TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @listen_2learn
reSee.it AI Summary
I wonder if anyone would be surprised that Norm Eisen represents Fulton County over the FBI raid; he’s supposedly covering up 2020 crimes and those by him and Fani Willis. His sidekick Jennifer Rubin seems brainwashed.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Would anyone be surprised to find out that Norm Eisen is representing Fulton County regarding the FBI raid? Norm has to cover up the crimes committed in 2020, as well as the crimes committed by him and his lawfare proxy, Fani Willis. Norm’s sidekick Jennifer Rubin truly is brainwashed.
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The discussion centers on Fulton County’s ballot-seizure case and the implication that the affidavit relied on was built from recycled conspiracy theories by a known conspiracy figure. It is asserted that the judge was not told these issues had already been relitigated, and that the administration appears intent on applying the same approach elsewhere.
- Question raised: can these efforts be stopped, given the underlying pattern and what the other side is pursuing? And what is their plan for 2026 if they lack the 2020 conspiracies to lean on?
- Jen notes her role as counsel in the Fulton County matter and declines to comment further on the specifics.
- Jessica forecasts that Trump-aligned actors will pull out 2020 ballots and photos, arguing that the numbers don’t add up and that the machines were faulty and the people fudged because, allegedly, in Fulton County they did. She emphasizes that there is no evidence that the irregularities would have changed the outcome in Georgia, but acknowledges there were thousands of irregularities, with records destroyed and chain-of-custody issues, and that the recount and audit were of poor quality. She warns that in 2026 the same approach could be used again with untrustworthy machines and flawed audits, and warns that even if actual facts are shown, they would highlight known errors.
- Marilyn adds the point that a Barack Obama-appointee judge confirmed the unreliability of the machines and notes a demonstrator at DEFCON Voting Village showed how easily a Dominion machine can be hacked. She cites a view that Biden still won Georgia, despite the “fudged audits,” and argues that the intent behind the questionable procedures was to obscure errors.
- Jessica identifies Raffensperger as the official who chose the machines and funded the expansive spending on them, suggesting he did not want critical issues to be exposed. She asserts that the process was designed to avoid scrutiny and that the results were obtained by running ballots through the machine multiple times to adjust numbers, including using test ballots to influence results.
- The conversation concludes with a focus on the importance of recounts and audits, and the need for a transparent process in 2026. Jessica argues that Georgia’s issues stemmed from an audit with bogus processes and a recount conducted through machines rather than a hand count at counting tables with observers from both campaigns and the clerk. She asserts that the transparency of the counting process could have mitigated much of the controversy and that the lesson for 2026 is to implement a transparent system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In a much more serious note, let's talk about what happened in Fulton County and the potential that the same thing may happen in Arizona. It's come out norm, thanks to, our, friends in places like Fulton County and the good folks at Fair Fight, that the affidavit that was used as a basis for seizing those ballots was nothing but recycled, nutty conspiracy theories by someone who is an infamous conspirator and conspiracy monger. All this nonsense that's been recycled. They didn't tell the judge that all this stuff has been relitigated. There's now a court case to try to get those ballots back, but the administration seems bent on doing this elsewhere.
I guess my question is, first, can they be stopped from doing this when we know what the game is? And secondly, if they're relying on recycled nonsense conspiracy theories, what are they gonna do in 2026? What basis are they gonna use if they're if they don't have even the conspiracies from 2020 to rely on? What what's their game plan here? It just seems to be kind of frantic and disorganized.
Speaker 1: Well, Jen, I as you know, I'm counsel in, the Fulton County matter, so I cannot comment on or answer those questions.
Speaker 2: I think that what we're going to see is Trump's people pulling out the ballots, pulling out pictures of the ballots from 2020 and the records and saying, look. These don't add up. These don't add up. See, the machines don't work down there and and the people fudged because unfortunately, in Fulton County They did. They did.
There is no evidence at all that the number of irregularities would have caused Trump to win Georgia. But the irregularities were a lot. They were thousands and thousands of votes. But going both ways, they tended to somewhat offset as far as we can tell. No one will ever really know.
Too many records have been destroyed and there was chain of custody lost and the recount and the audit turned out not to be of any quality at all. We've got to do better in 2026. We cannot have another election where we are using untrustworthy machines and untrustworthy audit and recount processes. But what Trump's people will do, no doubt, is come to the Senate floor and start showing the information that they now have in their possession at the DOJ. They'll lie about it, they'll exaggerate, there's no question about that.
But even if they showed the actual facts, unfortunately it is going to show known errors that were certified of a significant amount, I'm not talking about a few votes here or there, but that the officials actually knew that the audit was bad, but not only that, but then when they got ready to do the recount that what happened was that either they were coming up short or something and it's clear that they took ballots and scanned them and counted them two and three times. Not just a little accidental, it's clear that they were choosing certain ballots to put in two and three times, even included two fifty test ballots to make the numbers come out right.
Speaker 3: I have an idea of what the intent was behind that, but let me before I get to that, I just wanna bring up I met Marilyn at DEFCON over the summer in Las Vegas at DEFCON Voting Village. And one of the demonstrations in which I reported on this show was how easily it is to hack a Dominion machine. And that's why, as Marilyn just said, a Barack Obama appointee judge confirmed the same thing. These machines are not reliable. But I asked Phil Davis.
I said, even with those fudged audits, which, we're gonna talk a little bit more about that, do you believe that Biden still won the state of Georgia? And this diehard Trumper, but who has, you know, has legitimate work in the election integrity space said, yes. I believe Biden won. What do you think? I mean, I my thought and this is what's so tragic because they, like you said, and that's what we're doing now, we're exposing what they're going to try to do Mhmm.
With something that at the end of the day was not necessarily material, but was also bad work, right, on whoever was conducting the counts and the recounts. And I think, Marilyn, it goes back to the just inadequacy and faultiness of these machines. Am I right about that?
Speaker 2: That as well as secretary Ravensburger, who was actually a Trump supporter, but he had chosen the machines. And he was the one who chose the very inadequate, audit and recount method. He did not want these machines to be in any way subject to question. He did not want the errors to show up.
Speaker 3: Why do He you
Speaker 2: chose the machines. He had the state spend $150,000,000 on these All that money. So he didn't want to take the criticism that there were things wrong. So he created processes and probably put some pressure on some people to let's don't show the problem. So Jessica, when we keep hearing even particularly in this last few days as people talked about Georgia on TV, oh, this that that it's been counted three times.
It's been audited. It's been recounted. Technically, that is true. What they are not saying is that the wrong numbers were used in the audit and in the recount. And it's unfortunate.
You were talking about the importance of doing recounts and audits and how critical it is to verify. Let me tell you what went wrong in Georgia that we need to learn from across the nation in 2026. And that is Raffensperger created an audit, I guess I told you, with bogus processes. And then both he and Trump are at fault because in the recount, ran them back through the he gave them, reference for her said, just run them back through the machine again. That's not what the law says.
The law says it needed to be a hand count done at tables where Trump, Biden, Joe Jorgensen, the libertarian, and the clerk had a representative at every single counting table, is the way it was supposed to work. So that Trump's own people, Biden's own people would have been doing the counting. They bypassed that and did this quick count on the machines, which they could fudge. This is, we go back to Brad Ravensburger, basically created the unending controversy because he was afraid to be transparent with the machines. And I believe that so much of the anger in Georgia that ended up fueling the January, so much of that anger in Georgia would not have happened had they had a transparent Trump had a guy there, Biden had a guy there accounting.
I don't think there would have been anything close to this controversy. And the lesson we should learn, right, for 2026 is let's have a transparent process.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note Marilyn Marks from the Coalition for Good Governance is pre-bunking possible FBI findings by claiming Georgia 2020 issues didn’t affect the outcome. She alleges widespread irregularities, destroyed records, and flawed audits, with ballots repeatedly scanned to fix results, and faults in Raffensperger and Dominion. She questions how she knows this, links to Democracy Inc., and suggests a subpoena angle.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is Marilyn Marks with the Coalition for Good Governance. She appears to be pre-bunking what might come from the FBI’s raid in Georgia. She wants people to know that bad things happened in Georgia in 2020 but it was not enough to affect the outcome of the election. Jessica Denson is a propagandist for Democracy Inc. and she has ties to Protect Democracy who represented her when she sued Trump to get out of her NDA. She appears to also be in the know so she too is pre-bunking what’s coming by claiming that an expert said that Biden won even with all of the issues. Marilyn said that in Fulton County, they fudged the numbers, there were many irregularities/thousands and thousands of votes, records have been destroyed, chain of custody issues, and the recount and the audit were not of any quality. She also said that after the FBI looks at the evidence, it is going to show known errors that were certified (of a significant amount) and that the officials knew that the audit was bad and that when they were getting ready to do the recount, they were coming up short so they took ballots and scanned and counted them two and three times and it wasn’t accidental which ballots they scanned, and even included 250 test ballots to make the numbers come out right. They also throw Brad Raffensperger under the bus including for the inadequate vote and recount method as he did not want the machines to be questioned or the errors to show up because he chose the Dominion voting machines. Brad also apparently pressure people into not showing the problems. Marilyn says that even though people have been commenting (after the FBI raid) that 2020 has been audited three times, what they aren’t saying is that the wrong numbers were used in the audit and in the recount. She then tries to blame both Raffensperger and Trump. Marilyn also says that Raffensperger broke the law when he said to just run the ballots back through the machine instead of conducting a hand count. She said the numbers could have been fudged by using the voting machines. My question is, how does she know all of this and why didn’t she say anything while Trump and everyone else were being persecuted by Norm Eisen’s lawfare proxy Fani Willis? Marilyn is part of Democracy Inc. so I think she was purposefully sent out to establish narratives. If I were Pam Bondi, I would subpoena her ASAP.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the integrity of the 2020 election processes and how Georgia’s handling of audits and recounts could shape reforms for 2026. Speaker 0 argues that ensuring elections represent the will of the people is fundamental, noting that Trump and his allies made a spectacle in 2020 by pursuing audits and recounts and even the Capitol insurrection, yet Georgia, among other states, would not have allowed Trump to win even without Georgia’s results. They claim Democrats and progressives avoided touching the issue in 2024 despite Trump’s unexpected nationwide sweep, and criticize the inability to conduct a proper recount.
Speaker 1 warns that Trump’s team is likely to present ballots and photographs from 2020 to claim irregularities, arguing that there were thousands of irregularities in Fulton County, with miscounts and ballot manipulation possible, though there is no evidence that these irregularities would have changed the Georgia result. They contend that irregularities occurred both ways and tended to offset, but many records were destroyed and the recount and audit lacked quality. The speaker asserts that 2026 must avoid untrustworthy machines and inadequate audit/recount processes.
The speakers discuss the possibility that Trump’s supporters will use information from the DOJ to misrepresent the facts, stating that even if facts were presented, they would expose known errors in the certified processes. They allege that ballots were counted multiple times during the recount, including counting some ballots two or three times and even introducing fake test ballots to force outcomes.
Marilyn is cited as noting that a Barack Obama appointee judge confirmed the unreliability of Dominion machines, and that a demonstration at DEF CON Voting Village showed how easily a Dominion machine could be hacked. Jessica is referenced as discussing Phil Davis, a pro-Trump election integrity figure who admitted that Biden won Georgia despite his broader views. The point is to emphasize that, even among election integrity experts with conservative leanings, there is belief that Biden won Georgia.
The conversation returns to Raffensperger, who selected the machines and the audit/recount method, spending approximately $150 million on machines and avoiding transparency about errors. The guests argue that the law required a hand count at tables with representatives from both campaigns and the clerk, instead of a machine-only recount. Bypassing this process enabled the perception of fraud and contributed to the January 6 insurrection’s fuel in Georgia.
A key lesson for 2026, they assert, is to implement a transparent process with hand counts and representative participation at counting tables, preventing the bypass of proper procedures and reducing the political pressure that distorts outcomes. They critique the atmosphere surrounding the 2020 aftermath as vilifying and pressure-filled, predicting a similar environment in 2026 unless genuine transparency and nonpartisan verification are pursued.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, this is fundamental to making sure that the the elections actually represent the will of the people. And yet Trump and his allies made such a spectacle of this in 2020, both with requesting the legitimate means that we usually go through, like audits and recounts, but also taking it to the extreme of the deadly insurrection on the Capitol after we had an abundance of evidence. We're gonna talk about Georgia. I know there's problems in Georgia. But that would have, with even without Georgia, proved that he lost that election.
And because of that, because of that, Democrats and progressives would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. They would not touch it with a 10 foot foot pole in 2024 when Donald Trump, 34 count felon, lifetime con artist, magically swept seven swing states on election night before we went to sleep. No, we couldn't do a damn frigging recount of that.
Speaker 1: Exactly. So so I think that what we're going to see is Trump's people pulling out the ballots, pulling out pictures of the ballots from 2020 and the records and saying, look, these don't add up. These don't add up. See, the machines don't work down there and and the people fudge because unfortunately in Fulton County They did. They did.
And there is there is no evidence at all. I should tell I should make sure that your viewers understand this. There is no evidence at all that the number of irregularities would have caused Trump to win Georgia. But the irregularities were a lot. They were thousands and thousands of votes.
But going both ways, they tended to somewhat offset as far as we can tell. No one will ever really know. Too many records have been destroyed and there was chain of custody lost and the recount and the audit turned out not to be of any quality at all. We've got to do better in 2026. We cannot have another election where we are using untrustworthy machines and untrustworthy audit and recount processes.
But what Trump's people will do, no doubt, is come to the Senate floor and start showing the information that they now have in their possession at the DOJ. They'll lie about it, they'll exaggerate, there's no question about that. But even if they showed the actual facts unfortunately it is going to show known errors that were certified of a significant amount, I'm not talking about a few votes here or there But that the officials actually knew that the audit was bad. But not only that, but then when they got ready to do the recount that what happened was either they were coming up short or something and it's clear that they took ballots and scanned them and counted them two and three times. Not just a little accidental, it's clear that they were choosing certain ballots to put in two and three times, even included two fifty test ballots to make the numbers come out right.
I want
Speaker 0: to ask you about because I don't think I have an idea of what the intent was behind that. But let me, before I get to that, I just wanna bring up, I met Marilyn at DEF CON over the summer in Las Vegas at DEF CON Voting Village. And one of the demonstrations in which I reported on this show was how easily it is to hack a Dominion machine. And that's why, as Marilyn just said, a Barack Obama appointee judge confirmed the same thing. These machines are not reliable.
And yet I was speaking at that demonstration to, is it Phil Davis or Dave Phillips? Like uh-huh. Phil Davis. I always I sometimes invert his name. Now Phil Davis is another election integrity individual who started an organization, happens to be a gung ho Trumper, admittedly.
But I asked Phil Davis. I said, even with those fudged audits, which we're gonna talk a little bit more about that, do you believe that Biden still won the state of Georgia? And this diehard Trumper, but who has, you know, has legitimate work in the election integrity space said, yes. I believe Biden
Speaker 1: won. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So and I I I have that clip. I think I posted it on on lights on before, but I will again if I if I when I find it. But what do you think? I mean, I my thought, and this is what's so tragic because they, like you said, and that's what we're doing now. We're exposing what they're going to try to do Mhmm.
With something that at the end of the day was not necessarily material, but was also bad work, right, on whoever was conducting the counts and the recounts. And I think, Marilyn, it goes back to the just inadequacy and faultiness of these machines. Am I right about that?
Speaker 1: That as well as secretary Ravensburger, who was actually a Trump supporter, but he had chosen the machines. And he was the one who chose the very inadequate, audit and recount method. He did not want these machines to be in any way subject to question. He did not want the errors to show up.
Speaker 0: Why do you think?
Speaker 1: Chose the machines. He had the state spend $150,000,000 on these machines. All that money, and so he didn't want to take the criticism that there were things wrong. So he created processes and probably put some pressure on some people to let's don't show the problem. So, you know, Jessica, when we keep hearing even particularly in this last few days as people talked about Georgia on TV, oh, the the the the thing's been counted three times.
It's been audited. It's been recounted. Technically, that is true. What they are not saying is that the wrong numbers were used in the audit and in the recount. And it's unfortunate.
You were talking about the importance of doing recounts and audits and how critical it is to verify. Let me tell you what went wrong in Georgia that we need to learn from across the nation in 2026. And that is Raffensperger created an audit, I guess I told you with bogus processes. And then both he and Trump are at fault because in the recount, ran them back through the he gave them, Raffensperger said, just run them back through the machine again. That's not what the law says.
The law says it needed to be a hand count done at tables where Trump, Biden, Joe Jorgensen, the libertarian, and the clerk had a representative at every single counting table is the way it was supposed to work. So that Trump's own people, Biden's own people would have been doing the counting. They bypassed that and did this quick count on the machines, which they could fudge. If, just think about what would have happened if they had had a really transparent count, and we certainly believe that Biden would have won it, it would have been much harder for Trump and his people to scream fraud, fraud, fraud, wrong numbers, find me 11,700 votes. He would not have had the ability to do that had his own people been counting.
This is, we go back to Brad Ravensburger, basically created the unending controversy because he was afraid to be transparent with the machines. And I believe that so much of the anger in Georgia that ended up fueling the January sixth insurrection. So much of that anger in Georgia would not have happened had they had a transparent Trump had a guy there, Biden had a guy there accounting. I I don't think there would have been anything close to this controversy. And the lesson we should learn, right, for 2026 is let's have a transparent process.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And here's, I mean, I'm just listening to this with like a thirty, zero foot view and I'm thinking about the just vileness of what we were subjected to by Donald Trump after the election in 2020. It wasn't a normal, let's do a recount, let's do an audit. It was out of the gate. This election was stolen.
Right? Out of the gate. And that must have put intense pressure on and I'm not giving Brad Raffensperger cover. Listen. I've got I've got issues for him over section three and why he didn't like, have all kinds of issues with Brad perger than different from your issues.
