. Todd Blanche's contention that anybody who feels, and this was in response to the weaponization of government, a different part of the interview. Anyone who feels as though the government has committed tort, them, uh a tort against them, that's a civil wrong, can sue. So I, as a J6er, if I feel like I was wronged during my J6 journey, the burden is on me to now sue the government and make a tort claim. Some of the offenses are I mean, the president wrote executive orders talking about weaponization of government. We've been named. We were pardoned. There were the the violations of our civil rights were legion. Even for the most violent convicted uh person in January 6th that absolutely did everything the government accused on that day, their civil rights were violated to the degree that you may as well they deserve to get out of prison, right? It was find the man, I'll show you the crime. And even the handful that committed crimes, they used that and leveraged it against everybody else. It was horrendous. But the burden's on us. Now we got to go sue. The weaponization fund was designed to facilitate this faster and easier rather than going through the normal tort process. Why is that? Because the tort process is broken. And Cheryl Akin knows first hand. I've spent over a decade in court under four administrations suing DOJ over proven government intrusions into my computers with irrefutable forensics, admissions from an ex-agent, and more. But all but all a layperson gets when trying to hold government accountable is a million-dollar plus legal bill. The courts let the government miss any deadline with impunity and have every latitude, while the U.S. citizen gets no benefit of any leniency and conversely, has the harshest, harshest rules apply, even when meeting all the deadlines. The government itself gets automatic immunity, which we had to overcome, and successfully did in her lawsuits in a lengthy and expensive process. But after all that, government officials, Holder and Rod Rosenstein, got automatic immunity. The immunity law was not pretended, intended to protect officials committing crimes as part of their job. It was intended to protect government officials from constant nuisance lawsuits. Okay, that makes sense. But again, any power you give them, they will abuse to the fullest extent possible. The law or its interpretation needs to change so that regular citizens who are wrong can get accountability. The courts take the word of a convicted felon. In my case, ex-Secret Service agent, his name's main was Sean Bridges. His name was Sean Bridges, and he stole almost a hundred million dollars in cryptocurrencies and did a prison sentence over it. So he was a convicted felon. Okay, and he was the one who did this. Agent who was part of the operation ended up ended up serving time in prison for unrelated corruption and crimes. He pinky promises he wasn't involved, and the court uses a statement as a reason to dismiss the case against him. Another agent who admitted being part of the operation and could have led us to proof of the higher-ups we know were involved, his name was John McGreevy, suddenly disappeared and died after we won against him and got a clerk's default. Before getting discovery, the courts basically make you prove in advance the things you need discovery to be able to prove. It's an illogical loop. But that loop is going to close with these red teams that are gathering all this information. And shame on you, government, for hiding behind a law saying you can't hack, but not actually closing the back doors that are all over your systems. Shame on you guys. I'm sad it's going to happen. I have nothing to do with it, but it's happening in every state. And we were going to see this happen. We're never going to have a big dump because that's not what their intention is. Their intention is to go and snipe every one of these corrupt actors in our government and try to get them all. All of this is pre-trial. You never need to go to a jury to show the forensic proof. You never get to go to the jury to show forensic proof or hear expert testimony or confession. The courts don't let it get that far. It is sad. That is the reality. That is the lived experience. And if you don't think that government officials routinely perjure themselves, routinely perjure themselves, there's no better example than a child protective services case that rose to the Georgia State Supreme Court. And in this trial, it was proven that government workers, specifically CPS workers who took children from their parents, committed outright known perjury lies on applications, and government lawyers took that and submitted it without any question. Listen to this Supreme Court justice go back and forth with an attorney general's lawyer in the state of Georgia over this very matter.

SPEAKER_17 53:29

How is that consistent? I mean, I hate to get pumped up about this, but I'm st I'm just staggered by the claim that people in the shoes of your clients wouldn't be on notice that you can't use perjury and false evidence to take away somebody's children. That to me is mind-boggling. In and in in criminal proceedings, we know this to be true because that's No, no, a criminal proceedings, this is court, it's a court proceeding with a liberty interest, a fundamental liberty interest at stake. And on the reverse side, the state And you're telling us that you're telling us that these officials who do this all the time wouldn't be on notice that you can't commit perjury and put in false evidence.

SPEAKER_37 54:10

I understand broadly the principle that um common sense tells us that lying is wrong and lying to Yeah, but it's more than common sense.

SPEAKER_17 54:19

We're not using common sense, we're using statutes, for example, against this kind of behavior.

SPEAKER_37 54:24

I I don't I I was not presented, I have not been seeing any federal law, case law or law that tells me that in this situation that we were faced in, which is what we have to do.

SPEAKER_17 54:35

Well, say you're say your clients uh hired six people to be actors and to go into court and say, we're neighbors and we saw all this terrible stuff. And then your clients presented those witnesses in court. You're telling me that they would have no reason to believe that you can't do that because there was no federal case that says you can't bring actors into court to swear falsely against somebody.

SPEAKER_37 54:58

But again, here we're appealing to sort of a broader definition of what is a clearly established right. I mean, we have to find the clearly established right in the context that our um social workers were presented with, which was they were faced with the court order.

SPEAKER_17 55:13

But you know, again, I can't even believe for a microsecond that if that a case worker wouldn't understand you can't lie and put in false evidence.

SPEAKER_11 55:22

I made it, I made it incorrect, I made an incorrect statement here. Okay. There's another clip out of the Supreme Court that we have played on this show that is almost identical to this. And I just thought this was that clip. This is from Pasadena, California. Oops. From coast to coast. Government workers, CPS, are perjuring themselves, and the attorney general's office are like, yeah, this looks good to us. But what we understand it's wrong to lie. We understand morally and ethically it's wrong, but we wanted to take the kids. What's the law for if not to try to uphold moral and good and ethical standards? You know what I mean? This judge is just like, what? You're telling me your office's position is just well, you know, I mean, a lie is a lie, but you know, we have to do process. No, no, you know how many people and I met someone over the weekend that spent 13 years in criminal litigation with the state of Washington, went to trial three times just to have the prosecution defer the trial to a future date, ultimately dropped it all. 13 years, all based on lies, misrepresentation. They can these guys can grind you up as long as they want. Grind you up as long as they want. In the meantime, in the meantime, we're just gonna go through a whole smattering of stuff that's happening that all came out this weekend.