But I can just imagine the pressure that people felt to to give people confidence in the election when such wild and blatantly false claims were being made by Donald Trump. Right? I mean, he creates this atmosphere and it's what he's gonna do in 2026, where it is so hard to have that that, you know, balanced, nonpartisan, transparent process that is really just trying to get to the truth because he's not trying to get to the truth. He's trying to get to what puts him over the
Speaker 1: top.
reSee.it AI Summary
I outline Kris Goldsmith as an FBI asset infiltrating extremists and claim Michael Jones was an FBI informant with the Proud Boys. I note Goldsmith’s podcast, produced by Kenneth Harbaugh, and their work with Sebastian Junger, who collaborates with Nick Quested. Quested embedded with the Proud Boys; his footage, with an FBI CHS, framed J6 as a planned insurrection. Epps and Jones appear at the breach on video but weren’t charged. To get to the bottom, talk to everyone mentioned.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is ANTIFA veteran Kris Goldsmith in July 2023 talking about J6er Michael Jones. Kris Goldsmith said he was an FBI asset who had infiltrated the extremist groups and was providing information to his FBI handler until last year. Turns out Michael Jones was an FBI informant who embedded with the Proud Boys. Kris Goldsmith mentions his podcast is produced by Kenneth Harbaugh. Both Kris and Kenneth worked on a project with Sebastian Junger. Sebastian Junger creates documentaries with Norm Eisen’s filmmaker Nick Quested. Nick Quested embedded with the Proud Boys. He filmed the J5 garage scene with Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes which was used to say that J6 was a planned insurrection. Nick was accompanied by an FBI CHS. On J6, Nick Quested and his crew filmed many of the notable scenes that established the J6 “insurrection” narrative including the initial breach. Ray Epps was featured in Nick Quested’s footage at the initial breach as was Michael Jones. Ray Epps and Michael Jones were not charged like the other J6ers even though they are both on camera inciting more violence (and actually carrying it out in Michael Jones’ case) than most of the J6ers who had their lives destroyed. If there is anyone who seriously wants to get to the bottom of J6, they would talk to everyone mentioned in this thread.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The third key point about today’s white supremacists is that they have more in common than people realize. Michael Allen Jones serves as a case study in the Proud Boys–Fascist pipeline. The message is not to be fooled by whiteness or Proud Boys’ admission of people of color. The Proud Boys sit at the top of the extremism funnel, using their look, strategy, alliances with groups like Moms for Liberty, and their posture on various causes to distract from a violent fascist worldview that favors straight white men. Task Force Butler notes that these groups form an ecosystem, with individual groups branded as separate hate products but effectively indistinguishable in their aims.
Michael Allen Jones moved through a range of hate organizations, seeking acceptance for his hatred and coconspirators for his plans. From leaked chats and internal documents, Patriot Front trusted him to set up their radio communications and to establish the standard for the entire neo-Nazi organization. He was not merely an incidental figure; he was vetted, trusted, and empowered within these circles. When he was arrested in New York, Jones was heavily armed and had accumulated tools of destruction that went beyond guns, and he was trained.
The narrative emphasizes that the Proud Boys, Patriot Front, and The Base all accepted a convicted child rapist, highlighting the broader pattern of vetted individuals finding acceptance across these groups. None of this is presented as acceptable. The transcript frames Michael Allen Jones as emblematic of the kind of repeat offenders and collaborators who populate the networks of white supremacist and fascist groups.
Task Force Butler and Against All Enemies position themselves as organizations that stand up and name hate actors, urging them to feel the public scrutiny that comes with exposure. They present themselves as veterans who raised their right hand to uphold American values, delivering a message that fascists have the freedom of association, but that their identities will be exposed to the world.
The production note identifies Against All Enemies as produced by Ken Harbaugh in partnership with Task Force Butler, with Michael Elsalsoor as producer and volunteer Task Force Butler members contributing intel and analysis for the show.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And this brings us to the third thing that you need to know about today's white supremacists. They have more in common than you think. Michael Allen Jones is a case study in the Proud Boys to Fascist pipeline. What does that mean? It means don't be confused by the power of whiteness and the fact that the Proud Boys admit persons of color.
The Proud Boys are the top of the extremism funnel. They use their look. Strategy. They use their alliances with groups like Moms for Liberty and posturing on causes to distract from their agenda, bolstering a violent fascist worldview that only favors straight white men. At Task Force Butler, we've infiltrated these groups and monitored their communications.
We've seen the discussions where folks from the most aggressive neo Nazi and white supremacist groups like the BASE join the Proud Boys to further radicalize Proud Boys into national socialism, Nazism. These groups are an ecosystem unto themselves. Don't be distracted by the badges. They're individually branded hate products, but they're really just a distinction without a difference. Michael Allen Jones passed through all of these groups, and none of them cared about his public history of disgusting predation on women and children.
He traveled through a range of hate groups looking for acceptance of his hatred, and he found acceptance in all of them. He was looking for coconspirators. We know from leaked chats and internal documents that Patriot Front trusted him to set up their radio communications and set the standard for the entire neo Nazi organization. He wasn't just some rando hanging by the side of the pool. He was vetted, he was trusted, and he was empowered.
When he was arrested in New York, Michael Allen Jones was heavily armed. He had accumulated the tools of destruction that went far beyond guns, and he was trained. The Proud Boys, Patriot Front, and the base all accepted a convicted child rapist. He's not the only one of his None of this is acceptable. All of the Michael Allen Joneses of the world are why Task Force Butler and Against All Enemies exists.
It's time for us to stand up and name the hate actors and for them to feel the white hot light of public scrutiny. Task Force Butler is a group of veterans who raised our right hand because we believe in our American values. We have a message for the fascists. You can believe whatever you want. You have the freedom of association, and Task Force Butler is going to be there and let the world know who you really are.
Against All Enemies is produced by Ken Harbaugh in partnership with Task Force Butler. Our team includes our producer, Michael Elsalsoor, and our volunteer members of Task Force Butler who provide much of the intel and analysis that we'll be bringing straight to you in this new show.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The democrat communist party is brainwashed and radicalized which is a recipe for disaster. They are for crime and homelessness and all the devastation that comes with it. https://t.co/8av038J02p
Video Transcript AI Summary
I am here because the only real solution is to drive this regime from power, not in 2026, not in 2028, but right fucking now. Trump must go now. Fascism has momentum and direction. What's happening right here in DC right now is their next leap. Homeless homeless encampments bulldozed, checkpoints in our neighborhoods, an occupying army of masked men with guns roaming the streets, hunting down black youth, dripping with our white supremacy. Trump will not stop as long as he is allowed to remain in power. Donald Trump. Beginning beginning 11/05/2025, Washington DC. Surround the White House. Surround the Capitol. Surround the illegitimate fascist backed supreme court. Across the country, refuse to comply. Grind the machinery of this fascist regime to a halt. Don't stop until Trump is removed. The Trump fascist regime is illegitimate. Fascism is not a looming threat. It is upon us now.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am here because the only real solution is for us to rise to the historic challenge to drive this regime from power, not in 2026, not in 2028, but right fucking now. Trump must go now. Trump must go now. Trump must go now. Trump must go now.
So today, I'm going to lay out why we say this, and I'm also gonna lay out what we need to do together to make that real. Fascism has momentum and direction. Momentum. It's moving fast by the day, advancing by the hour. Direction.
Always in one direction. More repression, more violence, more terror. Direction. Project twenty twenty five on steroids. Hitler's playbook but with nuclear weapons.
What's happening right here in DC right now is their next leap. If they can lock this down and if people get used to it, it becomes the model for the whole country with ever increasing brutality and less and less space for us to stop it. Homeless homeless encampments bulldozed, checkpoints in our neighborhoods, an occupying army of masked men with guns roaming the streets, hunting down black youth, dripping with our white supremacy. We have seen many beautiful people in DC rise up, and I wanna make some noise for them. Make some noise for the people directing people away from checkpoints.
Make some noise for the people who hear about these checkpoints and walk out of the nightclub and tell those fascists to get the fuck out. Make some noise for the people doing neighborhood patrols and watches alerting the community. And some noise for the people that are banging their pots and pans every night at 8PM. Make some noise for the veterans urging guards members to refuse to obey unconstitutional orders. Now as we make noise for those standing up, we gotta also be honest.
We here today, all of us are beautiful together. But when fascists take over the capital, when they send in the National Guard, the FBI, hunting down our youth, attacking the homeless, these streets should be flooded. Trump will not stop as long as he is allowed to remain in power. Donald Trump. That's right.
Backed by a fascist regime that will not stop until everyone they hate is either locked up, disappeared, or forced to their knees. We cannot allow this. We must drive this regime from power. Trump must go. No.
There is no living with this. There is no making peace with this. There is no waiting it out, doing our best to protect some people for some time while it only gets worse and worse and worse. Let's be real. We've already let it go way too far.
To this end, I am honored to share an audacious, urgent call to act initiated by refusefascism.org and to open to all. A bold plan that measures up to what we face. A bold plan that everyone needs to come together to realize. The time has come for the fall of the Trump fascist regime. Beginning beginning 11/05/2025, Washington DC.
Fascism is not a looming threat. It is upon us now. Humanity's only hope is for the decent people of this country to rise in our millions. We cannot wait for future unrigged elections. We must drive out the Trump fascist regime from power.
Beginning November, the one year anniversary of Trump's election, flood DC and determines a nonviolent protest. Surround the White House. Surround the Capitol. Surround the illegitimate fascist backed supreme court. Come back again and again and again.
Across the country, refuse to comply. Every person of conscience, millions of us together, grind the machinery of this fascist regime to a halt. Don't stop until Trump is removed. The Trump fascist regime is illegitimate. Say it with me.
Illegitimate. Illegitimate. What it is demanding we become unconscionable? At every level of society, in every institution, tens of millions of us know this in our very bones. If we dare, we can defeat a horror that threatens humanity's very survival.
Despicable. It Despicable. It is. And if we fail to even try, future generations, if they exist, will never forgive us.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
John Bolton raided by the FBI. Please let Norm Eisen’s home and lawfare nonprofits be raided soon. What I wouldn’t give to see it in person. 🤣 https://t.co/GU29db3NFr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fox News Alert: FBI agents raided the Maryland home of former Trump national security adviser John Bolton at 07:00 this morning. FBI director Cash Patel posted, "no one is above the law. FBI agents on a mission." David Spunt reports the agents are looking for classified documents as part of a potential leak investigation; Bolton is not in custody. Authorities are in Bethesda; the number of agents is unclear. Spunt notes Bolton was just on TV discussing the Russia, Putin Trump summit. The investigation may be tied to a previously mentioned probe from Trump era over Bolton's book; "The probe dropped when Joe Biden became president." Bolton's security clearances were stripped earlier this year by President Trump; Tulsi Gabbard took them away, and his federal security detail was removed, forcing private security. Bolton is cooperating; a judge sign-off and further steps, including possible grand jury and indictment, will follow.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're back with the Fox News Alert. We're just learning, glaring the FBI agents have raided the Maryland home of former Trump national security adviser John Bolton. It happened at 7AM this morning.
Speaker 1: Shortly after the raid began, FBI director Cash Patel posting on x, quote, no one is above the law. FBI agents on a mission.
Speaker 2: David Spunt joins us now with more on this breaking news. Hey, David.
Speaker 3: Hey, guys. Not much we can say at this point, but information will continue to develop. As you mentioned about 07:00 this morning, FBI agents raided ambassador Bolton's home. Notable, we're being told by two government sources that they are looking for classified documents as part of a potential leak investigation. We're told that ambassador Bolton is not in custody.
He's not under arrest, but it is notable they are at his Maryland home right now. We don't know how many agents are there. We're waiting to get a picture of the scene coming in right now, but we're told ambassador Bolton, was just on TV, on another network a couple days ago talking about the Russia, Putin Trump summit, is now under FBI investigation. Now I wanna be clear. These are long, and we're looking at some live photographs right now in Bethesda.
That's clearly the road where ambassador Bolton lives, and you can see some police cars outside there. But, you know, this is gonna be a long process. We saw the raid of former Trump adviser Roger Stone's home down in Florida, several years ago. Eventually, he went to trial. We saw famously in August 2022, exactly three years ago, a little bit more than three years ago, the raid on Mar a Lago that still has the FBI in hot water.
That's a little bit of a different situation as it was a former president, but it deals with classified documents. Guys?
Speaker 0: So so I did not realize this, but there was a probe going on when president Trump was in office last time because John Bolton wrote a book, and the president he violated his NDA, the president said, in doing it. And they he felt as though there were classified information in that book. The probe dropped when Joe Biden became president. So is this picking up where that left off, David?
Speaker 3: It's possible. I don't know with a 100% certainty, but it is notable, guys, that John Bolton, ambassador Bolton's security clearances were stripped earlier this year by president Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, took that security clearance away. They had concerns. The administration had concerns about ambassador Bolton still being able to access some of these documents and have some of those security clearances.
It's also notable that John Bolton had a security detail as well, because of the threats from Iran on his life. That security detail, that government federal paid security detail, was also taken away, by president Trump. So Bolton was to have to get some private security. So we're looking outside his home right now in Bethesda, Maryland. We're told that ambassador Bolton's being cooperative.
He's not under arrest, not in custody at this point, but still notable, 07:00 on a Friday morning that the FBI, all of a sudden, is knocking on the door of John Bolton's home. And I also will say it's important that, you know, this is not just the FBI able to do this. A judge has to sign off on this. There are other layers involved here. It's not just the FBI says, let's go to John Bolton's house tomorrow morning and see if he has any classified documents.
There are certainly more procedures in there. A judge and others would have had to, sign off on this as well as people at the justice department, presumably attorney general Pam Bondi. No comment right now, though, from the justice department. No comment from the FBI as well.
Speaker 2: So this started forty minutes ago. And so agents are still, we believe, in the house right now going through things?
Speaker 3: That's what we're told. Yes. Absolutely. They're going through things. It's not clear if he's still on scene, if he's in the house while this is happening.
Sometimes that happens. Sometimes, the subject who owns the home or owns the property is not there. We know during the raid at Mar Lago, president Trump was not even there at all. He just it was the summer, and he doesn't live at Mar A Lago in the summer. So it's not clear if ambassador Bolton, was even home.
We're working to find that out, but we know that he was just, you know, this is his primary residence. This is where he lives. He does TV appearances. He's still out and about. So it's unclear exactly where he is right now, but I'm just told he's not in custody.
This deals with classified records, potential classified records, and, you know, at which point we'll see down the line if a grand jury feels there is enough evidence for charges. But this is really the first step in what could be a long process because they have to bring first of all, you know, agents have to sift through this information, go through all of this information. That could take weeks. That could take months. Then they present that information to a grand jury.
A grand jury would say we have what's called a true bill, which means, an indictment, and then the court proceedings happen. So I don't wanna get over my skis and and predict that that's gonna happen. May not happen, but it's still notable that this this is going on right now.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
In September 2021, Comey leaker Ben Whittes laughed about how Russia collusion criminal Peter Strzok could begin planning another coup against a potential Republican president who they thought would be Ron DeSantis. https://t.co/DuZP4uT6jn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ron DeSantis may be our next president, but we are allowed to have Pete Strzok here to begin plotting the coup against the next horrible people?
Too soon. Too maybe not soon enough. Too soon, but not soon enough. I don't know what the right answer is there to that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ron DeSantis may be our next president, but we are allowed to have Pete Strzok here to begin plotting the coup against the next horrible people?
Speaker 1: Too soon. Too maybe not soon enough. Too soon, but not soon enough. I don't know what the right answer is there to that.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Timeline
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Election interference.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Thomas Windom, prosecutor
@TruthNinja316 - Intel Report Daily
BREAKING: Thomas Windom, the Prosecutor in charge of the Jan. 6th investigation into Trump, has a MAJOR conflict of interest. His wife has joined a firm created for the purpose of defending anyone Republicans investigate, including Hunter Biden. @mirandadevine @kylenabecker https://t.co/MlBzYRAoWb
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Someone should talk to Erik Prince and the members of the NYPD and FBI who were investigating Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Apparently the politicized Obama DOJ threatened them to shut up or else. Andy McCabe of course played it all down while pushing the Russia collusion hoax.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argued Jim Comey’s press conference was reckless and questioned whether the New York FBI environment—‘reports that Giuliani was in touch with Jim Kaldstrom, and there was this rogue group within the New York FBI’—influenced the decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation. Speaker 2 said there had been an ‘enormous amount of sensitive FBI information that was making its way to the press at that time’ and they were examining media policy; ‘Did it motivate our decision to make the July announcement? Not particularly.’ He noted internal frustration from those who wanted Clinton prosecuted and that Jim’s October ‘emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop’ notification was disagreed with; ‘as it turns out, we had nothing.’ The NYPD reportedly found ‘650,000 emails’ including State Department emails and allegations of criminal activity by Hillary and others; DOJ pushback against seeking justice in these matters was described as ‘huge.’ Five parts of the FBI were investigating with ‘constant downdraft’ from the Obama Justice Department.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister McCabe, with all due respect, I think you underestimate the reckless decision of Jim Comey to hold that press conference. Would you speak to the environment in the New York FBI at the top New York officer of the FBI? Because we hear all these reports that Giuliani was in was in touch with Jim Kaldstrom, and there was this rogue group within the New York FBI
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: That was extremely upset about the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. And did that decision impact Comey's decision to go public and then reopen investigation?
Speaker 2: So there's a lot in that question. I'll try to unpack this. I'm aware of the reports about the New York office that you're referring to. From my experience, I think a little bit too much has been made of those reports. The fact is there was an enormous amount of sensitive FBI information that was making its way to the press at that time, not just on the Clinton email case, but on some other very significant cases.
It was something that concerned Jim and I greatly. We were looking into it at that time. We were also looking at the current state of our media policy. Why was it that it seemed like people, generally not just New York, were more apt to talk to the press or share information in ways that it was getting to the press? And so that was something that concerned us greatly.
We were looking at it. I can't sit here and tell you that that was something that was only happening in New York. I don't know the answer to that. But nevertheless, that climate of unauthorized disclosures to the media was something that was concerning us at that time. Did it motivate our decision to make the July announcement?
Not particularly. We knew that there were definitely people inside the organization who were going to be frustrated with the conclusion that we drew in the Clinton case. There were, just like in the population generally, there were people who felt very strongly that the secretary should be prosecuted. And we knew they'd be frustrated by that. So Jim made some effort to communicate internally in ways to try to explain why we had reached the decision we had.
I think we had a hard time convincing people, both internally and externally, and that's something I've thought more about since I've left. Jim's decision in October to make the notification he did about the emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop was something that I disagreed with at the time. For other reasons, I did not participate in the conversation around that decision. So Jim knew how I felt about it. He made the decision he did.
From my perspective, I felt like we should have known more about what we actually had before we made any sorts of notifications. As it turns out, we had nothing.
Speaker 1: In the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop and sure enough found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just the more information pertaining to the inappropriate texting the guy was doing. They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times. The amount of garbage that they found in emails of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting. They had gave it to the FBI, and they said, we're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation, you don't do the right thing with timely indictments. I know, and this is from a very well placed source of mine at 1 P P, one Police Plaza in New York.
The the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrest they were making in this investigation, and they've gotten huge pushback to the point of coercion from the justice department with the justice department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner, the guy, almost two years ago. That's the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in these email and other related criminal matters. You know, there's five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations of these things with constant downdraft from the Obama Justice Department. So NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Breaking the window.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Nick Quested, Norm Eisen
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m listening to Marc Elias and the lawfare squad as they face accountability for their actions. They seem to fear the consequences of a potential Trump win in 2024, leading to their attempts to imprison him. Project Accountability 2025 is now underway, targeting Elias and his co-conspirators.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Listen to future felon Marc Elias in July 2024 through the lens of the lawfare squad were also Russia collusion criminals. Marc Elias knew that many people, including himself, would be held accountable if Trump won in 2024 so they tried to put Trump in prison to keep themselves out of it. Now Project Accountability 2025 has commenced. Many people must go to prison including Marc and his Russiagate/lawfare co-conspirator Norm Eisen.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump's New York hush-money sentencing is delayed to mid-September. His lawyers claim the conviction must be thrown out after the Supreme Court decision, and Trump says this decision exonerates him. The analysis suggests the DC case is “‘hollowed out, if not entirely gutted’” as the court ruled against probing Trump’s motive and barred using official-acts evidence to prove other parts; the Georgia case faces the same issue; the Florida case remains slow. The New York case could be least affected but a hearing is anticipated, and the verdict may be clouded. “‘Immunity at most, not exoneration’”—yet public opinion may view it as vindication, energizing Trump’s base. Questions discuss democracy: Biden's powers are limited by an asymmetry of “‘election annihilism’”; Republicans flout norms, Democrats defend the vote. The next president could reshape the Court; Roe shows nothing is forever, and court reform, including expansion, should be debated. Sotomayor warns complacency risks authoritarianism and a generational struggle.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You mentioned this decision may impact may have an impact on some of Trump's ongoing criminal cases, and the sentencing of the hush money case in New York was was now delayed by more than two months to mid September. Trump's lawyers are now making the case that that conviction must be thrown out in light of the Supreme Court decision, and Trump announced that his that this decision exonerated him. Did it?
Speaker 1: You see, Haley, I think you've I think that question is so brilliant because it actually ties together the two lessons that I think we need to learn from this. The first, what does it mean for the four cases? So obviously, the DC case, the one that was actually up on appeal, it means that that now needs to go back to the trial court for further hearings. And I'm not optimistic that what's going come out of that is going be a recognizable criminal case, like anything we saw going in. Already, the Supreme Court has said the portions of the indictment that deal with conversations with the Department of Justice have to be dismissed, conversation and the conversation with the vice president needs to be subject to attest.
But when you actually dig into what the Supreme Court said, it's going be very difficult for Jack Smith or any prosecutor to say much of that case survives because you're not allowed to inquire into Donald Trump's motive, according to this report, and you can't use evidence of official acts even to prove other portions that are not official. So let's just say the DC case, at a minimum, has been hollowed out, if not entirely gutted, and it is also on hold for a very long time because all of those hearings are going to take time. The Georgia case, same problem, same prospect, same everything. The New York case is the one that you would think would be the most immune from this decision. But Donald Trump has already his lawyers have already sought to say, we need a hearing here.
And the judge has postponed sentencing if there needs to be sentencing, the judge said, until September. So that is sort of the opening gambit there in September. You would think that that case would not be affected by this ruling because, after all, the acts that he took with Stormy Daniels were not official acts, and they also took place before he was president. But he's going to his legal team is going to ride this horse as far as they can and see if they can catch a break. And at a minimum, they're going to create a cloud over whether that conviction holds.
And then Florida let's be honest. The Florida case is like something out of a Dickens novel. I mean, if you have not read Bleak House, then you are not prepared for what's been going on in Florida. That case has been on a fast track to nowhere for a very long time. They are still arguing in circles about what should be very, very simple principles, in my view.
But I suspect that the Trump world will raise this precedent in that courtroom as well. And I expect, given the judge's track record there, it'll get an ample hearing and rehearing and a lot of consideration. So that case is who knows? That case is moving very, very slow. But Haley, I want to point to the second part of the implication of your question, which is setting aside what happens technically to these cases isn't vindication.
So on one hand, we can say, no, it's not vindication. Like, he's still engaged in the conduct he engaged in, and that is not vindication. That is not exoneration. That is immunity at most, right, which is different than saying you didn't do it. It says you may have done it, but you are immune from having done it.
But in the court of public opinion, and most importantly, in the part of public opinion that motivates Donald Trump's base, it is vindication. It is exoneration. It is the first step towards retribution. Right? In Donald Trump's supporters world, in the MAGA mindset, in the Project twenty twenty five road map, this is just evidence that Donald Trump was wronged.
Not only not only was he is he not should he not stand trial, he was wronged. And the Supreme Court has proven that everything he said was correct about how he was a victim of out of control special counsel and left wing conspiracy or all the other nonsense that they spread. So this is going to energize his base. It is also going to cause him and them to be more reckless. If you thought we saw a reckless Donald Trump before, just wait to see what happens if Donald Trump gets in office again in 2025.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I am now incorporating some of the audience questions, so feel free to continue to post them in the chat. We are going through them. We've gotten a few along these lines, so I'm going to ask the first one here. What stops President Biden from exercising the powers provided by this Supreme Court decision to preserve democracy.
With no check on the executive at this point, what would stop him from taking even broader action than he has taken to defend democracy and voting rights?
Speaker 1: So this is the shameful thing about the modern Republican Party. I wrote a piece for Democracy Docket, which is a news outlet online. I hope everyone goes and subscribes. It's free. But I wrote a piece about the asymmetry of election annihilism a few weeks ago.
And that asymmetry doesn't just exist in election annihilism. The theory I laid out there is that Republicans' willingness to flout the law and norms in suppressing the vote is not matched by Democrats because we believe in protecting the vote. Right? So there's an asymmetry in their election denialism. But that asymmetry is not just in election or voting laws.
They're also in the acts of elected officials. Joe Biden won't engage in abusive office because Joe Biden is a decent person, because Joe Biden took an oath for to office to uphold the constitution that he respects and he honors and he cherishes and he follows. For for for Donald Trump, the oath the idea that the oath of office to uphold the constitution would apply is, you know, to paraphrase from a different area, is for suckers and losers. Right? He views it as something that that he that that he shows strength by flouting.
Joe Biden shows fealty to his oath of office. He shows reverence to the US constitution. He takes seriously the office that he holds, and he pays it respects and show and and and and upholds it and honors the dignity of it. And so you cannot expect that that president Biden or, for that matter, Democrats in the house and the senate or governors or whoever else, that they are going to engage in the kind of flouting of their oaths of office and the US constitution in the way in which Donald Trump not just does, but which he inspires others to do and which he celebrates and reveres. And so that is the terrible asymmetry that we're in in our democracy.
It doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't show up to a gunfight with guns. I am not a pert in the other cheek kind of guy. But but it does mean that that we, whether it's the lawyers, you know, we play by the rules, while Rudy Giuliani spouts nonsense. Joe Biden plays by the rules while Donald Trump says he wants to be a dictator by the day. So we need to fight hard for democracy, and I can promise everyone we do, but there's never gonna be inequality to how the two sides are gonna respect the rule of law.
Speaker 0: Okay. This question, I guess, picks up on the gunfight with guns or showing up with the guns, without specifically, addressing the issue of guns. The winner of the twenty twenty four election will likely nominate at least two and as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. How could those appointments chain the makeup and in turn the decisions of the court? Could this decision be overturned?
And do you support expanding the court beyond nine justices?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So someone asked me this the other day. They said, does this mean this is forever? And I said, so here's the good news and the bad news. Nothing with the Supreme Court is forever.
Right? We all learned that Roe versus Wade, which conservative justice after conservative justice, all of them sat in a chair in the US Senate hearing room and in one form or another called it precedent upon precedent, super precedent, settled law, like whatever terminology they used. And then when they got in the when given an opportunity, they overturned Roe versus Wade and Dobbs. So they paid no respect to the fact that it was settled law or precedent or super precedent or precedent upon precedent. Likewise, the case I mentioned involving deference to agency action.
This had been a this was a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court in the 1980s when it came down. That was forty years ago, and it just got thrown out six-three, notwithstanding the fact that it has been relied on it to become a bedrock of the way in which government agencies operate. So don't ever think that anything is forever. And if there's one thing that history teaches all of us, and certainly as Jewish Democrats, we know, anytime you think it can't get worse, it can get worse. But it also can get better.
Right? It can also get better. And so, yes, the next president of The United States or President Biden in the next four years of his term will have the opportunity to potentially reshape the court yet again. And that can either get shaped much to the bad, if it's Donald Trump, or it can get better. And if it gets to the better, you know, just imagine what that world looks like.
We could see an expansion of democracy. We could see expansion of voting rights, an expansion of civil rights, a reversal of authoritarianism in this country, and a recommitment to constitutionalism that views at its core the dignity of human rights and the importance of the Constitution not just as a piece of paper, but as a document that affirms our commitment to the peaceful transfer of power and to democracy. So don't give up. This is why I said, like, everyone's got to vote. Like, you know, everyone whenever I read, you know, people who say, well, I'm really upset with president Biden about this or that, so I'm not gonna vote, or I'm not gonna vote for Democrats, I I I wanna I wanna just jump off a bridge because because the future of our democracy has not yet been written.
And who is on the court will play a big role in what is written when when we get there. In terms of court reform, yeah, I'm in favor of it. Like, I think we need to have an a wide ranging discussion about court reform, not just the number of justices, but the kind of cases they hear. You know? They choose their own cases.
You know? The shame of this, Haley, is that they chose to take that immunity case. They didn't have to. They could have left the lower court case in place. They chose to take the Colorado case.
They didn't have to. They chose to take that case. They chose to take dollars. They didn't have to. Right?
So, you know, we should have a discussion about why is this court only hearing 60 cases a year, and why is it choosing cases that are? So it is. I think we need to have a real reevaluation of how the Supreme Court operates from ethics to composition, from case selection to jurisdiction. I think that needs to be a national discussion. I think it should be front and center in the presidential elections and senate and house elections.
And I would hope that when Democrats keep the White House and and have control of both the house and the senate in 2025, I hope we have that discussion.
Speaker 0: In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor concluded by noting her fear for the future of our democracy. What are you most fearful of when it comes to the future of our democracy?
Speaker 1: So look, I am fearful that people think that democracy is a permanent state of affairs. You know, people think that, you know, all of the horrors of the past are in the past. All of the worst forms of government that we saw oppress people are in the past. That's ancient history or it's history, but that there is a steady march. You know, one of the phrases that I have never ascribed to, and I recognize that many people on this call do, is the notion that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
I'm not so sure it necessarily bends towards justice. It only bends towards justice if people are pushing on it to bend towards justice. I don't think it's inevitably that we are headed in the right direction. So the thing that I worry about between now and November is complacency, is that people think, oh, we survived four years with Donald Trump. It won't be worse.
It'll be worse. Oh, I want to send a message. Well, you know what? I worked on the I saw Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton when people thought they were just sending harmless messages, right? We need to treat seriously what it means to be a citizen and to vote in this country.
So I worry about that between now and then. In the long run, what I worry about is that we are watching the Republican Party destroy norms in this country. You know, there was a time not that long ago when someone like Donald Trump would have been just an anathema to either political party, when the idea of running a candidate who had incited an insurrection in the nation's capital would have been disqualifying and more, when being a convicted felon would have been disqualifying. And instead, we have watched the the once grand old party of Lincoln turn into a a movement that borders is Christian nationalist in its core and borders at times, frankly, on neo fascism. And I say that not lightly.
You know. I recognize what these words mean, and you have to be careful with your rhetoric. But when you look at someone who says he wants to recognize the Department of Justice, he wants to control, gets prosecuted, he wants to prosecute his his political opponents in military tribunals. You know? You may think that that's rhetoric, but when Donald Trump says he wants to prosecute his political opponents in military tribunals, you should take him literally and seriously.
He you know, what the Supreme Court is telling him, he has the power to basically do what he wants. So I worry about complacency leading to a new form of authoritarianism, and recovering from that new form of authoritarianism will be not the work of a few years. It'll be a generational struggle, and again, there is no certainty that in the end it all works out for the best.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the 2020 BLM riots were orchestrated to influence the election, with Derek Chauvin wrongfully imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. BLM leaders allegedly received funding from globalist organizations, and the narrative surrounding George Floyd's death has been manipulated. I see connections between the riots, the pandemic, and efforts to undermine Trump. The government’s inaction during both the riots and January 6 suggests a deeper corruption. I think it's crucial to reassess these events and their implications on our society.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The 2020 BLM riots were planned as part of stealing the 2020 election. They waited until a white cop “killed” a black man. Now an innocent man, Derek Chauvin, is in prison for a m@rder he did not commit. The leaders of BLM were paid off via donations from WEF affiliated companies, oligarch funded foundations, etc.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: It's not about whether George Floyd was a good person. That's that's not my point. We were lied to. And the whole issue, the whole way we think about George Floyd was wrong, including the way I thought of him until about ten minutes minutes ago. I had no idea that Derek Chauvin didn't kill him.
So, Alicia, what do you think's at stake in November election?
Speaker 1: Everything. Like, everything is at stake, And I'm really not being facetious about that. To be real, what's at stake is whether or not a new world order is able to take root and grow and grow.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's not about whether George Floyd was a good person. That's that's not my point. We were lied to. And the whole issue, the whole way we think about George Floyd was wrong, including the way I thought of him until about ten minutes minutes ago. I had no idea that Derek Chauvin didn't kill him.
So, Alicia, what do you think's at stake in November election?
Speaker 1: Everything. Like, everything is at stake, And I'm really not being facetious about that. To be real, what's at stake is whether or not a new world order is able to take root and grow and grow.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
"The bottom line is that George Floyd’s cause of death was a fentanyl overdose, not asphyxiation from Derek Chauvin’s knee. And don’t forget, this fact was established early in the investigation." Derek Chauvin should be freed. https://revolver.news/2023/10/free-derek-chauvin-now/
Free Derek Chauvin NOW... - Revolver News
Derek Chauvin is a political prisoner.
revolver.news
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Agents of chaos
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Tides is an oligarch funded foundation.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The WEF one world government corporations set up a “donor advised fund”, aka money laundering scheme, to funnel the “donations” they made to BLM to fund the 2020 riots. https://blackbaudgivingfund.org/
Homepage
The Blackbaud Giving Fund is making a difference in the world by connecting generous donors with the causes they care most about. Get started here.
blackbaudgivingfund.org
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Marc Elias of the Russia collusion hoax and changing election laws was brought in to cover-up BLM’s money laundering and tax evasion.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
I know this will be a shock but Hillary Clinton’s corrupt lawyer, Marc Elias, was brought in to hide the money laundering. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10520471/Hillary-Clintons-campaign-lawyer-man-funded-Steele-dossier-representing-BLM.html
Hillary Clinton's campaign lawyer now represents BLM
Marc Elias, who served as Hillary Clinton's general council during the 2016 presidential election, is now handling the books for the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, records show
dailymail.co.uk
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
George Floyd died from health related issues, including c0vid, and from the myriad of drugs that he was on including fentanyl and meth. https://t.co/4DSxjxjsvz
Video Transcript AI Summary
"George Floyd, he had serious heart disease." "He wasn't an old man, but he had serious heart disease untreated." "He had serious atherosclerosis untreated." "He was very high on both fentanyl and meth, which is a lethal combination, very high on them, probably taking more while he was in the car to hide it from the cops." "He opens his mouth in the footage and you see he's got something on his tongue." "It's not a chicklet." "He's really, really high." "Had COVID." "He tested positively for COVID then." "And, you know, he was upset." "And it got worse and worse." "They were detaining him." "He was trying to pass counterfeit money." "Just, you know, stop resisting, Floyd, one of his friends said." "But it wasn't because he was asphyxiated." "There was no evidence of asphyxiation of any kind." "No evidence." "So, Derek Chauvin didn't cut off his oxygen."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am still trying to grapple with the meaning of this. And so what it comes down to is George Floyd, he had serious heart disease. He wasn't an old man, but he had serious heart disease untreated. He had serious atherosclerosis untreated. He was very high on both fentanyl and meth, which is a lethal combination, very high on them, probably taking more while he was in the car to hide it from the cops.
He opens his mouth in the footage and you see he's got something on his tongue. It's not a chicklet. He's really, really high. He had COVID. He tested positively for COVID then.
Had COVID. He smoked. He's a very sick man. And then all of this happens. He's frankly out of his mind because of all of this.
He couldn't help it, but he was. And, you know, he was upset. He was agitated. And that, his heartbeat probably, you know, pumping harder. Now I'm going into a medical expertise I don't have, but he was very agitated at being detained by the cops.
And remember, they had a reason for detaining him. He was trying to pass counterfeit money. They were detaining him. And it got worse and worse. He couldn't understand that he needed to just calm down despite being told to by his friends.
Just, you know, stop resisting, Floyd, one of his friends said. And so it got the best of him, and his heart stopped. But it wasn't because he was asphyxiated. And the other thing is there was no evidence in the autopsy report, which has not been shared with us until now. Not the autopsy report that was suggested by George Floyd's relatives, but the first one.
There was no evidence of asphyxiation of any kind. Not physical, not subtler things that most of us don't understand. No evidence. Now, Glenn, I don't know. Is there I've looked this up and I can't find it.
Is there a such thing as somebody being asphyxiated but there is no evidence? You can't tell. Maybe that's true, but none was found. So, Derek Chauvin didn't cut off his oxygen. Go ahead.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
An innocent man is in prison for the death of George Floyd. The Trump administration should review the case. https://t.co/t9avyAvcbz
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
https://lawofselfdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched James Comey on September 30, 2024, discussing various topics, including the possibility of Trump facing prison time and the consequences for January 6 participants. It's clear that those involved in Russiagate and the subsequent legal battles must also be held accountable.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Behold the pompous ass known as James Comey on September 30, 2024, talking about many things including Trump possibly being sentenced to prison and how they made examples out of the J6ers to deter behavior. That is exactly why everyone that participated in Russiagate and the ensuing lawfare MUST be held accountable.
Video Transcript AI Summary
James Comey believes a second Trump presidency would be "very bad" and delay the Republican Party's return to a healthy state. He asserts the U.S. is set up for a two-party system and that both parties need to be active and healthy, committed to the rule of law and peaceful transitions of power.
Comey, a former Republican, states that no one committed to the rule of law can support Trump. He believes the Republican Party must change to win elections, which will happen faster after a Trump defeat. He anticipates a "nightmare" scenario with Trump unconstrained and surrounded by enablers, potentially leading to abuses of power.
While not worried about another large-scale January 6th event due to prosecutions, Comey is concerned about individual acts of violence stemming from MAGA-world threats. He acknowledges Trump's legal troubles have strengthened his supporters' resolve due to the psychology of fraud victims. Comey sees a "significant likelihood" of Trump going to jail, potentially as early as September 18 in Manhattan, unless pardoned.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In terms of the trajectory of US politics, you've made a very clear statement there already. You do think this actually is a completely pivotal election. Is that because you imagine things turning a certain way if Donald Trump was to regain presidency?