Pay To Play Corruption Roundup

SPEAKER_11 56:42

So on Friday, a grand jury found Albert, a former Albuquerque New Mexico lawmaker. He was convicted on 37 felonies for stealing millions in school funds with his longtime friend. He walked right out of court with no handcuffs or nothing.

SPEAKER_19 56:56

Former New Mexico lawmaker Cheryl William Stapleton walked out of federal court Friday morning after being convicted of money laundering, bribery, and mail fraud. Guilty on all 37 federal charges. Where the hell is she going? You want an apology to the public? Stapleton not responding to questions. Former New Mexico lawmaker Cheryl Williams Stapleton walked out of federal.

SPEAKER_11 57:20

We have one down. Another one, Katie Hobbs, governor of Arizona. Like, in my opinion, illegitimate governor of Arizona. She's under serious investigation too for pay-for-play schemes.

SPEAKER_08 57:30

Republican State Senator TJ Schope, who's been asking if a pay-to-play scheme occurred between Governor Katie Hobbes' administration and Sunshine Residential Homes. Sunshine, which operates group homes for kids under state care, donated $400,000 to Governor Hobbes and the state Democratic Party. In fact, Sunshine was the second largest donor to Hobbes inauguration and got more state money at a time when the Department of Child Safety has been reducing the use of group homes and moving vulnerable kids into more family-like settings. According to an Arizona Republican investigation that used DCS and state contract records, besides Sunshine Residential Homes, no standard group home provider was approved for a rate increase during Hobbes' time in office.

SPEAKER_31 58:18

Sunshine Residential Homes Incorporated runs group homes for foster kids and was approved for a big rate hike during Hobbes' time in office. It's a company already on the radar screen of state lawmakers like Republican TJ Schope.

SPEAKER_20 58:31

We have an entity here in Sunshine Residential that uh currently has a lawsuit pending against it because a young man uh below the age of 10 passed away because he was not administered insulin.

SPEAKER_31 58:45

According to reporting by the AZ Republic, Sunshine Residential was denied a rate increase in December 2022, but three days later donated $100,000 to the Hobbes inaugural campaign. Then the very next year, the increase was approved. $234 a day, much higher than the average $169 for other group homes.

SPEAKER_20 59:06

We were talking about millions of dollars. And to know that not many, if um any at all, had seen uh rate increases that large uh was definitely troubling.

SPEAKER_31 59:17

The newspaper also reports Sunshine donated $200,000 to the Arizona Democratic Party, plus the CEO was on the Hobbes Inauguration Committee. Schope says it's either a crazy coincidence or plain as day, pay to play, and it's now up to investigators.

SPEAKER_20 59:33

I have to believe that they at the very least see the allegations the same way that I do, uh, which is troubling at best, uh, and possibly worse.

SPEAKER_11 59:45

Given our experience, Ron, which way do we think this one goes? I know I you're talking $200,000 to the party and to Katie Hobbes, $300,000 in political donations from a group home? Yeah, like I never my business has never made political contributions, but then again, I wasn't on the teat. You know, I wasn't on the teat. So what everything like I you let me propose this. How about we ban any businesses that receive one penny of any state or federal funds from making political contributions of any kind? Let's just close the door. Close the door for we're gonna give you a grant, but funnel 35% of it back to the party and some select. You know what I mean? Let's just close the door. Why is that even happening?

SPEAKER_21 1:00:31

I don't know, but it seems like it's prolific. It does seem like it's prolific. How about this?

SPEAKER_11 1:00:37

How about this one? Democrat ex-New Jersey mayor Gina La Placa was charged with fraud for faking signatures on her primary ballot. Same corrupt dem who pleaded guilty to DUI with 0.3 blood alcohol with her toddler in the car. But she's asking for some price.

SPEAKER_23 1:00:53

The township is facing charges after police say she was driving under the influence with her two-year-old in the car. Police say she was driving erratically, and an open container of alcohol, they say, was in the vehicle. Tonight, her family is asking for grace, saying she needs help.

SPEAKER_11 1:01:11

Yeah, she needs help. Yeah, she lied to get on the ballot. She drived drunk with kids in the car. Yeah, she needs help. She needs help from the Democrats to cover this up, Ron.

SPEAKER_29 1:01:22

That's what they're saying.

SPEAKER_11 1:01:23

We need grace and help. Help, cover it up. How about locally? This is my representative in Washington State. Her name is Tara Simmons. Washington State lawmaker hit with a $15,000 fine in an ethics case. Representative Tara Simmons says she plans to appeal. There's a Tara Simmons sign on the entrance to my street. Okay. She's running for office. There she is right there. Washington State, right? Tara Simmons was fined $15,000 on Friday by the state ethics panel for improperly using her permit position to steer public funds to a nonprofit where she worked and trying to retaliate against the person who initiated the investigation against her. Bada bada boom.

SPEAKER_19 1:02:04

Oh boy.

SPEAKER_11 1:02:05

My neighbors, people I I know, people we know, Ron, are gonna check the box for Tara Simmons, who literally was funding her own nonprofit and got caught. The legislative and in Washington State, they're punishing her. That's how bad this is. The legislative ethics boards concluded the Bremerton Democrat committed three violations of conflict of interest and special privilege laws and levied a maximum $5,000 penalty for each. She also must pay the cost of state attorneys. The board dismissed three other allegations stemming from efforts to help her friend get a job, donating unspent campaign funds to the nonprofit to pay for the friend's position, and working for an organization that receives state funding. We dismiss those because we're all doing it.