Speaker 1: I think if Donald Trump became president again, it would be very bad for all kinds of reasons in the short run. It would also delay the the cleansing that we need to get to a place where we have two healthy political parties in The United States. I think with his defeat, which again, I'm optimistic about, the Republican Party will begin what will be a long process of getting to a healthier place and actually representing ideas and proposals and becoming a healthy antagonist for the Democratic Party.
Speaker 0: Talk about that two horse race, that healthy two party system as you just described it. We have had, obviously, independents running in this election, RFK Jr. Being one of them, and he actually stopped being an independent in order to endorse Trump. Do you think it will always be a two party system?
Speaker 1: It will. Ours is set up with the way we have a winner take all system to drive people to organize their coalitions into two parties. It'll always be that way. We'll have a variety of third party candidates as this year, you'll have some wing nuts running as third party candidates, but in the main, it'll always be two parties. And so we need them both to be active and healthy.
And it's okay that they fight about important policy issues, but they have to be committed to the things that really aren't susceptible to partisan division. The rule of law, peaceful transition of power. Those are the things that we're supposed to have as our bedrock, which is why any Republican ought to be voting for the Democrat this time. Because there's only one candidate running for election in The United States in November who's committed to a peaceful transition of power and the rule of law, the bedrock of our society.
Speaker 0: And hey look, Mr. Comey, I think it behooves us at this point to remind viewers watching this that you were actually a lifelong Republican. Listening to you saying that, some people might be confused otherwise, but you were up until the point of Donald Trump. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was a registered Republican. And I served in the George W. Bush administration as US attorney and then as the number two at the Justice Department. President Obama then asked me to be the FBI director because that's a role that's traditionally outside of politics. But but really nobody committed to the things I just mentioned, to the rule of law and to our constitution, can be a supporter of Donald Trump.
And frankly, don't see how they can be a rep call themselves a Republican these days.
Speaker 0: So the grand old party, the GOP, has gone in your mind. Is there a way for it to come in any way or is the repub are the Republicans now the party of Trump and whoever succeeds him afterwards?
Speaker 1: Well, it will have to change because they can't win elections. They can't they can't get above the high watermark of 47% of the American voters supporting them. And so that's not sustainable in the long run to be a minority party. So circumstances will force them to change, to get to a healthier place where they can attract the support of a majority of Americans. So that's why in the long run, we'll be okay.
We will get to that place, but getting there will be much faster after Donald Trump loses in November.
Speaker 0: Well, say that was some conviction, but at the moment, whilst we're speaking, Harris is only polling just a few points ahead nationwide, and those swing states are still looking like she could lose out to Trump. And, obviously, those swing states, some say, that is where the election is gonna be made. If Trump wins and you've already touched upon this, you're talking there about law and order and, what it means for the country, but what would another Trump presidency look like in your eyes?
Speaker 1: I think it would be a bit of a nightmare in a way. I mean, there's a reason that so many members of his own cabinet have not only not endorsed him, but have said this guy should be nowhere near the Oval Office. Donald Trump as president again will be unconstrained in lots of ways, including by not having people around him. He didn't have all stars the first time. This time he'll have the very bottom of the American barrel and there are bottom barrel dwellers who would want jobs there.
But what the first group did was actually thwart him in a lot of ways, ignore him, cajole him, play him along. The next group around him will not do that. And so all the nutty things, the ideas of shooting protesters in the legs or ordering the prosecution of individuals, those kinds of things that are antithetical to our system, There won't be anybody around Donald Trump to tell him forget that or to distract him with a shiny object and then take the memo from his desk. And so you're looking at an administration where he will be able to do the crazy things that so frightened people the first time.
Speaker 0: Do you have concerns about another January 6 type event? Probably not replicated, heaven forbid. But in terms of that type of social media kind of fuel or those types of organizations, organizing and coming together like that again?
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm quite worried about individual violence and the epidemic of threats that comes from MAGA world directed at public officials at the misguided people acting on those threats and individual acts of violence, are very serious taking place. I'm not worried about the large scale January 6 type violence because a message has been sent over the last four years with the prosecution of more than a thousand people for January 6. The message is your life will be ruined if you engage in that kind of conduct. And the people who would be tempted to are not jihadis looking to lay down their lives for the orange god king.
These are people with families, with jobs, with homes, with assets. They don't wanna light their lives on fire for Donald Trump. And so that message has been sent. And it's the reason there aren't crowds at any of his court appearances. He's unable to summon that kind of violence because a really important and positive message of deterrence has been sent.
Speaker 0: Now you brought up there his court appearances, of course, multiple ongoing court cases, some civil, some criminal. He is a convicted felon. How do you feel as a former FBI director watching somebody who is a convicted person running for presidency?
Speaker 1: If you put it in a book proposal for a crime thriller, your publisher would reject it as fanciful. It's not come on. Come on. Someone running for president who's a convicted felon. Well, that's the world in which we live.
So it's it's bizarre. It feels like a dream, but it's a reality. It's gonna be a close election when one of the candidates lied about the last election, incited his followers to sack The United States Capitol during the transfer of power, and subsequently been convicted of multiple felonies. But that's the weird place in which America finds itself. And as I said, I am optimistic that it is mourning in America and we're gonna put that behind us.
But it's very, very important for people who care about things like the rule of law to get out there and participate in this election.
Speaker 0: And, you know, in previous months when I've been covering it as court cases, I've been interviewing people from the Republican Party and Trump supporters who've talked, of course, about what they call lawfare, which is this idea that the justice system is being weaponized to prevent him from running for president or to put him behind bars. And there was original discussion about that galvanizing his base, making his support more strong. Do you think that theory still holds?
Speaker 1: Yes. And it's at the heart of his famous line about I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose supporters. And the reason for that is just sort of the nature of fraud victims is I've done cases where the victims of a fraudster came to his sentencing after he had admitted his guilt to speak on his behalf, because it's very, very hard for people to turn away, to admit what they'd have to admit about themselves when they turn away from a candidate. And if January 6 didn't cause Trump supporters to turn, I don't know what would turn the core group. Human beings just can't take the kind of pain that requires the admission about yourself and how you were fooled and a fool.
So it doesn't surprise me that his legal troubles have bound a lot of people more tightly to him. That's just the way humans work.
Speaker 0: Will we see him behind bars at any point?
Speaker 1: I think there's a real possibility of that. I think there's actually a possibility he's gonna get a jail sentence on September 18 in Manhattan. And when he would serve that and how that will work exactly, they'll have to sort out. But if convicted of the federal offenses, he's gonna get a jail sentence unless President Biden pardons him or future President Harris pardons him. So yes, I think there's a significant likelihood that he will end up in jail.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe everyone involved in the Russia collusion operation was aware it was a hoax from the start. Peter Strzok stated early on that there was nothing substantial to investigate. Andrew Weissmann, who was focused on the DNC hacking, also knew it was an inside job. Their main goal seemed to be to undermine the Trump administration, using the hoax as a pretext to probe into everything related to Trump. I find it noteworthy that Michael Cohen and Deutsche Bank were part of this, especially considering how it unfolded through Alvin Bragg’s legal actions.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Everyone that participated in the Russia collusion operation knew it was a hoax from the beginning. Peter Strzok said from day one that there was no there, there. Russia collision criminal Andrew Weissmann said that they were investigating the Russians hacking the DNC. That was an inside job and they all knew it. One of their main objectives was to tie up and tarnish the Trump administration. They also used the hoax as the cover to investigate everything Trump. I find it interesting that Michael Cohen and Deutsche Bank was included in that effort seeing as though that played out through Alvin Bragg’s lawfare.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Special Counsel investigation and its limitations due to the president's power to fire them. A "red line" was identified early on regarding investigation into the president's finances. The speaker recounts issuing a subpoena to Deutsche Bank related to Manafort's finances, but the Special Counsel faced a difficult decision: pursue the financial investigation and risk being fired, or focus on Russia's interference in the election.
The speaker disagreed with the decision to not revisit the financial investigation to gain a fuller picture of the president's potential links to Russia. The speaker notes that the special counsel was tasked with looking at all links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including financial links. While Michael Cohen's cooperation allowed some examination of the Trump Moscow project, questions remain about Russian financing of other Trump projects and potential debts to Russian oligarchs. The speaker highlights a New York Times report about the Miss Universe pageant, where a Russian oligarch, Agalarov, funded the event, which was unusually profitable for Trump, raising further questions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So first let me thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. So before I get to the direct answer to your question, which was a really good one and obviously incredibly topical in light of the New York Times revelations. It's worth noting that as I outlined in my book, all of the terrific accomplishments that were undertaken by the special counsel investigation under Robert Mueller's leadership. But that being said, there were areas where we didn't go where I have my own personal views as to what we should have done.
But with respect to finances, it's a very interesting issue. And it really goes to something that's very unusual in this case, which was we were investigating somebody who had the power to fire us. I've been a prosecutor for many, many years. I've prosecuted Enron executives. I in New York City, I prosecuted organized crime figures, and those can be very challenging investigations.
But one thing that those targets don't have is the ability to pull the plug on your investigation. And as you recall, David, early on, the White House had said that a red line was looking at the president's finances. Normally, as an investigator, of course, that's a bit of a red flag. And so I recount in the book as seen where we had issued a subpoena with respect to Deutsche Bank. It was actually in connection with Manafort's finances as to which we did do a financial investigation.
And the special counsel had a difficult decision to make one I actually ended up, I personally agreed with it, which was at that point in the investigation, do you do the financial investigation and risk being fired and then not have the ability to do the great work that team R, the Russia team did in uncovering how Russia interfered with our election, how it hacked into the DNC. How in the Manafort team, we discovered that Manafort had been giving internal polling data to Konstantin Kalimnik, a Russian asset. So the decision at that time was to not do that investigation. Where I respectfully disagree is that I think that that decision needed to be revisited so that we had a fuller picture of the president's potential links to Russia on the financial side and not just the matters that we had looked at.
Speaker 1: To be more specific, you note in your book that when the president and his lawyers talked about this red line after you had issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank for records about Manafort. The response could have been, Go pound sand, it's not your call, it's our call. As you say, you refrained from doing that. Looking back, if the Special Counsel had issued subpoenas for wider records from Deutsche Bank, which at the time we believe was the president's principal lender, what information do you think might have been obtained or to ask the question differently, what questions might have been answered that would be relevant to understanding the issues that the special counsel was asked to look at?
Speaker 0: Well, were tasked with looking at all links between the Trump campaign and the Russia government. That was in the appointment order from Rod Rosenstein, the acting attorney general. So one of the questions is, were there any financial links? We did look when Michael Cohen cooperated with our investigation. We did at that point look at the financial links with respect to the Trump Moscow project as to which there's been a lot of reporting.
But we don't know the answer to whether there's financing from Russia of various Trump projects. We don't know whether the president's indebted in some way to Russian oligarchs. You know, one of the things that struck my attention in the New York Times reporting and assuming it's accurate is the Miss Universe pageant. There's information in the New York Times reporting that the money to sponsor that was put up by a Russian oligarch named Agalarov. And David, you may recall that that same oligarch was behind the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016.
It was his emissaries who had set up that meeting to offer what they phrased in writing as dirt on Hillary Clinton. And so one of the questions I had with respect to the New York Times reporting is, according to the New York Times, that Miss Universe pageant was unusually profitable. And yet the Aguilaris didn't seem to make any money off of it, even though they were the people who put up the money. But then private citizen Trump had made a couple million dollars off of that. So that's something that as an investigator, there certainly are questions that you'd wanna answer on that.
reSee.it AI Summary
A user expressed excitement over an individual confronting Andrew Weissmann, whom they labeled a "Russia collusion criminal," noting that the confrontation was quickly ended. They humorously referred to the individual as a "hero of democracy." Another user pointed out that the same person had previously confronted Norm Eisen and suggested he deserved a medal for his actions. The conversation included links to additional content related to the confrontations.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
OMG y’all. Someone confronted Russia collusion criminal Andrew Weissmann. They want to talk about their lawfare against Trump all day every day but they quickly escorted the guy out. 🤣 That guy is truly a hero of democracy. 😂😂😂😂😂 https://t.co/mlNt9eN5nm
Video Transcript AI Summary
A person in the audience accused Professor Weissman of lying about not knowing Felix Sater, claiming Weissman signed agreements with Sater in 1998 and 2017. The speaker stated that Sater, the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow, was recommended to Robert Mueller by Weissman. The speaker accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against President Trump and called Weissman a fraud who should be in jail. The moderator defended the person's right to speak freely, characterizing it as a good example of free speech. Another panelist clarified that while they wouldn't stop someone from asking a question, they would draw the line if it disrupted the gathering or repeated questions already answered.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To ask us questions. And let me just remind you to go to the microphone so everyone can hear you. Yes.
Speaker 1: First, I wanna thank the panel for allowing us all to sit in on this very interesting podcast conversation. I have a question for Professor Weissman. Democrats in congress, specifically John Conyers, admonished your predecessor at the FBI. They John Conyers said she broke the law with the national security letters violating the fourth amendment. Can you tell us, did the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence know of your secret twenty five year relationship with the intelligence asset Felix Sater when he testified in 02/2017?
Speaker 0: So I don't know Felix Sater. Really?
Speaker 1: You signed an agreement with him in 1998 and another one in 02/2017. It was released in 2019 by The Intercept. Why are you lying to these NYU students, professor Wiseman?
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I don't know if Felix
Speaker 1: Sater personally recommended to Robert Mueller. You sent me your book. Sir, he's answered your question. You said he lied. He said he doesn't know Felix Sater.
Read the book. Instrument that
Speaker 0: I wrote.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna ask
Speaker 1: you He to said that he told Robert Mueller to bring in Felix Sater. Felix Sater is the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow. I think you planted an intelligence asset to testify against the rightly elected forty fifth president of The United States. You, sir, are a fraud. You should be in jail, Andrew Weisman.
Okay. Next question.
Speaker 0: Next question. Also wanna thank the panel. On. The risk of taking questions. You know what?
This is this is a good example of, like, free speech. That's right. Seriously, people. And and just to be clear, this is really is a good example of free speech. People should be able to say what they want.
Totally. They have their views and they're doing it peacefully.
Speaker 2: Yep. That's We wouldn't stop someone, just to be clear, I don't speak for the institution and its policies now, but we wouldn't stop someone like from answering, from asking a question. We would draw the line when it starts to disrupt the overall gathering, right? So when the same question has been asked five times and already answered, that's the that's the difference.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The same guy that confronted Andrew Weissmann is the one who confronted Norm Eisen. He deserves a medal. 🏅 😂 https://t.co/SvWmwHtAME
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
reSee.it AI Summary
A conversation began with a claim that Andrew Weissmann, a lawfare coordinator, suggested that Judge Chutkan would impose a severe sentence on Trump related to the January 6 events. The speaker criticized Chutkan for previously giving leniency to a Pakistani spy, implying a bias linked to the Democratic Party. The speaker expressed concern over perceived injustices in the legal system, stating that real criminals are targeting victims with fabricated charges. In response, another participant called for Chutkan to face imprisonment.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Lawfare coordinator and Russia collusion criminal Andrew Weissmann says that Democrat operative Chutkan will sentence Trump to die in prison over the January 6 color revolution. That is the same Chutkan who let a Pakistani spy off with a slap on the wrist because the case involved the democrat party. I hope people understand what day it is when the real criminals will send their victims to die in prison over made-up crimes and politics.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the potential sentencing of Donald Trump, arguing it's crucial he's treated comparably to others prosecuted in DC to avoid the appearance of selective prosecution. They cite Enrique Tarrio's 22-year sentence as a precedent, emphasizing that Trump, as the leader, should be held accountable. The speaker believes Judge Chutkin will likely sentence Trump to jail, despite the presence of Secret Service. They stress the importance of equal justice under the law, stating there can't be two systems of justice. The speaker concludes there is ample precedent for Trump's prosecution based on current cases in DC, noting judges are speaking with one voice on these cases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The leader of the free world. What I would say to the issue is if there is a precedent, and I think it's a really good question because it goes to is Donald Trump being treated fairly and comparably and not a subject of selective prosecution is the scores and scores of people in DC who have been prosecuted and convicted. It feels like a lifetime ago, but just last week Enrique Terrio was sentenced to twenty two years. The leader of that leader should certainly be held to account. That's also one reason that wasn't asked.
Think that for Judge Chutkin, I think that at sentencing that she will send him to jail because it's just not possible. Don't think that the fact that you have secret service is a reason not to do it. There are all sorts of ways that the president's And you're gonna saying that's end not, it wouldn't be a punitive statement. It would be around this, there can't be two, I mean this has to be something that never There can't be two systems of justice in the Just remember for the judges Tarrio just got twenty two years. He got twenty two years, and this is the leader of that person in terms of what happened.
I'm somewhat simplifying, but I mean I just think for the judges in that courthouse, and there are judges who are appointed by all sorts of presidents, and who are speaking with one voice about those cases, and about sort of how they see them. That might have gone on too long, but I just think that there's ample precedent for his prosecution there, and you really just have to look at the current cases in DC.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Chutkan must go to prison. https://t.co/YsOJgDlOIE
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation centers on Andrew Weissmann, criticizing his actions during the investigation into alleged Russian collusion, which the speaker describes as an attempted coup against a sitting president. The speaker claims Weissmann's actions led to significant job losses at Arthur Anderson, wrongful imprisonments related to Merrill Lynch, and a Supreme Court ruling that overturned his decisions. The speaker characterizes Weissmann as delusional and corrupt while questioning his commentary on norms and American values. Two links were shared in response.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Imagine being Andrew Weissmann who ran an attempted coup of a sitting president (the Russia collusion hoax), destroyed an accounting firm which cost 85,000 people their jobs and savings (Arthur Anderson), put innocent people in prison (Merrill Lynch), was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court, waged lawfare over politics and on and on and yet he talks about norms, behaviors, and American values. Talk about a delusional corrupt psychopath.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers aim to provide tools to understand complex legal matters, drawing on their experience as prosecutors. They intend to guide people through judgment and strategy calls.
A key takeaway from the Trump administration is the realization that constitutional rights and Department of Justice norms are not guaranteed. Fundamental aspects of America are not immutable. The speakers believe that every generation must fight for these values. Regardless of what happens with Donald Trump, the struggle to ensure that the values we care about remain core American values will persist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's really hard to top that. I mean that's totally right. That was sort of the idea of this was to for people who are not sort of living this day to day and there's just so much arcane material. I mean we were talking about even the last twelve hours, Fonny Willis is definitely keeping us on our toes because there's so many filings and there are a lot of new issues. A lot of this is explanatory.
That's what I call the micro of walking people through this so they can have some tools to understand it. We've just been prosecutors for so long and have similar careers with different embassies, so it helps guide people through that, and we can sort of help with sort of the judgment calls that are being made, and strategy calls. So that's sort of micro, and the macro, which I think because we've been in the department for so long, and the reason we were in the department is why I think it's probably some of the reason that we have levity because it's very hard, it's nothing to make light of. I think the biggest lesson from the Trump administration is that things that I took for granted that were constitutional rights, or in Mary's world, norms as to the Department of Justice as to how you behave, that's all evanescent, and that things that you just thought were fundamental to America aren't. Someone just said, I think it was the president said in Alaska, I think was it just yesterday, that it's something that every generation has to fight for.
I thought that was unfortunately, I I think that's right, and I think that we're living through that. And I think we're gonna live through that. As I said, I think regardless of what happens with Donald Trump, it's gonna stay with us, and it's gonna be an existing struggle to deal with that phenomenon of making sure that values that we care about remain core American values.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the gag order imposed by Judge Engoron on Trump, highlighting how it seems designed to restrict Trump's ability to expose those involved in what I see as lawfare against him. Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann monitored Trump's statements, likely to report back to the judge. I noted that Andy's mention of Ruby Freeman, Shaye Moss, and Mark Milley indicates a desire to prevent Trump from discussing their roles in the 2020 election and the January 6 events.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Lawfare coordinators and Russia collusion criminals Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann discussed “judge” Engoron’s gag order against Trump. They even monitored what Trump said, no doubt so they could report it to their selected “judge”. What the gag orders are really about is limiting Trump’s ability to highlight everyone who is involved in the lawfare. How do I know that? Andy mentioned Ruby Freeman, Shaye Moss and Mark Milley. All three played a role in the theft of the 2020 election and/or the J6 fedsurrection and they don’t want Trump to have the ability to point that out.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A New York judge issued a limited gag order against Donald Trump, preventing him from speaking or writing about court staff in his civil case. This isn't a First Amendment issue, but a restriction on a defendant's speech during court proceedings. Trump's recent posts appear to skirt the order's limitations by attacking the civil case, Attorney General Letitia James, and the court proceedings as political persecution.
A pending motion in the January 6th federal case seeks a similar order restricting Trump's speech to protect the judge, prosecutors, FBI agents, and witnesses from denigration that could taint the jury pool and affect justice administration. Concerns arise that Trump's inflammatory rhetoric incites violence, referencing past incidents like threats against the DC district court judge and attacks on the FBI after Mar-a-Lago. While Trump may be trying to provoke judges, attacks on court staff and other parties should be viewed as equally unacceptable. Judges may hesitate to issue orders that could be perceived as restricting a candidate's free speech during a campaign.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You all probably heard in the last twenty four hours the judge in the New York civil case issued a gag order, a limited one because it was very focused on the statements that Donald Trump made with respect to the judge's law clerk and the gag order was essentially do not speak, do not write, do not pass go, like don't do anything with respect to court staff. And this is my hyperbole, which is, you know what, you can run for office without attacking the judicial staff. And this has nothing to do with free speech. This is about rhetoric that incites violence. Just since we're in a law school, this is not really a First Amendment issue.
This is deals with when you are a defendant out on bail or you're in a court proceeding there and here, obviously in the civil case, it's a defendant in a civil case brought by the attorney general. There are restrictions on what you can and cannot say. Some people would say none of this is really First Amendment protected to begin with, because certain types of speeches, just not First Amendment activity. But certainly in a criminal context, there are all sorts of restrictions placed on your liberties when you are out on bail or when you're not out on bail. In other words, you can be put in jail, you can be told that you can't have a gun, you can be told that you have to report in certain places, you can be under house arrest, there are all sorts of things that happen to you merely because you are charged based on probable cause with a felony or sometimes even a misdemeanor, found by a grand jury.
And so the court has jurisdiction over you. And one thing what Mary and I were looking at is to see in the last twelve hours, what has Donald Trump been doing? And it's been kind of interesting because he had so far appears to it is it has definitely been a sort of a brush back, and that the things that he is talking about or posting about definitely do not run afoul of what the judge said.
Speaker 1: Yeah, which was very explicit. Don't attack court staff or even speak about court staff. But we were talking earlier, he's almost like a toddler now going right up to that line. Right? His post this morning again attacked the civil case, again attacked, the attorney general Letitia James, again attacked the court proceedings as being part of political persecution.
These are all things we know agitate is based, sometimes spur people in the public to take action, violent actions and that's one of the things we talked about last week in our episode on political violence we talked about a little bit yesterday, but he's at least smart enough to know I'm not going to blatantly violate the judge's order, I'm going to do all these other things. And so this is I think is the creep that we're seeing, right? Right now there is pending emotion in the federal No pun intended. Right, that's right. Or pun intended.
I mean, know, to the extent I can do that, I should be trying to be more clever about that. But, you know, the district court case, the federal district court case in DC criminal case involving January 6, there is a pending motion as I'm sure you all know to get a order limited order restricting his speech to keep him from denigrating not just court staff but the judge, prosecutors, FBI agents, witnesses, and and also just sorry. I knew this would happen when I have this lapel pin on lapel mic on. And that would taint the jury pool and just affect the administration of justice. And so as we've said before, the chutzpah to be continuing to kind of make the statements that he's been making while he's got that motion pending, now that he's under a gag order here, I I think these are things that are also gonna be considered by other judges in other cases.
And, you know, some of our, I think, greatest concern is that we all know that when Mr. Trump says things that are inflammatory, there are people out there who take actions. I mean, we've had an arrest of someone making a violent threat against the DC district court judge, threatening to kill her. Know, we've had, armed attacks on the FBI after the Mar a Lago search, after after former president Trump, you know, criticized well, criticized is a pretty mild term, the FBI. So we know these have these impacts, and I think that's what Judge Ngoron knows too, and he said that no way, no how, you're not doing this on my watch.
He has to protect his staff. Yeah, so my reaction
Speaker 0: was, I mean, I know that the former president is doing this to sort of goad judges and to play the victim and is really sort of daring them to do this, but it really shouldn't take, in my view, an attack on the judge's staff. I mean, that's outrageous, but they all should be viewed that way, whether it's an attack on Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, whether it's an attack on witnesses, comments about Mark Milley denigrating what happened to Paul Pelosi. It's all of a kind, I totally understand why the judge would be protective and extremely upset about the attack on his law clerk. He had every right to be, and I think it was totally appropriate to issue that order. But I think it's one where I'm going to be fascinated to see how Judge Chukkin in DC deals with this because I think because you and I have seen so many times people acting on that kind of rhetoric and thinking they're, did look at the January 6
Speaker 1: They're empowered, right, that's what And the very
Speaker 0: case they're is being called on to do this, that you don't want to wait for you know, what I think is unfortunately going to be the inevitable and it shouldn't take
Speaker 1: those But at the same time, there's a hesitancy while he's a candidate for office to issue any kind of order that he will inevitably say restricts him from being able to campaign from office and restricts his free speech. It's a tough, you know, there's there are constitutional issues there. There are ways to thread that needle, but I think the judges want to be careful about what they do.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
Norm Eisen described the components of his ongoing efforts against Trump, highlighting lawfare supported by partisan judges, state-level resistance, and persistent peaceful protests. He mentioned assembling a team to study strategies for toppling autocratic regimes in Europe and Brazil to inform their approach. Additionally, he noted that his lawfare initiatives began on January 7, 2021, suggesting a connection to the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen essentially said that the pillars of the color revolution that he continues to run against Trump are lawfare propped up by partisan hack judges, the states acting as the resistance, and the never ending mostly peaceful protests. He also said that he put together a team that studied how to overthrow autocratic regimes in Europe including Poland and Hungary along with Brazil so that they could strategize on how to stop Trump. Norm also said that his lawfare started on January 7, 2021, which makes sense since I think we’ll find that Norm was involved in the real January 6 seditious conspiracy.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Russia did not hack into the DNC. It was an inside job. The lie was perpetrated by Crowdstrike and the FBI who were involved in the cover-up. The “Russia hacked the DNC” big lie has been used as the cover for everything our intelligence community has done.
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇺🇸🇷🇺CROWDSTRIKE WAS INVOLVED IN “RUSSIAGATE” Before today, CrowdStrike, the company responsible for the faulty Windows update that crashed the world, was involved with the DNC. In 2016, CrowdStrike claimed that Russian agents had broken into the servers of the Democratic Party, transferring sensitive emails to WikiLeaks, the publishing of which supposedly led to Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat. CrowdStrike: “Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network. This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017, that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.” Source: RT
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
I have posted pieces of this video before but you must watch it to understand why the establishment has waged lawfare against Trump, how corrupt our federal government is and why it must be dismantled, and why Julian Assange is in prison. #TRUMPMUGSHOT #Trump2024 https://t.co/sWzT6hAczF
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that top law enforcement officials expected Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election and manipulated the law to ensure her victory and Trump's defeat. He cites James Comey's alleged admission of operating in an environment where a Clinton victory was expected.
The speaker discusses the alleged intrusion into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), pointing to "telltale signs in Cyrillic" and the name "Felix Dzerzhinsky" as either sloppy or overly clever attempts to implicate Russia. He alleges that the persona "Guccifer 2.0" is a fraud, based on forensic analysis of metadata by former NSA technical directors.
The speaker criticizes Bob Mueller, claiming he falsified intelligence before the Iraq War and approved of torture and wiretapping. He recounts an encounter where he questioned Mueller about "parallel construction," the practice of using illegally acquired information in prosecutions without revealing its source.
The speaker describes James Comey's leaking of a conversation with President Trump to prompt the appointment of a special prosecutor, Bob Mueller. He questions Comey's decision not to seize the DNC computers after the alleged Russian hacking, relying instead on CrowdStrike, a firm with a "disastrous record of veracity."
The speaker claims that the DNC blamed Russia for the hacking to divert attention from the content of the leaked emails. He references Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's PR person, allegedly pushing the "Russians hacked" narrative. Chuck Schumer is quoted as saying the intelligence community has "six ways to Sunday" to get back at Trump.
The speaker discusses the Steele dossier and claims that the FBI also paid for it. He alleges that the intelligence community assessment on Russian hacking was based on handpicked analysts and that Obama stated the conclusions of Russian hacking getting to WikiLeaks were inconclusive. He claims NSA collects everything and there is no evidence of Russian hacking.
The speaker references Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages, where they expressed support for Hillary Clinton and a determination to "stop" Trump. He claims Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, later said there was "no there there" regarding Russia gate. The speaker claims Julian Assange released documentation of the CIA's cyber tool to hack into systems and leave telltale signs giving the responsibility to someone else. He concludes that a "deep state" within the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department acted to ensure Hillary Clinton's victory and undermine Trump.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Expected Hillary to win. The New York Times said she was a shoo in, and everyone was operating out of that environment, including James Comey, John Brennan of the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, and all those folks. Very high level people. Okay? Now, how do I know that?
Well, you can reason to that by being an analyst. Okay? But now, have documentary evidence in the form of James Comey saying, we were operating in an environment where we expected Hillary to win. Now, if you don't understand that, it's really hard for you to to believe that our very top law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI played fast and loose with the law to make sure Hillary would win and that Trump would lose. And the documentation is out there.
You don't see it in the New York Times, but I'll expose you to some of it. Okay? So if you don't realize that these people fully expected to keep their jobs, no small thing, fully expected to be rewarded rather than indicted by playing fast and loose with the law, then you don't understand how this thing kinda thing could happen. And I've not seen the like of it since Watergate, and I was around for Watergate as well. So that by way of preference or preface to what we're gonna say here.
So June 12, Los Angeles announces that he has emails related to Hillary Clinton was his words, and he said that he's gonna publish them soon. Two days later, CrowdStrike. The computer entity hired by the Clinton campaign announces we have seen an intrusion into the Democratic National Committee, and there were telltale signs in Cyrillic. Cyrillic, as most of you know, is Russian. Right?
Okay. As a matter of fact, we have the name of the first head of the Soviet secret police, head name and patronymic, Felix Mehermundovich, which is for Dzhynski the first. So so whoever intruded into the DNC was either incredibly sloppy, and no one has accused the GRU, the Russian intelligence military intelligence service of being sloppy, or they were overly clever in leaving more than just telltale signs in Cyrillic, not leaving just just a tablet or a Microsoft type format, but leaving so we wouldn't notice I mean, so we wouldn't miss it, the name and patronymic Felix Hemondovich. So, that's January. That's June 14, two days after after Julius Anjou, he's got these emails.
January 15, out of the ashes arises an entity, a persona named Guccifer two point zero. Who is Guccifer two point zero? We don't know. A year and one month ago, we asked the president to find out. Maybe he should ask the FBI.
Who is this Guccifer two point zero persona. We don't know if it's a entity or a man. We use non sexist language pertaining to personas, so we don't say Guccifer he. Guccifer We don't know. We still don't know who Guccifer is, but we do know that he's a fraud.
He's an out and out fraud. Now, how do we know that? Our veteran intelligence professionals for sanity group is blessed with all kinds of expertise, including two former directors, two former technical directors of the National Security Agency. Okay. Bill Binney and Ed Loomis.
Bill Binney has been around. You've seen some of the things that he said. And they know they know that Guccifer is an entity that is fabricated. They know because they have some forensics that come out of metadata, metadata associated with these intrusions, and they've been manipulated. And so, Guccifer two point zero, we still don't know who he, she, or it is, but we know Guccifer two point zero is a fraud.
And we can prove it. We have hard copy of the intrusions, and Bill has Bill Binney has taken me through, so even a liberal arts guy like me can understand you can't have an accurate thing when you have interspersed intermingling of various periods. So, what does that mean? Well, that means that these indictments of the 12 apostles, then the 12 apostles, the twelve twelve GRU people, GRU, the the military intelligence arm of the Russian, well, they're all based on Guccifer two point zero. Well, hello?
What does that mean? It means it means that, as my Russian teacher would say, it means that you cannot be sure of these conclusions. It means that Bob Mueller, well, Bob Mueller enjoys a reputation of being universally respected. That is if you use the if you read the New York Times or the Washington Post. Colleen Rowley, who worked in the FBI during his tenure, and worked when James Comey was in the Department of Justice, tells us all that, you know, James Comey, I mean, Bob Mueller falsified the intelligence before Iraq, didn't say no to the torture, approved the wiretapping, you know, that famous scene in the hospital.
Well, the next day, they approved the program. They just changed their name. Okay? And Bob Mueller has been, you know, I had a personal encounter with Bob Mueller. I was at Georgetown University with 300 other people, and John Brennan introduced his old friend Bob Mueller who had just retired from the FBI, and Mueller made some comments.
I Any questions? So I raised my hand. Okay. I do that, you know. So I said, now, mister Mueller, as a as a lawyer, do you have any do you have any legal qualms with with the process called The process whereby you take sensitive information.
It's called parallel construction. And for the benefit of people that I said, that means that you take illegally acquired information from NSA, you give it to the cops, you say, look, go to this corner next Saturday night, this time, and you get these guys, you prosecute them, and you put them in jail. You don't tell the judge. You don't tell the defense attorney where you got the information originally. And so, you're perjuring perjury is involved at every stage of this.
And I was just wondering, mister Mueller, do you have any any legal qualms about that? Yeah. There's a lot of murmuring, Those are my old intelligence friends. So Mueller looks at me, he's a big guy, and looks at mister McGovern, and he said, after 09:11, we were given special authorities. Next question.
There you go, folks. After 09:11, we were given special authorities. You know, you've heard endless times, you know, after 09:11 maybe you could complete the sentence. After 09:11, everything Changed. Changed.
Right? And so this constitution, you know, this this thing that that I swore to support and defend, and I usually have in my back pocket there, it was sort of overtaken by nine eleven. My god. And he was the head of the FBI at the time. Okay?
So he was given special authorities. Now I I I said to Colleen Rowley, you're a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. How do you figure this? I mean, how can you do illegal things just because you were given special authorities?
And she says, well, Ray, it's sort of complicated, but basically, it takes about a decade for the for the judges, the courts to catch up, and then they say, oh, no. This is illegal. But meanwhile, you do illegal things, and you say you would be you had been given special authorities. Wow. So that's Mueller.
Now, how did he get appointed? Well, you probably remember that when James Comey decided he would leak a personal conversation with the president now in my day, a personal conversation with the president was ipso facto classified. I mean, hello. That's a no brainer. But he thought, well, he could make it unclassified.
He gave it to a lawyer friend. They leaked it to the New York Times. And the story was that president Trump tried to get Comey to go easy on general Flynn. What he said was, I hope you can, you know, go easy on him or some words to that effect. So New York Times publishes that.
Now, they asked James Comey, you know, it's a little little irregular for FBI heads present or former to leak information. Why did she do that? And he said, oh, I wanted a special prosecutor named. And sure enough, the next day, a special prosecutor was named. His name was Bob Mueller.
And James Comey said, thank you, Jesus. My best friend forever. Bob Mueller, oh man, this is gonna be great. Hello? That's how it happened folks.
Don't believe me, believe what James Comey said. Now, with respect to Comey, while we're on the subject, when it was revealed that or when it was claimed that the Russians hacked into the DNC, into the Democratic National Committee. Do you remember what John McCain said? Act of war. It's an act of war.
The Russians have done an act of war. Lots of people are saying this is a act of war. Right? What did James Comey do, the head of the FBI? Anybody know?
I was like the tar baby in Uncle Remus. He didn't say nothing. Didn't do nothing. Now, if you were the head of the FBI, and you heard that the Russians had hacked into the DNC computers, what's the first thing you would do? Yeah.
Right. Seize the computers. Take a look at them. Send your forensic experts in there to seize the computers, and find out what, you know, how did this all happen. But some for some reason or other, Comey didn't do that.
And when he was asked softball questions by the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is a softball the archetype of a softball outfit. Now, mister Comey, tell me, you didn't have access to the computers of the DNC. Why was that? Oh, we were never we were never given access. We were never given well, hello?
What do you need? Oh, yeah. What all you need is a little warrant or a little letter. Again, the FBI doesn't doesn't hesitate from invading the the homes of some of my NSA friends or anything. So he said, weren't given access.
Next question. Now, mister Comey, is it general practice not to seize the computers in such such a case? Like when people are saying there's a war? Well, no. I have to admit that best practices would mean that that we had physical access to the to the computers.
But but we were we decided to rely on CrowdStrike, which was a super top rate cyber organization. And they did forensics, and we borrowed their forensics. Anybody know about CrowdStrike? Run by run by a bunch of Russian hating groups, hired by Hillary Clinton, and with a very spotty record, actually a disastrous record of veracity in their conclusions in the past. So for some reason or other, James Comey didn't do that.
Well, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. Let me be a little bit more orderly here. So we have June 12, Assange says he's got the emails. Now, that gave Well, June 12 and July 25, when the DNC convention was. I've done the subtraction, I think it's about three weeks.