SPEAKER_21 1:02:46

Do you happen to know what the nonprofit is?

SPEAKER_11 1:02:48

Dude, it's probably gonna tell us here. The nine-member board issued a 15-paid decision Friday, roughly six weeks after conducting a trial-like proceedings into allegations against Simmons. Simmons, who adamantly denies wrongdoing, y'all doing it, said in a statement that the fine was unfair, excessive, and that she had to pursue a hearing to prove these allegations were untrue. She also said she was better off compared to the earlier case in which she had a chance to settle. People shouldn't be excessively punished when they actually prevail. Uh did you? The ruling arrives after the primary election, which Simmons leads fellow Democrat Daria Legion by a margin of 57% to 39%. The two will face off again in November. My, my, my. Two violations are related to a $1 million grant Simmons helped secure in 2024 to support the expansion of a public dashboard of criminal justice data created by the American Equity and Justice Group. The group has required a subcontract of $500,000 to work with a nonprofit organization and advocates for equity in technology and education to provide the public with data and social determinations that impact education outcomes. So much value added. I hate the fact that they misuse the word equity. Just call it equality. Anyways, uh, so there you go. Just you know, blatant pay for play, blatant you know, grease in your own pockets, and that's right here in our backyard. And Democrats in the Pacific Northwest, specifically Kitsap County, you're idiots. You think that that's just the surface, my friends. That's just the surface. Another former Anoka County, Minnesota attorney, Andrea Sampson, was arrested for alleging he helped to run a sex trafficking operation. Oh, that's fun. So she's one of the attorneys that was putting our brothers and sisters in prison or probably similar crimes and other crimes, and yet was just, you know, sex trafficking out the back door of the court because why not? How about this? How about the judge that sat on Donald Trump's hush money trial up in New York? Right? Federal prosecutors, turns out, are investigating the firm once owned by the daughter of the crooked judge who oversaw President Trump's hush mushroom in Manhattan. So anybody who listened to Donald Trump during that trial heard his crooked judge, his daughter, they knew this was happening. We saw it happening in real time. And unfortunately, the Department of Justice apparently was independent. Judge Mershaw was a far-left conflicted judge who oversaw Manhattan attorney Alvin Bragg's Stormy Generals Huss money trial against President Trump. The judge's daughter, Laureen Merchant, is a far-left political operative who worked for the Biden Harris campaign. Lorraine Merchant's firm, Authentic Campaigns, Inc., has received tens of millions of dollars from Democrats who want to take Trump down. She helped raise $93 million off her father's case. Wow. The New York Times reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago subpoenaed authentic campaign for internal records of communications with Democrat clients. The subpoena initially asked for communications from the Biden Harris campaign from New York Kathy Hokel and the DNC to the Times. America First Legal previously sued Murchon for financial declosures and reports of his uh amid reports, his daughter's firm made tens of millions of dollars as the political trial continued. Uh AFL sued under Murchon because he's supposed to disclose that stuff. Clearly, Justice Murchon's daughter and her clients stand to profit handsomely from lawfare against President Trump. Yeah, so he's being investigated. Again, anywhere you look, don't look too hard. I had a friend tell me one time, don't meet your heroes. Don't meet your heroes. Even something as simple as a fencing contract.

SPEAKER_09 1:06:14

The city of Long Beach says it spent nearly $790,000 on this fence behind me. But these records obtained by NBC4 Investigate show building the fence, labor construction, and materials actually cost half that price. So where did hundreds of thousands of dollars go? Well, that is a question a lot of neighbors are asking as they plead with the city now to keep library services open.

SPEAKER_34 1:06:37

I'm just asking you, please don't cut our hours. And don't cut our employees.

SPEAKER_09 1:06:42

Long Beach neighbor Emily Quest says the library is a critical safe space for her and others.

SPEAKER_03 1:06:46

We're not asking for a lot.

SPEAKER_09 1:06:48

At city leaders debate where to cut spending, NBC 4 investigates took a closer look at one of the city's biggest recent library expenses, the downtown Billy Jin King Library Fence. The city says it was installed to create a safer space for events on an outdoor terrace often crowded with homeless encampments. The price checked to taxpayers, $790,000. When the fence opened up back in May, one question immediately stood out. We asked city manager Tom Odaka. There could have been a cheaper way to do this.

SPEAKER_12 1:07:15

I don't think so. This is no, this is the this is we you know we pay a lot of attention to that. We do this as uh cost effectively as possible.

SPEAKER_09 1:07:21

Mayor Rex Richardson defended the price too.

SPEAKER_24 1:07:24

These are not normal fences you put up at your house. They have to be able to open up if there's an emergency or a fire. This is not your typical fence. This is we have to make sure that everything is safe and designed uh well. So that's all I have to say on that.

SPEAKER_11 1:07:36

Well, I would say for $400,000, you probably got the fence you wanted with all those technical specs, which is what a fucking gate, excuse me, gate? It's just a gate. They gotta open up in a fire. So they need a an entrance, a gate? Okay. Look, not like the ones at my house, though. I don't have any gate. You know what I mean? Again, it's not a cedar wood shape, wood fence, you know? Sure. But there's $300,000 missing in this thing. Oh, well, that went to permits. You're the city. There's no permits. Wave it. You know what I mean? Oh, we might have to shut the library down because of budget shortfalls. It's just offense. Homelessness. Too much homelessness? Like, you see what I'm saying? What's going on here? What's going on here? It would almost lead you to believe that maybe we are electing morons. Or maybe there's something even more nefarious going on. Maybe there's something going on with the elections.

Election Systems Hacking And Voter Rolls

SPEAKER_11 1:08:27

What if I told you that 11-year-olds could hack our election systems and change the votes? Turns out they did. Our election machines and software are so unsecure that an 11-year-old changed election results on a replica Florida state website in under 10 minutes. 39 kids from ages six to 17 attempted to hack replica Secretary of State websites of six swing states. 35 of 39 kids were successful.