Okay? Now, just imagine the situation at the DNC. Hillary's sitting there with a bunch of her advisors, and they're saying, oh my god, Assange has got DNC emails or my emails. And we haven't even had our convention yet. What is Bernie gonna say?
What is Bernie gonna say when he finds out what we did? My god. What are gonna do? Somebody says, I know what we do. We'll blame the Russians.
Everybody's like, come on. It wasn't the Russians. It was WikiLeaks. It's okay. We'll get a twofer here.
We hate WikiLeaks as much as the Russians. We'll say that the Russians hacked and they gave the information to WikiLeaks. Oh, Hillary. Anybody got any better ideas? Okay.
We'll go with it. And that was it, folks. That's what they did starting after June 15, all the way up to when on June 22, three days before the convention, Julian Assange released the emails. Now, what happened? What was the the headline in New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal when it became clear that these hacked emails have been published by WikiLeaks?
Headlines were, why did Russia do this? Why did Russia? Why are the Russians doing this? Why are there nobody looked at the content of the emails. It was a it was a magnificent diversion of attention.
You look at the record. Nobody looked at what the email said. It was all about why did the Russians do this? Why who who the So, it worked like a charm. It worked like a charm.
And I had a chance to talk Well, to hear Jennifer Palmieri, who was Hillary Clinton's PR person, and she was bragging about going to the convention and shopping going around in a golf cart to the various cable and other news outlets and pushing this line under instruction that the Russians hacked. She said, and I have I have it there. It's it's on it's on tape. Seaspan has it. She said, you know, it was hard for me to believe The Russians would hack to help to help defeat Hillary Clinton, help Trump win, but we we try to sell it, and it was hard for anyone to believe.
But when we got back to Brooklyn, Brooklyn was Clinton headquarters. Right? Then intelligence people started coming to us and filling in the blanks as to how the Russians hacked. And then we had journalists who had been briefed by intelligence people, and they told us more. And then best of all, the Obama administration would start to confirm these stories.
So then we were off and running with this story. Now, it was so bad. John Brennan, the head of the CIA, was leaking like a sieve to the to the New York Times and elsewhere. It was so bad that the Wall Street Journal complained, They're not talking to us. They only talk to the Washington Post.
They only talk to the New York Times. They're neglecting us. That's the that's the Wall Street Journal saying. So that's what was going on then. Okay?
So the story was out, and it was clear in everybody's mind. Okay. Then there's the election. What was it? The eighth of or seventh seventh?
Yeah. Okay. November. And a curious thing happened. Now we all watch Rachel Maddow, course.
Right? No. No. Okay. Well, she I see somebody.
I I share that sentiment. So she so she had Chuck Schumer as a special guest on the January 3. And they were talking about Trump and how he was bad mouthing the intelligence community. Can you imagine? Bad mouthing his own intelligence community?
And so Chuck Schumer said, you know, I thought that Trump was pretty smart businessman. And he knew, you know, what fights to pick, but he's done something very very stupid. And Rachel says, oh, what would that be, Chuck? And he says, well, he says he's taking on the intelligence community. And they have six ways to Sunday to get back at you.
Very foolish thing to do. Now, Rachel, if she was a real interviewer, she would have said, senator, are you saying that the president of The United States or the president-elect should be afraid of the intelligence community? And that's, of course, exactly what he was saying. And I'm sorry to tell you that's true because that is the reality. Trump's own freedom of flexibility is his freedom to do things he wants is tightly circumscribed by the intelligence community, and that is the Dhani book that's in in process right now.
I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a few minutes. Anyhow, that was Chuck Schumer on the January 3. Now on the January 5, president Obama, in his last few weeks in office, this is '17 now. It's 2017. He was briefed by NSA, CIA, and the FBI that had done this very poor excuse for an intelligence assessment, adducing no real evidence, but saying that Putin himself had hacked, had ordered the hacking of the DNC.
Okay. Now he was briefed on that. That's important to realize on the fifth. On the sixth, the president-elect entertained James Comey, FBI, John Brennan, CIA, Admiral Rogers, head of NSA at the time, and James Clapper. James Clapper is a Russian expert.
Studied the hands of Air Force generals down the line. Okay? And he knows, and he said, quote, you know, Russian history shows that the Russians are almost genetically driven to be deceitful, to cheat. I I say that. That's a direct quote.
Almost genetically driven to be deceitful and to fall into blah blah blah blah. So so this Jane Comey and his three three members of the Magi, they're going in to see see president-elect Trump. Now, by prearrangement by prearrangement, James Comey lingered behind as the head of the FBI. And he said, now, mister president, I this is embarrassing to tell you, but but you should know that we have this dossier, which, you know, it really shows some scarless things about your visit to Moscow a couple years ago and how prostitutes were involved and peeing on your bed and. And we went out, it's not confirmed, not confirmed, but some of the press has it, and we just Just so you know, just so you know, that it's available.
Now, there's an old trick, folks. There's an old trick. A president-elect is always subjected to this kind of, we have this stuff on you and we don't want it to get out, but just so you know, just so you know. And if I were Trump, I would have fired Comey. Right then, would have said, Comey, go back, empty your desk, and don't show your face in the FBI again.
Okay? Now, he would have had a couple weeks to do that. That's okay because Trump wasn't president yet. So this was the celebrated Steele dossier paid for by whom? Hillary's.
Clinton's. Yeah. Now who else paid for the dossier? Who who read the news today? It was confirmed that the FBI paid.
Yeah. Paid this guy's steel. So are you getting the picture here a little bit? Okay. So so that will that's what we have on the January 6.
Now, what's really interesting is that this document that everybody crows about, this intelligence community assessment. The only accurate word in those those three words is assessment. Was it the intelligence community? No. Was it just three agencies of the intelligence community?
No. What was it? It was handpicked analysts from these three agencies, not the agencies themselves, handpicked analysts. Who picked them? Who picked them?
James Comey, for god's sake. Now everyone knows in Washington that if you handpick the analysts, you handpick the conclusions. Right? Okay. So there you had this this document out that everyone is still crowing about how can how can Putin how can Trump stand next to Putin and and not believe US intelligence?
You know? This is terrible. You know? Oh, US intelligence is always correct except for before Iraq and except for a couple other things. Alright?
So so this is necessary because on the eighteenth, so we we're talking about the 01/05/2017, Obama's briefed on all this. Okay? Now, on the eighteenth, Obama gets up for his last press conference. And having read this and been briefed on this assessment that Putin himself directed that the DNC be hacked and the results be given to be given to WikiLeaks, what does Obama say? He says, and I quote, the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to how Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks are inconclusive.
Period. End quote. Inconclusive conclusions. Wow. So why does Obama say that two days before he's going out of office?
Because he's a lawyer. He wants to protect his dear, dirty air, you know. The the Russian hacking was was bad enough because he knew probably knew what the evidence was, like, not much, but saying that it was given by the Russians to WikiLeaks, you know, we know, and I I refer to my NSA colleagues, former former NSA. I probably already mentioned two of them were technical directors NSA. They know that it wasn't a hack because of the the fact, number one, NSA collects everything.
Now, you know, I when Bill Binnie first Bill Binnie, one of these former technical director, when he told me that, said, right. Right, Bill. Come on now. All emails and all come on. Everything.
He says, Ray, trust me. I couldn't say this before, but once Ed Snowden brought those slides out into Hong Kong, not only could I say it, but I could show exactly how it's done. I could show the trace roots that that are implanted in the in the network where they trace every single email. It's broken down into packets. The packets are reassembled.
Those of you technical people realize what that means. We can trace exactly where it originated or where it ended up. And there ain't nothing. There ain't nothing on Russian hacking. So that's negative evidence.
Right? In other words, the argument would be, if NSA had that, certainly, they would reveal that given all the controversy. But you know, Donald Rumsfeld, not my favorite philosopher, but he did go to Princeton, and he learned the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's pretty profound. Think about that.
The absence of evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't mean they're not there. Right? And so so even though even though NSA collects it all, even though NSA has the Ecuadorian Embassy in London surrounded what they call ironclad coverage, which means no signal gets in there, gets out of here, but then it say getting it. Right? Even though that was the case, we're not supposed to believe that there's the absence of evidence here means anything.
So that was kinda hard. Now, Bill Binney and I did get into the Baltimore Sun, almost sort of a mainstream, a couple of op eds there, but we couldn't get any other exposure for these views. But now, we have forensics evidence. Now we have some forensic investigators, private ones, who were really interested in working with the metadata that surrounded one of the hacks. And we found out, as I said before, Guccifer two point zero is a fraud, And we found out that this one celebrated event, which we have the the transfer rate for.
In other words, let me explain. It's sort of like it's not not hard to understand. Even a liberal arts guy like me can understand it after Bill Benny briefs me five times on it. Okay? Now, liquid dynamics.
You have a pipe. It has a capacity. You can't get stuff through that pipe that exceeds its capacity. Right? So, think of the network, Internet that way.
We know exactly what the capacity of the Internet was on the 07/05/2016. What was taken out of the DNC computers was taken out at three times three times the capacity, the rate. So so fast, bits, bytes, whatever you wanna call them, that it could not have been a hack. It had to be a copy from the computer system onto one of those little thumb drives. And coincidentally, the rate was exactly the same as what a thumb drive can accommodate.
Okay? So this is physics. This is liquid dynamics, and we were able to prove that our year Well, on the July 24 was this main Our main effort on that, and that was what got Bill Vinny an interview with the head of the CIA at the time, Pompeo. Bill's friend Bill is a very straight guy. Right?
So I said, how'd it go, Bill? Said, well, you know, he asked me what's going on. I said, well, your people are lying to you. And he says, well, what do you mean? He says, well, you know, he explained the situation, and there were only two aides there, and I'm not sure how technically at adept they were.
But then then Pompeo says to him, do you have a relationship with the FBI? And Bill says, well, sort of. Eight years ago, they appeared at my house at 06:00 in the morning, guns drawn, shoved them in the face of my wife and my my child, and got me in the shower. Shower curtain opens, there's a gun look pointing at me. So, yeah, that's that's the last time I had any dealings with the FBI.
They knew that Bill Binnie was not the source of a leak that they were investigating. They already knew who did it. Right? They just wanted in they just wanted to make sure that nobody would you know, people know what happens to people like who could be the source. And three of Bill's colleagues were invaded the same morning at the same time.
Three of two from NSA and one from from this the House Intelligence Committee who is a straight person. Her name is Diane Roark, and she she was distraught at at what was going on at NSA, namely the collecting of information on all of us. You know? Now, let me just people always say, well, I don't yeah. I have nothing to hide.
Right? You know? I mean, if you catch a terrorist, I don't care if you're well, well, that that was prevalent when Ed Snowden came out and just and and told us all what was going on. So, we approached an old friend named Wolfgang Schmidt, who had used to work for the Stasi, which is the East German Intelligence Service. Did any of you see under the the lives of others?
It was a wonderful film. It was Academy Award winner, wasn't it? See if you can take fish it out because it shows what the sassy did, the incredible intrusiveness of their monitoring. So, Wolfgang Schmidt is consulted by a couple of my friends, and they say, now Wolfgang, what do you say to people who who say we have nothing to hide, it doesn't matter to us. He says, this is incredibly naive.
You don't get to decide what the government uses against you. The reason they collect this information is to use it against you in case they want to. This is the only reason, the only way to prevent it from being used against you is to prevent it from being collected in the first place. There you go, you know. All of it's collected.
We all have a little file in some of those, you know, those big, big storage. You know how much stuff you can fit on a little thumb drive. So the only way to prevent it from being used against you is to pipe, and it's from being collected in the first place, and we have a Fourth Amendment that is supposed to prevent that from happening. People like James Comey, people like Bob Mueller, people like general Hayden, people like John Brennan said, we don't care about the Fourth Amendment. We're gonna just monitor everyone.
Now that was sort of an aside here. But I I want to I want to tell you that there are there are great advantages to live near Washington, and we've been there fifty five years now. We've been in our same house for fifty one years. We could possibly buy it now. You know how that goes.
Right? Yeah. But one advantage is that you get to go to meetings. You can even go to Hillary's and Podesta's old old think tank. The what?
Center for American Progress or something like that. Okay. So that's what I do. I always go to those things. And if I can, if they'll recognize me, I I raise my hand and ask a question.
Well, we have queued up here a two minute thing where I had already worn out my welcome the previous week. And so they wouldn't recognize me when I raised my hand. So I went up after Schiff, Adam Schiff, representative from California, who's the the lead on all this Russiagate. And I I didn't know the camera was on, and I just sort of asked him a question. And you'll see it.
I if this thing works. And the whole deal was was that he told me, well, he couldn't tell me the answer because it was he just couldn't share it with me because it was classified. Okay? And it's pretty telling. I was delighted to learn later that day that C SPAN cameras were still on, and they they even got the voice to it.
So let's see if it works. Leadership. Leadership, my name is Ray McGovern. I served in CIA under seven presidents and nine directors. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you very much.
Speaker 0: We have a little alumni group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and we've been following this issue very closely. One of our members is the former technical director of NSA. I'm interested in one week ago when the president said this, I don't wanna misquote him, the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to Russian hacking were not conclusive regarding WikiLeaks. In other words, there's a big gap between alleged Russian hacking and WikiLeaks, the intelligence community does not know how or if that information, to the degree it exists, got to WikiLeaks. Now you assert as flat fact that Russia did this.
Do you know more than Obama? Well,
Speaker 1: I I would never claim to know more than Obama. I think he's a brilliant man.
Speaker 0: A serious question. No.
Speaker 1: It's a serious question. I have every confidence in the intelligence of the Russian hacking of both the DNC as well as John Podesta.
Speaker 0: James Clapper is a You asked me a question.
Speaker 1: Do want do you wanna hear the answer? I will. And while I can't go into the classified information, I have every confidence that the Russians use WikiLeaks, whether Julian Assange was a known participant or, as the Russians wouldn't describe, a useful
Speaker 0: idiot. That
Speaker 1: we will hopefully find out, but but I don't have any question in the conclusions of the intelligence
Speaker 0: You have every confidence but no evidence. Is that right?
Speaker 1: No. I can't share the evidence with you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Congressman? That That's Bogus. That's Bogus. Security center intelligence.
Mhmm. We always refer to it as the SSCI, the intelligence. So he has every confidence, but no evidence, yeah. So nice to know that these politicians have a 100% confidence in the intelligence community, I mean, I feel so safe. Now I think while this is still working, I'm gonna show you one one other short clip.
Just to introduce it, there's one congressman, his name is Devin Nunes. He comes from the Central Valley Of California. Now, I have to tell you that I know something about him because I met him about nine or ten years ago. He was the only congress person, the only US official that had the guts to give an award to one of the survivors of the USS Liberty. One of the people working for him, Terry Harbaugh, was the sailor when the Israelis were attacking The US Liberty, poured napalm all over the deck, shot out the all the active radars that were working.
He went up to captain Maconical and he said, captain, he was from Texas. I think I can make that, you know that that that antenna we couldn't get to work before, but the Israelis haven't knocked that out, so I think I can connect that. And Maconical said, right. What are you gonna swim across that napalm? What are you gonna do?
No. Says, sir, I'd like to try. I request permission. Permission granted. He went out with some bailing wire.
You do, you know, you know how to do those things and we in entry we call that a field expedient, right? Well, Terry Halbert, they knew how to do this. He connected the wire, they got an SOS out, and that's the only reason that only 34 people were killed by the Israelis that day, not the whole ship load of almost 300. They broke off the attack because they intercepted the SOS. Now, Devin Nunes had Terry Haldrager working for him, and he heard about all this and so he petitioned the Navy to give Terry the silver cross which I'm told is the second highest right right underneath the Medal of Honor.
And when I heard that, I'm very friendly with a lot of the Liberty survivors. You wanna you wanna see what PTSD looks like folks? Talk to the Liberty survivors for lots of reasons. Anyhow, I went out there in the next plane, and I got there just for the ceremony, modest ceremony right in Nimnas's office there in Visalia in the Central Valley, and there were a couple press around, no big deal, and Terry was awarded, they press us in, can you show us your award? Pulled up his shirt, the shrapnel thing that you wouldn't believe.
Anyhow, he got that award. I thought that was courageous, you know. You can be cynical and say, well, there aren't too many Israelis living in the century Central Valley Of California. But still, you know, he's a congressman and he he faced into that. Now, I never thought that he'd reappear in this incarnation, but he's now head of the intelligence committee in the house.
And together with two other committee chairs, seem to be doing a job that is quite uncommon in in Washington. See the the oversight committees have the idea that oversight is oversight and not oversight. So what Nunis is doing is holding people's feet to the fire. Now he had a he I think he arranges these interviews. He had one interview with Cheryl Atkinson, who was a very good reporter, and I'm sure, you know, they rehearsed it, and he said, you ask me, you ask me if these folks are guilty, these folks who thought Hillary was gonna win and took took great liberties with the law, ask me if they should be put on trial.
Oh, wow. Now, I have never seen any house committee chairman, intelligence committee chairman, say that, you know, anybody who lied or did this kind of subterranean thing should be put on trial. So let me see if I can get this thing to work here, and if I can, you are in for a treat, but it's only one minute. Now this starts I'd only want you to listen to a minute and a half of it, but she is interviewing him about the progress of the investigation. This is February eighteenth of this year, and she asked him a question.
And this is the one that people need to be aware of. Ready?
Speaker 2: FBI on trial and to put special counsel Bob Mueller's investigation on trial.
Speaker 3: FISA abuse has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. As it relates to Department of Justice and the FBI, if they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial. The reason that Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created. DOJ and FBI are not above the law. Congress created them.
We oversee them, and we fund them. And if they're committing abuse, which for a secret court, getting warrants on American citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial.
Speaker 2: What would you say is the takeaway?
Speaker 3: I think people are just starting to learn now what really happened because as we peel more and more of this back, I think more and more Americans get educated, and I think they're gonna demand that that changes are made.
Speaker 2: Friday, special counsel Mueller announced indictments against a
Speaker 0: number questions. Success I I feel at having been able to to do that. Thank you very much. Doesn't matter what else I say here. Okay, I'm gonna be quick in finishing up here.
In December of last year, in December of last year, Russiagate migrated into FBI gate. The people that Nunas is referring to here are the heads of the FBI, the CIA, the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a couple of her deputies, all of whom signed these FISA warrants based on information paid for by Hillary Clinton, and now we know also paid for by the FBI. My God. So that's how serious it is. And what I'm trying to say here is that the hacking stuff, you know, what we have now is evidence that Well, how many people know about the the Lisa Page Peter struck text message exchanges?
Oh, wow. Okay. Well, okay. So you need to know where to get information about these things. Okay.