SPEAKER_21 1:08:55

The future is so bright.

SPEAKER_11 1:09:04

Because our government computers are that insecure. They rely on you not attacking them because of the the weapon of law. Because they'll come after you. Look at the hack down in Arizona. A guy downloaded the entire election database as a hobby hack. They went and interviewed him. He admitted to it. No prosecution. He just did it because he could. These kids, they've created a replica site, cut and paste the code, put it in a sandbox. Six to eleven year olds attacked it. 35 out of 37 of them. Completely insecure. But you know, don't believe your lying eyes. So that just goes on to s just just goes on to show, right? Why is it that we want to go over the voter rolls? We want this election data. Why is why is the DOJ under Donald Trump trying to clean up voter rolls around the country?

SPEAKER_41 1:10:10

State officials have pushed back against those moves. They say states dictate how elections are run, not the federal government. Is it time for the DOJ to drop this fight and will you do it?

SPEAKER_13 1:10:23

Well, just I mean, we're relying on a statute, uh a statute passed by Congress that allows us in the right circumstances to review and get those voter rolls. And so, yes, but no, no, we're not gonna stop doing um what I think every American should expect us to do, which is make sure that we have elections that are fair. And as that relates to the Department of Justice, that means making sure that that there are no constitutional legal violations, even at the state level. So, yes, the President Trump, that this administration knows and and and of course understands that states administer elections, and that will always be the case, but it doesn't mean the federal government should play no role. And so the tension there is, of course, whether we should be playing the role that we're playing, and and that's that's really what we're litigating.

SPEAKER_41 1:11:05

How far are you willing to take this fight? Because you've been ruled against now 22 times. Are you gonna take this all the way to the Supreme Court? Do you anticipate?

SPEAKER_13 1:11:13

We'll see. We'll see what happens. We're trying to work. Of course. Yes, absolutely it's a possibility. Election integrity is something that that President Trump ran on, and the American people elected him, is something that every American should care about. And so the idea that that the Department of Justice is trying to investigate issues around elections to make sure they're fair and make sure they're conducted the right way is not something that we should be running away from. That's something we should be running right towards.

SPEAKER_11 1:11:38

We have an asymmetry of information. If Kristen Welker had run a quick two-minute piece on 35 of 37 for 39 six to 11-year-olds hacking the election system and changing the outcome in the in the sandbox mock trial, if she had run that news bitch and then did this, right? But we have an asymmetry of information. For those of us that look under the carpet, we see yesterday's mess, right? We see it. But those of us who don't just watch the legacy media and consider them honest brokers of information, there's an asymmetrical load here. What I know and we know and what you know are totally different, right? That's a problem. You're only as good as the information you have. I still hold the contention that 99% of people are rational and logical. That given if we all read the same sheet of music, we could sing as one choir. But if we all get handed different music, good luck. Strongest voices will prevail. You know what I'm saying? And that's what we're seeing here. They don't want anybody to look. Look at this map. Washington and Oregon, California, no surprise. Colorado, no surprise. New Mexico, Arizona, no surprise. Minnesota, no surprise. Illinois, no surprise. But I am surprised by a few. Idaho.

SPEAKER_29 1:13:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_11 1:13:00

Why is that? Because for decades, Idaho has been an open door for migrant workers to come and pick potatoes. And they've been registered to vote. And it's changing the composition of your state, right? Not by a lot, but enough. Enough that it's like, hey, why are why would Idaho not want to show its voter rolls? West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, uh, all states that you would think would disclose them. But they're not. Why? Because it's the they have to maintain the asymmetric the asymmetry. In fact, here's another example of the asymmetry. Last week we played twice clips of James O'Keefe and Cam Higby going into Michigan and trying to vouch for other people and register to vote in the day of the whole thing. You are the ID, says the election maker. Well, this story got a little bit of traction. And so the local news investigated, not investigated, they repeated a line. Apparently, Michigan is now looking to put put charges on Cam Higby and James O'Keefe, although they will never name him by name, right? To put charges on them for exposing what they say they legally can do. Think about that for just a second.

unknown 1:14:12

Okay.

SPEAKER_11 1:14:13

Think about that. So this is what Michiganders heard over the weekend. The asymmetry. If you didn't watch James O'Keefe and Cam Higbee's actual reporting, and this was the only information you got, what do you think about it? Listen to this.

SPEAKER_30 1:14:28

New at five, the Secretary of State telling us this afternoon that law enforcement is review reviewing what they're calling, quote, outrageous misconduct.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:36

State of Minnesota's calling our conduct outrageous. How about it being outrageous to give out eight ballots to non-registered voters without ID?

SPEAKER_30 1:14:44

Minneapolis polling sites. Conservative political commentator Cam Higby says he was highlighting the state's voting voucher laws. In this YouTube video, he dressed in a burqa claiming that he was registered as a Minnesota voter, trying to vouch for others. He says poll workers were going to allow him to vote with a random name without verifying ID. It also shows him leaving a polling place after being told he needed to sign an oath.

SPEAKER_15 1:15:10

Yeah, you edited out of your broadcast, Mr. Newscaster, the part where they said you're the ID, referring to me in Muslim garb. You're not willing to show that part on the local news.

SPEAKER_03 1:15:27

And then they are signing this oath, which says that they are who they say they are.

SPEAKER_30 1:15:34

The Secretary of State says poll workers immediately reported the visit to elections offices. He goes on to say they quote their apparent goal was to cast doubt.

SPEAKER_15 1:15:43

I'm not trying to cast doubt on anything. I'm just showing the election workers in their own words, describing how the vouching system works. It's not my words, it's not my opinion, it's what they said.

SPEAKER_30 1:15:58

Instead, they revealed their ignorance of how those laws actually work while putting themselves in legal jeopardy.