Long story short, Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. Peter Strzok was the second highest counterintelligence official in the FBI, and Lisa Page was a very high, highly paid attorney working for the deputy director of the FBI McCabe. And they had this affair going where they exchanged several 100 messages a day. It's amazing. Okay.
And early on, they were very critical of Hillary Clinton. I'm not sorry. They're very Peter struck at one point says, Hillary should win 1,000,000 to nothing. Right? And Lisa says, yes, she should win 1,000,000 to nothing.
Next one, he says, congratulations on a woman running for president, high time, and she says, oh, that's so cute. These are direct things. Okay? Now, she says early on, now Peter, we will feel feel free to share our views about Trump and so forth, and our support for Hillary, because this can't be can't be collected, This is secure, these FBI phones. I said, oh no problem.
Yeah, you're right. Here's the deputy head of of counterintelligence of the FBI, doesn't realize that the NSA and everybody else can easily collect stuff from a from a bureau phone, right? Okay. I mean, he must have, you know, they have briefings like what does NSA collect, or are our FBI phones secure from any monitoring, but he must have, I guess during that briefing he was texting Lisa Page, because he wasn't paying very good attention, see? So that's how it went.
Now, they gave now, what happened was, and this is really interesting, because the inspector general of the Justice Department, which has purview of the FBI as well, inspector general does, have found these messages as a resent, as a result of the Mueller investigation, and all this kind of stuff, and they came out in the open December, December of last year. We had them, all the things I just mentioned. But they didn't share these messages. Well, Lisa Page says, he's not gonna win, is he? He's not gonna win.
And Pearson, no, no, he never win. We will stop it. Quote, we will stop it. Last thing I'll mention from this exchange is that after he supervised the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her emails, he was asked to join Mueller's operation and did join Mueller's operation. But in that interim period, he's talking with Lisa, and Lisa says, you're gonna you're gonna join the the Mueller operation to get to the bottom of Russia gate?
And he says, yeah, I don't wanna. I mean, there's no there there. How many of you know that that Peter Strzok said that? Three. You guys read the New York Times or the Seattle Times.
You didn't know that Peter Strzok said that there's no there there? You gotta read raymcgovern.com. If you don't get it, you don't get it. No, really. Out there on the web, you can find all kinds of good stuff.
My my son runs my website from LA, and he's really angry when I forget to mention it. Okay. So I mentioned it. Now, consortiumnews.com is another really really good website. So you can get this information, but I'm really, I mean, I have to say that only three or four people knew about Peter Strzok saying there's no there there.
Well, that's the that's the message folks. He knew, he had looked into all this stuff by this time, and he knew that there was no there there. Wow. Well, let me finish up here. Well, let me just finish with this.
These telltale signs, the ostensible hack, which had this metadata attached to it, and had the Cyrillic, and had the name of the name and patronymic of Felix, first head of the Czech car, they call in those days the AGB for forerunner. So who else might have done that? Well, you know why they hate Julian Assange? Because you wouldn't know this if you read the New York Times, but on the March 31, he released documentation, authentic CIA memos and emails showing that CIA had developed a cyber tool which allows the new CIA directorate. Now, when I say directorate, that means several thousand people.
Okay? There are only three directorates when I was there. Now, there are four. Cyber warfare is the fourth. Okay?
Which allows the CIA to hack into a system or computer or a server disguise who hacked in and leave telltale signs giving the responsibility to somebody somebody else. Woah. Now that was revealed by WikiLeaks on the March 31. Immediately, the New York Times as is as its launch these days, contacted the CIA or this or the White House, should we should we publish that? No.
No. Don't publish that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Ellen Nakashima from the Washington Post didn't get the memo. She didn't get the memo. She published a really good story as CIA secret capabilities to hack in this disclosed.
Okay? And she showed in her article that they work in five languages. Right? Chinese, Korean, Persian, Arabic, and Russian. Cyrillic.
Okay? And she she didn't indicate this, but the the original information, which nobody disputes. This is direct from the CIA. Okay? That it was used during 02/2016.
Now, we we make a real sharp distinction here, Bob Bill Binney and I. What we said about forensics is science. Right? It's physics. Okay?
We can prove it. Now, we can't prove that it was John Brennan. We can't prove that it was a CIA cyber hackers that hacked in and left these telltale signs. We think it's a likely possibility. Okay?
And that's why you have them coming after Julian Assange full bore. Two weeks after that revelation, Pompeo got up, and he said, Julian Assange is a demon. I didn't used to believe in demons, you know. But he's a He believes in demons apparently. He's a demon, and he's running a non state hostile intelligence service.
Now, you know that Julian Assange has been held incommunicado since the late March. He's in bad health. They're out to get him. And they're out to get him because he has this way of getting authentic CIA documents. Again, nobody disputes the authenticity of this.
Nobody knows about it really, Judging from the few people who knew about what they call Vault 7. It's marble framework. That's what they call this particular tool. So, you know, it's really pretty bad because what we have now is the deep state, and I use the term advisedly. There is a deep state.
And when you look at the FBI, you look at the CIA, to a lesser extent the NSA, you look now at the Justice Department. They have a lot to protect themselves against because they thought Hillary's gonna win. Comey has said that, and that explains pure and simple why they thought they could take extracurricular, extra legal measures to make sure she won, and to make sure Trump lost, and after the election, to use this information to the degree they could to blacken Trump so he can't reach out to Russia, and that's another story. A lot of people think it makes good sense to have a decent relationship with Russia, but not what Pope Francis called the blood soaked arms traders. Okay?
And that's a big big lobby. What we have now is what Ike Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. What we have now is the military industrial congressional intelligence media media complex. It all fits together, folks, and we don't know half of what's going on, not even you who are progressive and keep up on these things. Most of you didn't know about Marble Framework, and the likelihood, as Bill Binnie and I see it, there was a CIA that hacked in on the fifth of of of of July two thousand sixteen, and let these telltale signs.
So it's pretty serious. Now, the question really, and I'll finish with this, is you saw Devin Nunes, he threw down the gauntlet, didn't he? He said, if they're guilty, they're gonna go to trial. Woah.
Speaker 1: This is big. Loretta Lynch going to jail?
Speaker 0: James Comey? Liar that he is? Bob Mueller? John Brennan? So what I'd like to just leave with you is the thought that unless we know about what's going on, these guys are gonna prevail.
They always do. Schumer was right. They have six ways from Sunday to get them. Okay. So, to the degree you become informed a little bit better, and you find out what Nunis is really after, and whether you think he's honest or not, you know, I find myself really bizarrely sympathetic to his genuine efforts in my view to get to the bottom of this.
And the Democrats are trying to, I think in a quixotic way, trying to make a big deal out of this because last thing I'll say, very last thing is, in the little brochure, I indicated what is taking Bob Mueller so long? And the answer is because there's no there there. Thank you very much.
reSee.it AI Summary
Bill Binney, former NSA technical director, revealed that the Russians didn't hack the DNC and suggested Guccifer 2.0 was likely a CIA operation, a view I share. It's disheartening to see him labeled a conspiracy theorist, a tactic used to discredit dissenting voices. This clip highlights government corruption.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Bill Binney is the former NSA technical director. He exposed that the Russians did not hack the DNC. He also says that Guccifer 2.0 was most likely CIA which I agree with. They now call Bill Binney a conspiracy theorist as they do to anyone they want to discredit. This short clip is illustrative of how corrupt our government is.
Video Transcript AI Summary
CrowdStrike claimed the Russians hacked the DNC, but DNC data downloads occurred after this claim. The speaker submitted this evidence in court cases for Flynn, Stone, and Butowski, but was not allowed to testify.
Guccifer 2.0's data postings had transfer rates unsustainable on the internet, suggesting intelligence agency involvement. Timestamps indicated manipulated data, with files separated manually from one download. Files with Russian fingerprints posted by Guccifer 2.0 were absent in WikiLeaks' Podesta data. This aligns with Vault 7's Marble framework, potentially pointing to CIA involvement.
Within 24-48 hours of discovering Seth Rich's WikiLeaks involvement, a Russian storyline emerged, involving Guccifer and CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike's credibility is questioned due to their alleged failure to detect a Russian penetration for 42 days.
The speaker suggests that if Seth Rich's murder is connected, the NSA would have known immediately about his involvement via their database. This information could have been reported and accessed by CIA, potentially implicating them.
Imran Alwon, a Pakistani intelligence asset, ran DNC servers. Pakistani intelligence may have targeted Seth Rich to protect their compromised penetration. Kirk Weeby found a Pakistani address on the California Secretary of State's email distribution network, exposing the entire US election process to Pakistanis.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So and I and I imagine you had a a smile on your face this week when CrowdStrike almost destroyed the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Right. I said, well, yeah. Okay.
That that level of competence is good for our government.
Speaker 0: Okay. So go ahead and explain to folks what how CrowdStrike came on our radar and what what sort of bothered you and me about it is.
Speaker 1: Well, when they were talking about they doing the investigation and saying they they believe the Russians did the hack of the DNC.
Speaker 0: Right. And that and that's they made that claim like this. It was May 2, April 30, somewhere. I mean, it was really early. And then they didn't do a damn thing to shut down the network until June 10.
That's right.
Speaker 1: And the and the and the downloads by the last modified times on the files posted by WikiLeaks for the DNC data, All were happened on the May 23, the May 25 and the August 26. So it's well after they're there that these things are downloaded. Right. And then downloaded to a thumb drive or a CD ROM, some memory stick. Okay.
And then physically transported before WikiLeaks got it. That was the evidence I submitted in the court case for General Flynn and Roger Stone and also Ed Butowski.
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In those cases. And the the court would not let me testify. Yeah. You mean they said, that's not relevant that it wasn't a Russian hack.
That's not relevant. The guy lied to the FBI. That was their claim.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But everything it gets even worse than that though, Larry, because the only evidence I really found out about Gooseberry two, I mean, was easy to prove the guy was a fake. Okay? Because of the downloads, he put he posted stuff out there with the timestamps. And when he did that, it allowed you to do the transfer rates.
And so when you figured out the transfer rates, they were well above, it went up as high as 49.1 megabytes per second. That's 49,100,000 characters per second. Now that was not sustainable across any network anywhere in the worldwide web. In a closed high capacity lines internally in a network you could do that but not externally.
Speaker 0: So I'll say that
Speaker 1: The exceptions of course are the intelligence agencies that have very high fiber lines all over the world and they can do those rates. Other than that, for the average tool or the hacker, you've got to use the worldwide web and they don't allow they won't sustain those rates. But anyway, further when you looked at it, he posted two files, one the July 15 and one the September 1, I believe. And when you looked at the timestamps and all that, the gaps or spaces in the files he posted where there was nothing being passed during that time between there were like nine holes there in time. Over here there were nine little groups of things.
And those timings, if you ignore the hours and the and the minutes, are the hours in the day. Those files went just like that with no overlap to the millisecond. That meant the guy made one download and manually made a separation and moved it into another file and created a separate file and said he had two hacks, not one. When in fact it was just one. So the guy's playing with the data to begin with.
Right? And then then we've with some of the guys we were working with in your in The UK found the five files that that Gooseford two point o put out there that had Russian fingerprints in them. Right. And they Podesta data. And those Podesta data files when they were posted by WikiLeaks didn't have those fingerprints.
So it meant Goosebumps two put the fingerprints in there. We paired it up with a Vault seven, you know, release where the guy talked about this Marble framework program which does, it makes it look like some other countries doing the hack. Then once it does is Russia, Iran, Arab countries, China, North Korea. By the way, it was used one time in 2016. Well, we think we found that with Goosevelt two point zero.
The only evidence we have not absolutely conclusively, but that GUSER two was created by CIA. Right. And that they were the ones involved in pushing it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because I think as we look at the timing of this, so the last downloaded data at the DNC onto the thumb drive or other media was on the twenty sixth, the Sunday. Yeah. When that happened, whoever was monitoring you know, I and this time, again, I I blame it on the Brits, not the Americans. Even though the Americans were collecting it, sort of warning comes from the Brits back to the Americans.
So, now again, you've got two intelligence agencies because realized they discovered it when the information showed up at in WikiLeaks because both CIA, NSA, MI6, everybody and his brother were spying the hell out of him.
Speaker 1: By the way, I should also point out that all the five fives have access to the NSA database too. Oh, good. Right. You know, it's it's like a direct they don't even go through Quantico. They go directly in.
Speaker 0: Directly in.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's all documented too in the Snowden materials. A lot of people didn't understand that.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But it's called through the IC REACH program. That's the one they use.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's The others have the X Key score. That's the for the third parties and and others who aren't in this selective group.
Speaker 0: Yeah, part of the club. Sometime within twenty four hours, twenty four to forty eight hours of the discovery that Seth Rich was passing information to WikiLeaks, this plan was hatched to create a Russian storyline. And that's where both the creation of Guccifer and then CrowdStrike started creating its backstory. Well, again, the one thing that just destroys CrowdStrike's credibility is if there really are a cybersecurity outfit, how in the name of God do you allow a Russian penetration to go untouched for forty two days?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. And remember that when Sean Henry, the CIO of CrowdStrike testified to the House Intelligence Committee, He said that they he testified that they had evidence that the data was being prepared to be exfiltrated but they never saw it exfiltrated. Well, if they're sitting there during that period of time where there's downloads, they should have known. I mean,
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But anybody who wanted to know who did it, you'd all you'd have to do is go to the network log. Look at the network log and you say, who downloaded this? You know?
Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: They were probably checking what's transferring out of the network. Well, look at the damn log. That's the thing that tells you everything that's going on.
Speaker 0: Well, you've also got that one piece of metadata was so clumsy. One of the headers, they inserted the name Felix Dzerzhinsky. Yeah. With Dzerzhinsky, for those who are not skilled in Russian history, he was the first head of the secret police, the NKVD, under Stalin, under Lenin. So, you know, putting Felix Dzerzynski on that would be like, you know, you're trying to create an email chain or evidence to claim that you're an American and you put George Washington or Franklin in the hands of it.
Speaker 1: But also, I guess just think of it, what respectable buy would ever do that? Yeah. By the way, there's another point here that nobody's really talked about yet. If you assume, you have to assume that Seth Rich's murder. Right.
If it is connected, right, in whatever way, then one needs to find out, well, how could anybody know if he was the one who did the downloads? And that happened in June, June 15, I think. Right. Was when it first started to break. And then he was murdered on the July 10, less than a month later.
Right. Now think about all the leak files that have ever been investigated by even the FBI. How long did it take them to find out who did it? Sometimes years. Right.
Look at Deep Throat. They never found out until he was about to die.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So and they and he was the deputy director of the FBI. So but who would know immediately who it was? NSA and their database. Right. So when that happens or NSA would be reporting because they're watching WikiLeaks all the time that the data is passed to WikiLeaks or anybody associated with WikiLeaks, they're high priority.
So, you know, they're covered all the time, then they would get reported. And when they get reported, it's under, they mask the name of the US citizen until there's a series check is what it's called. Meaning somebody comes in and request an unmasking if they want to. Otherwise they can go in and query the database directly and get the raw data. Right?
Once they do the reporting, they can get, they can focus CIA people to go directly in and find out the data. Those people could find out and notify the DNC immediately who did it. I mean, then, I mean, that's it's suggesting that they're culpable in an effort to murder somebody.
Speaker 0: That's what it does. Now, the death of Seth Rich, actually, I think we could definitively prove that he was the one involved with downloading those email messages and sending them overseas to WikiLeaks, never realizing the kind of risk he was putting himself in. But there are just too many problems, I guess, with the CrowdStrike story, and that they miraculously discover the Russians after the fact. Of the things I've always thought
Speaker 1: They testified opposite to that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, exactly. That's relevant. I'm going to come back to Sean Henry here in just a second, just to point out that there are a lot of potential suspects, because Imran Alwon, who was a Pakistani intelligence officer or asset, was actually running the DNC servers. I think there's a possibility that Pakistani intelligence may have been extremely worried that their penetration had been compromised by this, and they may have had a motive to go after Seth Rich, because it was a month, it was in August, that they actually started getting arrested, that this Pakistani network was under attack, and yet the FBI was complicit. Those guys were FBI assets.
I mean, so it just the whole world is just dirty and tangled up.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think Kirk Weeby also found a Pakistani address on the I think it was the California Secretary of State's distribution network of email. And that meant But it went even beyond that because anything that had him on it also got routed to them.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, and that included the entire all all the states of The United States because all these guys talk together. Right. And, you know, so the entire election process was being exposed to the Pakistanis. According to that that just having that, oh, I'm gonna put my email in here so anybody that originates anything through this guy or to him, I also get a copy.
Speaker 0: You know? Yep. Yeah.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Vance Boelter discussing his work experience at funeral homes and in the DRC. Hopefully we find out his motive because something obviously made him go off the deep end. https://t.co/355UBa7m9H
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vance Belter lives in Greenell, Minnesota, and works full-time for Wolf Funeral Home, an intake location for multiple funeral homes and cremation societies. He also works for Metro First Call, handling traditional removals and removals for the Hennepin County medical examiner's office, often involving police and death investigators.
Vance has a wife, five children, and two German shepherds. He spent 30 years in the food industry and was invited to the Democratic Republic of Congo to consult on their food supply system, as they import 80% of their food for their 100 million population. He drew on his experience with farm-to-fork companies like Del Monte Foods and Golden Pump Poultry to develop farming and fishing project ideas. When his company wasn't interested, he and his wife decided to pursue the projects independently. To support this work, he began working at a funeral home, which led him to take classes at DMACC and this course to learn more about the funeral industry.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Vance Belter. I just go by Vance. No other names that I use. I live in Greenell, Minnesota, about an hour away from the Minneapolis Saint Paul area.
I'm affiliated with two funeral homes. I work full time for Wolf Funeral Home, which is an intake location for about six funeral homes. And we also do all the intake for the National Cremation Society and the Neptune Society for all their cremation customers as well. So, I mainly do removals at this point. So I work at Wolf full time, and then I also work for another funeral home called Metro First Call.
And they also do traditional removals, at nursing homes, assisted living apartments, but they also have contracts with, medical examiner's office. So, like, one contract is the Hennepin County medical examiner's office, so we'll do removals, which, we're working with a lot of police officers and and, deaf investigators at the location where a decedent is found. Could be a crime scene or just a natural death. And our role is to just take the decedent from that place of death to the medical examiner's office. And so between those two, locations, I'm working about six days a week.
What else here? Family and pets. I have a wife and five kids, and we have two pets, German shepherds. Fun fact about myself, I've been about in the food industry about thirty years, and that led to an opportunity. I was invited to the, Democratic Republic Of Congo, which is located in Central Africa.