SPEAKER_15 1:16:04

By the way, you just cannot say my name, can you? You don't want to say my name. Because I'm Voldemort to you. Well, I'll say it for you. I'm James O'Keefe. The name is James O'Keefe. At least you got the Justice League part right. Stay tuned for publishing more tapes.

SPEAKER_11 1:16:24

Ha ha ha ha! They hate to be exposed. Well, he's got malfeasance. I'll never forget someone giving me crap about interviewing Sarah Brady, who got arrested in a Meridian Park during COVID. Nonviolent arrest. She turned around and arrest me. She made an example of herself. Took her a lot of money, took her a lot of years to get that thing dismissed. Eventually, she got it dismissed when the attorney general was elected in the state of Idaho. Because we should not be wasting our money on misdemeanor charges for a home parent in a public park in the COVID era that we now know is all bull crap, right? The whole thing was bull crap. They just want you to stay quiet. They just want you, trust us, we got this. You don't have this. Our information that the government tracks on us is not secure. Our elections are not secure. You've got attorneys running sex range, judges shipping juveniles to places where they're going to be abused and taking kickbacks.

SPEAKER_21 1:17:24

Money flying everywhere.

SPEAKER_11 1:17:25

You've got money flying everywhere. You've got a half of $800,000 for a freaking fence. It shouldn't cost $400,000 by hand.

SPEAKER_21 1:17:33

I want that contract ten times.

SPEAKER_11 1:17:35

Dude. Okay. The whole thing. I just checked the reason Idaho is not giving access to voter rolls. Idaho law actually requires the Secretary of State to obtain information from federal agencies to verify voter eligibility. I know they upload it into Eric, totally unsecure, has been hacked, owner is under indictment, but yet they won't give it to the federal government. And this is the problem. The federal government actually knows through Eric all the errors. So they're just covering it up. It's like, we know, but the DOJ has to get it from their court channels. They can't use the Eric stuff because it's like different compartmentalization, but it's the same information. So we know what they're covering up. They forced the state of Oregon to remove 800,000 illegal voters from their voter rolls.

SPEAKER_21 1:18:18

Damn.

SPEAKER_11 1:18:21

We know that they're so I don't buy that at all. Oh, we just gotta keep it. No, you don't. Listen, when all the laws violated, all the laws unenforced. Give them the voter rolls. The spirit of the law is citizens vote. Everything else at this point is bull crap. Everything else is bull crap. It's all layers to cover up the fact that you're letting non-citizens and people who shouldn't be voting vote. And how do I know this is a problem in Washington? Because when I was in prison, my wife got my ballot as a convicted felon. I never came off the voter rolls. I never got scrubbed. There was a ballot floating out there with my name on it. And then every time I do vote for Republican, I get signature verified. I actually have to go verify my signature today. The last day to do it. Okay. The whole thing stinks. But the asymmetrical information, trust, trust these guys. You can't trust any of them. Any of them. I don't care if they're your neighbors, I don't care who they are. Some of these people that get busted, you look at them, you go, Oh my gosh, this is just my neighbor. Like these little mayor candidates in small towns that are embezzling millions of dollars. You look at them and you're like, huh, that's interesting. No wonder after being in office for a little bit on a government job, they moved from this neighborhood to that neighborhood.

SPEAKER_21 1:19:43

How can they afford to move? You know, when you were in prison, Taylor, all those people that you talked to, did any of them ever have neighbors before they're in prison? I mean, everybody in prison has a neighbor some point.

SPEAKER_11 1:19:55

Yes, exactly.

Governors Podcasts And Public Trust

SPEAKER_11 1:19:57

So Gretchen Whitmer was on Gavin Newsome's podcast. Apparently, this is what we do now is politicians just start podcasts. I get it. You know, you want to get your side of the story out there, you get your hot take. And uh, she was on Gavin Newsom's podcast and she made a couple really interesting admissions here. And this is this is a sitting governor in Minnesota in Michigan. And on one hand, I'm glad she worked with Donald Trump. On the other hand, listen to what she tells you she does with her time.

SPEAKER_32 1:20:23

Point of the second term. I didn't know what to expect, to be honest. I I watched, I you know, I stumped for Kamla. You worked so hard. We all worked really hard for the ticket. Yeah, and um, I woke up the next day thinking my state voted for Donald Trump again. Yeah, and I gotta figure out how to conduct myself here. You know, after I tuned out for about a month, yeah. I had to turn off all the social media.

SPEAKER_28 1:20:47

Oh my gosh, right.

SPEAKER_32 1:20:48

I watched eight episodes of Dexter or eight seasons of Dexter. Hold on.

SPEAKER_11 1:20:54

Eight episodes. Okay. I tuned out for a month. Over the course of the month, you watched eight hour-long episodes. Oh, sorry, eight seasons of Dexter. These are 20 episodes a season, bro. I've watched Dexter. It took me a year, okay? She did it in a month. What was she doing as governor? Where do you find the time for this? Does anybody wonder who's running Michigan? Maybe Michigan has a pull-up bureau.

SPEAKER_21 1:21:21

Is there something important about Dexter?

SPEAKER_11 1:21:23

Nothing. It's a serial killer show, it's just a guilty pleasure show. There's nothing to it, right? It's just the point is, she spent a lot of time watching a TV show to cheer myself up. I was gonna just cheer up by Dexter.

SPEAKER_32 1:21:38

It's a serial killer show. And uh and then I came out of it. I thought, you know, I took an oath to the people, Michigan. I got two years left, and I I got it, I got work to do.

SPEAKER_28 1:21:46

So open hands.

SPEAKER_32 1:21:48

Wrote him a note after his inauguration. Watch his inauguration.

SPEAKER_28 1:21:50

You you wrote him a note. Wow. Did he respond to it?

SPEAKER_32 1:21:53

He did. He called me. I put my number in it and I said, Wow, because in his in his inauguration, he said something about auto workers. And I thought, all right, there's my congratulations. You won the election. I notice you talk about auto workers. If that's if that's something you want to work on, you know, I I'd love to work with you if if you want to help the industry. Here's my number. And he called me. And then he called me a number of times since then.

SPEAKER_28 1:22:20

And you visited the White House a few times.

SPEAKER_32 1:22:22

I did. Well, we've had, I mean, every state has had national disasters and climate.

SPEAKER_28 1:22:28

Yeah. Right. So many of us. I mean, it's the job. It's the damn job. And take the heat, right? You get it.

SPEAKER_32 1:22:33

I worked hard to make sure he wasn't in the Oval Office, but he was. And for Michigan, I gotta try to show up.

SPEAKER_28 1:22:40

And it's and those are good meetings, right?

SPEAKER_32 1:22:44

You know, I've gotten some really good stuff done. Honestly.

SPEAKER_28 1:22:47

I mean, he delivered for you guys.

SPEAKER_32 1:22:49

Fighter mission at Sulbridge Air National Guard base. And I tried to get that done under the Biden administration and get over the finish line. Yeah. But I got it done with him. So that's a huge deal to Michigan.

SPEAKER_28 1:23:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_32 1:23:00

So even though I don't like it, I know how to work with people. I'm not, you know, best friends with him.

SPEAKER_11 1:23:05

These guys created an asymmetric balance. They thought Trump was going to destroy everything, blah, blah, blah. And she's like, I'll work with you. And Trump's like, yeah, let's work. That's the asymmetry. The asymmetry at work. There are states that are getting no benefit that they could otherwise get if they just call the freaking guy.

unknown 1:23:22

Right?

SPEAKER_11 1:23:22

They just call the freaking guy. There's Gavin Newsom.

SPEAKER_21 1:23:25

Yeah. He's like, you put your number on it, and that worked. Wow.

SPEAKER_11 1:23:30

Wow. Holy smokes. You mean he's reasonable? Yeah. The asymmetry of information. All these people that Gretchen Whitman are convinced that Donald Trump's the worst thing coming, yet she reaches out and worked with him after watching eight seasons of Dexters. John Attack said, Your perspective is your experience in Washington. Our experience in Idaho is not as skewed. Idaho clears records actively, or so they say. Great. Then just call your local rep political representative and tell them to prove that to the federal government, just to put everybody's concerns at rest. I mean, why hide the information for the sake of hiding it if it's already known that they're clearing the roles? I know they're not. I know they're not for a fact. Like, I don't want to go into it. Maybe I will. Maybe tomorrow I'll put something in there. Idaho is not clearing the roles, bro. Like, and you said it right, or so they say. At what point did you trust the government? That's when you went wrong.

SPEAKER_21 1:24:22

Yep.

SPEAKER_11 1:24:22

That's when you went wrong. Our founding fathers desperately tried to tell this this. If men were angels, we wouldn't need government. And the reason we're dividing government and dividing all this fracture is because in the history of the planet, there's never been a uh there's never been a, I'm thinking of the word in Portuguese, unfortunately. There's never been a benevolent government. There's never been a benevolent government. Politics is a synonym for power. Politics is a synonym for power. There's never been a benevolent government. This great experiment in self-representation requires there not be an asymmetry in information. Okay. One of the things that uh Tocville, when he toured the United States in the 1800s, said was even in the most backwards part of the country, because he was going through the Appalachians, Kentucky, even in the most backwards part of the country, your locals would talk about politics. They were informed because this country belonged to them. They viewed it as important what the goings on were. Unlike his experience in Europe, where the average peasant couldn't care less because they had no power. We're fast approaching the point where we don't have power, which is why people become apathetic with who gives them information. My dad taught me to see both sides. Happens to be the John Attackis commenting here, right? He taught me to see both sides. He always used the word paradigm. I like to use the word perspective. Okay, because they're a little bit different. Your paradigm, your perspective is what you see, your paradigm is what you want to believe. So, anyways, your paradigm might be trust the government, but your perspective, if your perspective is the government is honest, yeah, there's an asymmetry. You need to hit the reset facts of information, right? You can have a paradigm that all people are generally good, but the perspective that certain sectors of society attract freaking weirdos like government work. Okay. So your paradigm that everybody's good, don't project that onto this sector of people. You know what I'm saying? Don't project it onto this sector of people. Don't assume your local attorney is good. They lie for a living. Don't assume your local actor has a has depth to their thinking. You know what I mean? Don't look at the picture. There's a lot going on behind the scenes. And another example of a lot going by night behind the scenes is Nancy Mace. So Nancy Mace ran, you know, she ran for governor. She didn't get Trump's endorsement. She lost. Her political career's over in January. So she started a podcast. Like all good politicians. So this was her reveal on her podcast. So on the left is her podcast, on the right is a Instagram. She got all these new tattoos in the last couple weeks. So she's ready to go, man. She's like rocking and rolling. Now she said that she had to process her pain and trauma by getting all these tattoos in short succession.

SPEAKER_21 1:27:26

Is that what we need? We need tattoos.

SPEAKER_11 1:27:28

I was thinking about it. Right. So, anyways, again, just another one of those, like, you know, what you see on the surface, she's hiding a lot of pain behind the scenes there. Okay. Another interesting thing.

Suppressor Ruling Risk And Second Amendment Strategy

SPEAKER_11 1:27:49

This is a big deal. So, one of the things that happened in the big beautiful build was they got rid of the tax stamp tax or the tax stamp. Tax fee or whatever for suppressors and different you know firearms. And so because they took the fee down to zero, what the it went to court, and the court said, well, if there's no fee, there should be no registration or anything. So they did rid of all of it. And then the Department of Justice did not appeal this. So they're letting the court's decision stand and they're not going to advance it. So there's a time clock on this for how long. So right now, you can go into a gun store that sells suppressors and you can just buy a suppressor like you were buying a different thread for your handgun, huh? And walk out. And walk out. Yes. No. And then I can sell you a suppressor, and we don't have to go do any transfer paperwork. So huge win. However, and this is coming from the Andrew Branca show, there's some legal analysis about this, about people not doing this. Wait, because there's still an opportunity for the DOJ to do this, that, or the other, and you might be end up with an unregistered firearm. I love his analysis. It actually makes me want to right now go find a suppressor that I can buy for this very reason.

SPEAKER_25 1:29:05

There is an interesting kind of kerfuffle happening in the Second Amendment community because some people are urging caution. Caution, saying, hey, be careful. The penalties for having these items unregistered if registration is being required is 10 years in federal prison.

SPEAKER_11 1:29:24

My probably close to best friend in prison was in there for weapons of mass destruction for an unregistered suppressor. Okay. He had registered suppressor. He'd pass all the background checks, but one of his home kit suppressors, he drilled the hole in it before he'd done the tax stamp application. Okay. So he he got he long story, four and a half years federal prison, took a plea deal. And because he'd been in pretrial so long, they were up to the point where take the plea deal, you can get out in six months. Like, ah, you know, if I lose my case, which everybody does, it'll be 10 years. So he took the plea deal. He fell victim of this, which is now not a crime. So they just stole a half decade of his life. Stole a half decade of his life over a $200 tax stamp because he possessed a weapon of mass destruction, which he was authorized to have based on the other times he'd backed his background checks. Okay. So not an actual criminal, just in possession of a home kit suppressor, and he pre-drilled the hole. I get it. Don't do that, right? Don't do that. Or maybe our rules are stupid, which is why the the legislature got rid of the tax and ultimately the the court said, Oh, well, if there's no tax, there's not you can't register it.

SPEAKER_25 1:30:37

It's a big deal. Traditionally, the federal government has taken these uh these items very, very seriously. They treat a suppressor just like they would treat a uh a machine gun or a hand grenade. And uh so there's a lot of potential legal peril. And there does remain time. The the the deadline for appealing this decision is 60 days from when it was handed down. So that's uh you know, eight weeks from two weeks ago, that's six weeks going. So the DOJ could still appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and get this overturned. And then the then the old laws, the old rules would be back in effect. And there might be a bunch of people who are transferring suppressors now who suddenly find themselves under under the old rules again, and they haven't done the paperwork, they didn't get their tax stamp. So there's a there's a potential. Some people are saying, hey, you gotta chill out for a couple months. Make sure you don't create jeopardy and uh an alternative take.

SPEAKER_11 1:31:34

That seems like good advice.

unknown 1:31:37

Right?

SPEAKER_11 1:31:38

Seems like good advice. Be hesitant, slow down, make sure you don't get cross with these guys. However, however, there's another side of this argument. The constitution of the land is a direct reflection of the constitution of the people. Keep that in mind.

SPEAKER_25 1:31:53

Is this one um Phoenix ammunition? Uh full disclosure, I've bought their ammunition. It's pretty, it's pretty good stuff. Did I show you the cautionary note? Did I forget to pull that up? That's this one here. Good advice. Everyone needs to chill for two months. The appellate deadline is 60 days. Only the deadline for a request for a stay expired yesterday. Nothing stops the DOJ from appealing or asking the appellate court first day, pending appeal. That could still happen. But talk about being on offense. Phoenix ammunition. Uh, and again, full disclosure, I've bought their products, I like their ammo. Um, strongly, ardently, some would say viciously pro-Second Amendment, as as we all should be. And he notes this kind of cautious mentality is why the gun community has made such little progress compared to the legalization efforts for marijuana. Like it or not, the marijuana guys had balls. They were growing illegally before it was legal. When it became medically legal, they grew more than they were allowed to grow and sold it to people who didn't have a medical license. Now that it's legal, legal, they're fighting tooth and nail to repeal the syntax most states put in place. They made it abundantly clear that it wasn't possible to regulate marijuana any longer.

SPEAKER_11 1:33:10

Joe Rogan put Texas on notice. If Texas tries to outlaw marijuana, you'll lose the entire millennial and Gen X vote. You'll lose them all. Okay. Marijuana growers, again, the Constitution's reflection of the people. Too many people were doing it. They couldn't prosecute it. Therefore, let's make it legal so we can tax it and get around. You know what I'm saying? Same concept here. Throw some balls. Make it too big for them to come after everybody. Overwhelm the sales, make it so popular, they'll look at it and go, well, maybe instead of a uh transfer registration tax, we'll just do a sales tax. Go ahead, let them do it. But don't let them register it again. Overwhelm them with unregistered suppressors, even if we only have a two-month window to get them. Now's your chance. Now's your chance.

SPEAKER_25 1:33:56

And in short order, most states were essentially forced into legalization because it became an unsolvable problem. That's what 3D printing has done for guns, he says, to a degree, but now we have the opportunity to blow the NFA out of the effing water. And you still have people saying, Oh, wait and see, be patient, don't do anything yet, guys. We haven't heard from Daddy government yet. To clarify every nook and cranny of the ruling. If the ruling remains, there should be a half million NFA transfers tomorrow, he writes, meaning today. Everyone taking off their pistol braces and throwing on a magpull MoE, a real shoulder stock on their on their AR pistols that are really supposed to be short-barreled rifles. Stocks on handguns that turns the handgun into a rifle. What will the government do? Let's not give them even a moment to breathe. That may be the morally superior position. As a lawyer, I do feel obliged to caution. Criminal stakes are pretty high here if things go the wrong way. Hopefully they won't.

SPEAKER_11 1:34:58

If things go the wrong way, you could always just dump it in the trash or give it to your homeless friend. They never enforce anything on those guys. I figured out how we can get rid of homelessness overnight. Just enforce failure to file your tax return laws. Reality is it's voluntary. They don't have to file. But wouldn't that be a joke for all of you that struggle so much every day? Hey, listen, man, you're being ridiculous. You're self-imposing this. They don't even impose it on the millions of homeless

Bitcoin M2 Money Supply And Timing

SPEAKER_11 1:35:22

people. All right, another thing, because you know, this isn't a Bitcoin show, but we may as well talk about it. This is uh he's very oh Tommy Lee. He's very popular in the crypto Bitcoin space. And this is him in 2019 when Bitcoin was at $5,000.

SPEAKER_04 1:35:38

Now, if you actually think it's undervalued by that extent?

SPEAKER_06 1:35:41

Well, you know, we've kind of we think the best approach for most people is just to put 1% or 2%.

SPEAKER_04 1:35:46

Are you saying that I get that if you're somebody who's got a lot of assets? I still think it's crazy, but for a retail investor, somebody who's saving for retirement and putting that aside, that seems crazy to me.

SPEAKER_06 1:35:56

Well, it's basically the idea that you know you can afford to lose 1% if that's 1% of your portfolio.

SPEAKER_04 1:36:01

That's crazy. You might as well throw it away on high fees to an investor, too, to an average like this. You're taking a flyer on that. You don't know where it's gonna go or what's gonna happen.

SPEAKER_06 1:36:09

Well, in a way, that's right, Becky, that for the majority of people, it's you know, one percent is like a small risk bet. But you know, Bitcoin makes all of its gains in 10 days in a year. I think this is an example that you know, if you exclude the 10 best days, Bitcoin loses 25% a year. So you gotta essentially hold it or huddle it, as they say, uh, to really capture the gains.

SPEAKER_11 1:36:28

You gotta hold it or huddle it at $5,000, one to two percent. If you had $100,000, you put 1% in, your your portfolio wouldn't look that bad. Your portfolio wouldn't look that bad. And one of the things about Bitcoin is historically it goes right with the M2 money supply. This is the total amount of liquidity out in the world. So I'm showing a chart on the on here. This is this start chart starts in 2024, and you can see that Bitcoin kind of follows the M2 money side. Blue is the M2 money supply, and bit or orange is the Bitcoin chart. Now, if you go back further on this chart, you'll see there's been other times where there's been a disparity. And like he said, Bitcoin will do most of its gains in like a 10 10-day period. What's gonna happen is at some point this is gonna go. Oh, we got to catch up to the money supply. Whoop! And it's gonna go, which puts the Bitcoin price at about $580,000, which historically it's kind of lined up there. And when it drops, these are your four-year cycle lows, and then 10 days. So the last time this happened, this is where the supply was. 2024 was the last halving, last four-year cycle, and it kind of looked like that. So get off zero, folks, even if it's one or two percent. The same advice, those guys are giving the same advice one or two percent, one or two percent from five thousand to sixty thousand because they know they uh Bitcoin is a hedge against the money printer. And the money printer is printing never stops. Asymmetrical information. You have information, our audience members have information about what's going on in the financial markets, big picture stuff, macroeconomics. This is how George Soros became a billionaire. We don't have time to play the clip from Scott Bessant, how they made $660 million in a day, right? Shorting the British pound.

SPEAKER_21 1:38:11

They didn't make it, they didn't make their fortunes compound interest.

SPEAKER_11 1:38:15

Well, they did, they made another 20% the rest of the year. Point is here, right? Asymmetrical information. If you have asymmetrical information, you're seeing out on the horizon a little bit because it takes time for the truth to really wage a defense. But when it people catch up, again, math doesn't lie. Bitcoin mirrors the M2 money supply because it's this solid store of value. And it's and what's really happening is Bitcoin is stable and the price is only reflected based on the amount of money. What's going on right now is there's an AI bubble. So a lot of liquid capital is moved into AI. It's literally being printed to go there, and eventually Bitcoin's gonna go right back up to it. Like you said, in 10 days you get all the gains, and then it just kind of does its thing. So that is uh good news. Okay, guys.

Hormuz Strait Clip And Closing Links

SPEAKER_11 1:39:00

Uh last thing I want to share with you today, just to see where it goes, because I hadn't heard this before and I thought, is he serious?

SPEAKER_02 1:39:09

And after we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated. Pretty soon I'll be declaring the hormo straight a territory of the United States. What did he say?

SPEAKER_11 1:39:30

I hear Crag Island is nice in the fall. I don't know, man. I don't know what he's talking about there. Uh the Hormuz Strait is the territory of the United States. Oh, well, I guess we'll find out. There's some asymmetry of information. That's the first time I heard of that. But I don't know what that means. All right, guys, that's it for the show today. Thank you so much for joining us. Don't forget to visit 1776live.us, kmjclocal.com, political remodel.com, take back your county.com. All of them, you guys. It's all in the show descriptions. We love having you, and we look forward to talking to you again tomorrow. Bye.

Monty Python Peasants And Power

SPEAKER_14 1:40:31

I'm thirty-seven. I'm thirty-five. Well, I can't just call him man, you could say Dennis. I didn't know you were called Dennis. But to find out, did you? I did say something about the old woman, but from behind, you're not subjected. You treat me like an inferior. Well, I am king. Oh king. How'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers, by hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress, lovely full fan. How'd you do? How do you do, good lady? I'm Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that? King of the Britons. Who are the Britons? We all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king. No, we have a king. I thought we're an autonomous collective. You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes. There you go. That's what it's all about. Only people will please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? No one lives there. Then who is your lord? We don't have a lord. What? I told you. We're in a narco-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. Yes. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. Yes, I see. By a simple majority in the case of pure internal affairs. Be quacked, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of quack. I order you to be quacked. I'm your king. The lady of the lake. Her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bottom of the water. Signifying by divine providence that I asked was to call it Excalibur. That is why I'm your king. Listen, strange women lying in ponds, distributed thoughts is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farmical aquatic ceremony. But you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery talk for a thought. Just because some moistened bitch loved the symmetry at me and put me away. Now we see the bottom system.