When I was in high school, the country was called Zaire. That's a little bit more familiar with people, but it's the largest, second largest country in Africa right in the middle in the center there. And was asked a couple years ago to go and see what I could do for ideas in helping their food supply system. Their population is about a 100,000,000 people, and they import 80% of their food currently. So some of the food companies I worked for in the past were farm to fork, like Del Monte Foods and Golden Pump Poultry, where we did everything from at Del Monte, we planted the the products to harvested them to process them and then shipped them out in Golden Pump Poultry.
We had our own hatcheries, grow out barns with the farmers, and then processing plants. So between those two companies, I have some experience with agriculture. And so, over in the Democratic Republic Of Congo, I had some ideas, they thought were pretty promising, which, the company I was working for at the time wasn't interested in doing anything in Africa. So I talked with my wife, and we decided I just put in my two week notice, and we just go off on our own to try to do these projects to help out in Africa. So we're doing farming and fishing projects in the Democratic Republic Of Congo.
And to help pay the bills, I just started working at a funeral home because the shift worked good, for my schedule with the other things I was doing. And, that led to some classes at DMACC, which led to this course. So just learning more about the funeral industry. And I think that covers everything, and I will, look forward to seeing you in class, and we'll go from there.
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation began with a call for Harvard to be scrutinized. In response, it was suggested that Harvard should be investigated for its law school's ties to Protect Democracy, which allegedly played a role in legal actions against the Trump administration over the past four years.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@EDSecMcMahon Harvard needs to be investigated for their role in the lawfare against the Trump administration through their law school’s relationship with Protect Democracy who were also involved in all of the lawfare over the last four years including elections.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Chris Wray was endorsed by Norm Eisen, worked for Jim Comey, and oversaw ENRON which was Andrew Weissmann’s debacle. He should have never been selected for FBI Director. https://t.co/dmcAcpUjRn
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is Norm Eisen on October 27, 2017, already talking about impeaching and criminally charging Trump, including for firing James Comey which Trump could legally do. https://t.co/ysZMUhQxnB
Video Transcript AI Summary
It is unknown if lawsuits against Donald Trump will lead to impeachment. Trump has come close to criminality, and the greatest risk to him is Special Counsel Bob Mueller. The risk is that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey with a corrupt motive after Comey refused to drop the Flynn investigation.
There is disagreement over whether Mueller can pursue criminal charges against Trump. The DOJ and president's lawyers historically take the position that a president cannot be criminally charged. It is an unsettled question that could end up in the Supreme Court.
Mueller can charge Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a conspiracy. He can also seek permission from the grand jury to issue a report to Congress of the illegal conduct. A 200-page report on these obstruction of justice issues is available online.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ask this all the time and all of us that have been working on these issues with Donald Trump. The real question people wanna know is, can we get rid of him? Any any of these lawsuits or any of these legal actions actions going to lead to impeachment, Norm? Well Why or why not?
Speaker 1: The the the answer is that we have to we don't know if any of these are gonna lead to impeachment. We don't know the answer to that. And for those who are concerned about the assaults of Donald Trump on the constitution, on the laws of The United States, on our values, on our norms. This is one norm. It's assault, assaults back.
The assault on the ethical norms. For those who are concerned about that, it will come as no surprise to you I'm going to answer your question, Arevo. It's a complicated question. It'll come as no surprise that Donald Trump, has come, so close to the line of criminality. He may have gone over the line.
I think the greatest danger, the greatest risk to him is comes from the special counsel
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Bob Mueller. And the the risk that Donald Trump obstructed justice, that with a corrupt motive, he fired Comey a pattern of demanding loyalty, asking him whether he could see his way to drop the Flynn investigation. And when he said no, he fired him, and then admitted on national television his thinking. You don't often get the grand jury nationally televised, that was very unusual. I don't know where we'd be in the resistance without our greatest ally, Donald Trump.
The mouth of Trump is the most powerful resistance weapon. And so that is the greatest I that is the but it's an unknown question. And one of the most and we're gonna talk about this because it's very important people say, and Reeb and I were talking about this in the green room that actually was green. What can what can you actually do?
Speaker 0: But, Norm, you just have the greatest challenges. You are Yes. We can We can't some experts, legal experts, some of whom we like and not like so much.
Speaker 1: Yes. I know who you're
Speaker 0: talking about. Agreement over whether even if Mueller finds obstruction of justice that he can actually pursue criminal charges against Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, what he can there is a disagreement about that. You're you're right. And you should know it this was a brief to the Supreme Court in Nixon. And Jim St. Clair, Nixon's lawyer, briefed it, and Leon Jaworski, this then special prosecutor, briefed it whether a president can be criminally charged.
DOJ takes the position, the office of legal counsel, president lawyer, president's lawyers, take the position historically that a president cannot be criminally charged. I think it's an unsettled question, and I've written about both sides. No there's nobody who says they know the answer for sure. I think the better answer, if we litigated it, if Mueller charged him and we went to court, I think it'd end up in the Supreme Court and for the same reasoning that animated the Paula Jones case, we would find that, no person is above the law. Right.
The president can be charged. But it's unsettled question. But here's what he can do at a minimum. He can do what Jaworski did. He can charge Trump as an unindicted co conspirator because this was a the allegation is it was a conspiracy.
People in the White House talking together about getting relieving the pressure so that once that happens and the pressure's on congress to do something, he can go further, and Jaworski did this too. He can seek permission from the grand jury to have a grand jury report to congress of the illegal conduct. If it turns out to be illegal conduct in another job that I'm not here in an official role, I'm just here in my personal role. I just wrote a 200 page report on these obstruction of justice issues, so if you Google my name and obstruction of justice, you'll find that report.
reSee.it AI Summary
Norm Eisen engineered the Bragg case, transforming a misdemeanor into a felony by fabricating the 2016 election interference narrative. This reflects a Stalinesque approach to lawfare, where the intent is to find a crime to fit the person rather than the other way around.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen created the Bragg case. They had to figure out how to make a misdemeanor a felony so they created the fake 2016 election interference story. This is the Stalinesque "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime" aspect of lawfare. https://t.co/pjyxXSuBtN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Payments to Stormy Daniels were allegedly disguised as legal fees, potentially constituting a false business filing, a misdemeanor under New York law. This charge could apply to the Trump Organization, Donald Trump, and anyone knowingly involved. To elevate it to a felony, the false filing must be linked to covering up another crime that is a felony.
A key question is whether this secondary crime must be a state felony or if a federal felony suffices. A leading candidate for the federal felony is a campaign finance violation, arguing the payment was essentially an undeclared campaign donation to Trump. However, it's uncertain if the statute encompasses a federal felony. The rule of lenity suggests ambiguity should favor the defense, requiring criminal law to be clear, unlike the more flexible nature of civil law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm almost, afraid to to to do this if we can bring it off cleanly, but there's this whole morass having to do with New York law and the need to find a secondary felony. Do you have a do you have your hands sort of around that and and a sense of how Bragg is gonna approach it?
Speaker 1: So let me give a disclaimer. I am not a New York State practitioner either on the defense or prosecution side. So but but I do understand the issue. There these payments that that were paid to Stormy Daniels were disguised by all accounts as payments of legal fees. But and, of course, they weren't.
And the theory is that there was a false business filing made, and that is a missed that is a misdemeanor under New York law, and that potential charge
Speaker 0: The Trump Organization files it as a business expense
Speaker 1: or whatever. Exactly. And and that is something that the organization and Donald Trump and whoever knowingly did that could be charged. And that misdemeanor seems relatively solid. You know, we still have to see exactly how it would be proved up, but it it seems like there will be a very strong paper record.
And, yes, it'll be useful to have Michael Cohen, but, you know, I don't think he's indispensable just because there's so much around it. But that's a misdemeanor. In order to make it a felony, if you are filing that false business record in aid of or to help cover up some other crime that is a felony, then the false business filing can be charged as a felony. One of the issues is does that second crime, the one that you're filing it to aid in a bed or to cover up or to further, does it have to be a state felony or could be a federal felony? That's that's sort of undecided.
And then there's an issue about so that's the main issue. What is the felony that they're gonna charge? And can they find not just a federal felony, but a state felony that is clean? That remains to be seen what they will charge. There's also Am
Speaker 0: I right? Am I can I have a quick am I right that the leading candidate on this is a campaign a federal campaign violation or or at least that's the the federal idea in that this was also a in essence, a campaign donation to to Trump and just and that has all kinds of requirements they didn't meet in in including rising to the level of felony?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That seems like the like a leading candidate at the federal level. If I were them, I would look be looking as well for a state felony because it's not clear to me that the statute encompasses a federal felony. And there is in the federal law, at least, there is something called the rule of lenity, which is if something's ambiguous and unclear, you're supposed to essentially give the defense the the benefit of the doubt. As I used to say, criminal law is not for gray, it's for black and white.
And civil law can can be more for gray than for than than in criminal law. When you're sending someone to jail, the the law should be clear at the time.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
On November 9, 2020, Norm Eisen discussed a group he and others created to essentially stop Trump from contesting the results of the most secure election in the history of ever. I’m not sure what group this was. Might have been the Transition Integrity Project. https://t.co/U8SjwQGz8e
Video Transcript AI Summary
After finishing a book just before the election, Speaker 1 was approached by Democratic state AGs to address concerns about the upcoming election. This led to the formation of a bipartisan group, including governors, former DOJ officials, US attorneys, prosecutors, sheriffs, law enforcement, and state AGs, aimed at defending the election against anticipated attacks. The group was active in 25 states leading up to the election.
Speaker 1 believes the election was free and fair, the votes were freely and fairly counted, and the margins in key states are clear. While acknowledging potential turbulence, disinformation, and litigation, Speaker 1 assesses that the election results will withstand challenges, in part because the margin of victory will be sufficiently large. Speaker 1 expresses hope that the country will return to normal and anticipates remarkable achievements.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're working on efforts to stop president Trump from challenging the results of the election. Are you concerned that he may succeed, and and what's the strategy for preventing that?
Speaker 1: Well, I've put in the chat. I don't know if everybody can see it though, maybe they can't get into the chat all of our visitors. So I've put into the chat a little description of my newest venture, I was very flattered to be approached in the I no sooner finished a case for the American people literally, I stayed up all night On Sunday night, it must have been the last August, September, October, November, it must have been the last night in Do you know when the book came out? Alan, do you remember what the date of the book release was? Well, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 0: Let me look at my sales slip.
Speaker 1: I stayed up, I stayed up all night to finish the book, we had a crash deadline on this book. And we finished the proofing the last of the proof sheets. And the book was in print. Three weeks later, it went straight to the printer and they rushed, rushed into print because we wanted to make the case in the run up to the election. And the book came out at the August.
So no sooner did I finish that. So it must have been the very July, beginning of August, I literally was sitting on my couch, I had been finished, I had, I'd sitting there sleepless five minutes when I got a call from the representative of the Democratic state AGs. We have some questions about this coming election and one thing and another. Oh, yes. Okay.
Shanley has sent it on to everyone. One thing led to another. And as you can see, we started a new bipartisan group, rule of law and law enforcement group governors, former DOJ officials, former US attorneys, prosecutors, state, current former sheriffs, law enforcement and state AGs to defend the election against just the kinds of attacks that we're seeing now big effort. We were active, we were active in 25 states in the run up to the election. And a couple links, you can see my board and a nice Washington Post article about the venture.
So I assess that, you know, I was very nervous last week, as we were waiting for the election to be called. My assessment is that the that we will withstand the next sixty days, but I think that there, you know, there's a lot of flailing and failing going on on the litigation front. Because the truth is, we had a very free and fair election, we freely and fairly counted the votes, there's still some mop up, it's very clear what the margins are going to be in these states. And it's undisputed who the President-elect and Vice President-elect are. And I'm sad, I'm not surprised I warn of it.
In fact, the very last part of the book talks about this and the very last paragraph in the book, hopes for and perhaps predicts a land sufficiently large and I think 300 over 300 electoral votes is sufficiently large three zero nine, I think it'll end up large margin that the election will be impregnable. That doesn't mean we won't have turbulence and disinformation and litigation, we will. But I think that we're going to be just fine. And I think our, you know, I really believe that. And I say this in a nonpartisan way that there's a hunger for the country to get back to normal.
And I think we're going to see some remarkable, remarkable achievements and of course, wonderful news about a vaccine today. So
reSee.it AI Summary
I see a two-tiered system of injustice at play. Kevin Clinesmith, who altered documents related to the Russia collusion investigation, had his law license revoked but eventually got it back. In contrast, the 65 Project is working to disbar attorneys affiliated with Trump simply for their involvement in the 2020 election. This disparity threatens our country. I believe that corrupt judges in DC need to be held accountable. Additionally, Perkins Coie should be investigated for its role in corruption, especially considering Marc Elias's questionable actions.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is the two-tiered system of injustice….. Kevin Clinesmith was part of Russia collusion. He altered documents, was convicted and had his law license revoked. The DC bar eventually gave him his license back. Compare that to the 65 Project working with various bar associations across the US (including DC) to have Trump affiliated attorneys disbarred simply because they worked on the STOLEN 2020 election. The two-tiered system of injustice will destroy our country faster than anything else. That is why many people, including corrupt DC judges, MUST be held accountable for once. Perkins Coie should be investigated and dismantled as they are usually involved in the corruption. You know Marc Elias is a criminal when he was too corrupt even for them.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russiagate was launched in the DOJ's National Security Division, then headed by John Carlin; Lisa Monaco headed homeland security at the White House. Now, Carlin is number three at DOJ, and Monaco is number two. Many FBI agents were fired due to Russiagate, but their proteges remain. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who broke the law during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, now works for CNN; Joe Biden restored his pension after it was taken away during the Trump administration.
An FBI lawyer, Kevin Klein Smith, who doctored evidence for the Carter Page FISA warrant, had his law license reinstated after pleading guilty. James Baker, former FBI general counsel, signed the warrant for Comey on Russiagate and met with Michael Sussman. Despite knowing information was false, he allowed it to go to the FISA court. After being fired, he was hired as deputy general counsel at Twitter. Chris Wray later formed an 80-member task force that met with Twitter and Facebook weekly to suggest what information to put out; James Baker coordinated those meetings. Elon Musk fired Baker after taking over Twitter.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Who did you see then that were just as integral and, you know, coming at going after Donald Trump or just being, you know, the agents of the deep state? Who are still in government now that we should be looking at? Like, let's start with the DOJ.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, great, great, great starting point. So Russiagate was launched in the National Security Division of the Department of Justice where I used to work, where John Carlin was the head of the NSD, a US Senate confirmed presidential appointment. Lisa Monaco was head of homeland security at the White House at the time. Fast forwarding to today, John Carlin is the PADAG, the principal associate deputy attorney general. Long title, short form, number three at DOJ.
Lisa Monaco is the deputy attorney general, the number two at DOJ. Jeez. That's just DoJ. And you're right. We fired a lot of the FBI guys as a result of the Russi gate and news memo and all that.
I mean, that's what it took to remove these people. But if you don't think their proteges aren't in place just like the DoJ, you're wrong. You know, we just found out about this McGonagall guy. Right? Career FBI, head of counterintel in the bag for Russia.
Literally just got convicted of being on Russian payroll. He was the counterintel guy at FBI, one of them, during Russiagate.
Speaker 0: And I I think it was pretty obvious that people like Andrew McCabe were part of the deep state when when he was at the FBI. He's gone, but But not really.
Speaker 1: So sorry. Didn't mean to cut you off, but Annie McCabe, deputy director of the FBI, later acting director, who I personally worked with when he was head of the Washington field office on terrorism cases, is now a hired chill at CNN in the media. Where does where where's Peter Strak? CNN. So they get these guys who offer the Russiagate criminal conspiracy, channeling the fake news media and putting out a furtherance of that conspiracy.
So why they might be out of the FBI, These guys aren't stupid. They're down in the media advancing the next narrative. Former deputy director of the and if you're a regular American sitting at home hasn't been paying attention for a long time. Oh, wow. Deputy director of the FBI, gotta listen to this guy.
You know, this guy who, by the way, broke the law during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and unlawfully leaked as the deputy director of the FBI information of an investigation to the media. And then went to go work for the media. It gets better though. Yes. He did go to work for the media ultimately.
We fired him in the Trump administration. Right? We took his pension because that's the penalty. Mhmm. He would later go to work for CNN.
And do you know what Joe Biden did, a couple of months into his, ten years president?
Speaker 0: Restored his pension.
Speaker 1: Restored his pension. In full. You I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 0: There's no consequences. It's it's like the the lawyer that doctored evidence to get the FISA warrant on Carter Page.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if All three times. Yeah. The FBI guy, Kevin Klein Smith.
Speaker 0: He's still in?
Speaker 1: He is now, I think he's in the private sector.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: But here's the crazy part. If I, Kash Patel, a national security lawyer at the DOJ, deleted information that the CIA had given me and said, hey. You, FISA court, secret surveillance guys. All good. Nothing to see here.
Pled guilty to that felony, and the DC bar gave him his bar license back last year.
Speaker 0: Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: He can now practice law again. And do you think that there isn't 10 firms lined up to hire that guy If he was that devious enough to work with the deep state to do that, that they're not doing it again? And Klein Smith, are are we to
Speaker 0: believe that he just did that because he's like, yeah, I'm just gonna get this done, or was he told to do that?
Speaker 1: And I'll connect the dots for you. This is another name, James Baker at the FBI. Not there anymore, but he was the he was the general counsel, the top lawyer at the FBI. In the FISA process, he's the guy that signed the warrant for Comey on Russiagate. Okay?
He gets caught having that meeting with Sussman. If you remember, the whole Sussman trial from the John Durham episode where he gets Alpha Bank information brought in by a democratic operative from a big law firm. It's one the groups you don't have up there. The big law firms are killer in my opinion when it comes to democratic. Perkins, Cooey, and all those guys, Mark Elias, Sussman.
These guys all meet with the James Bakers of the world to conjure up a Russian narrative, which he allows to go on on his watch. And he permits the information that was that he knows was false to go up the chain to a FISA court. It gets way worse. Well, I'm just warming up. So we tell him about all this.
Chris Wray decides to keep him as deputy director. And then ultimately, we have so much information against James Baker and his fraudulent conduct, he's fired. Do you know where he goes? He gets hired as the deputy general counsel at Twitter. Chris Wray would later form an 80 member task force for election integrity in the run up to the last election.
That task force, and this is public by his own admissions in the documents of the FBI, met with Twitter and Facebook on a weekly basis to suggest to them what information to put out and not put out. Do you know who was coordinating those weekly meetings? James Baker. And then Elon Musk takes over Twitter and he says, I don't have any of the democratic institutions working for me at x or Twitter or whatever it's called. And I said and I literally was able to directly message him in public spaces and say, you have Perkins Cooey as your defense lawyers.
But let's put that aside for a second. You have James Baker on your payroll as your deputy general counsel who is blocking subpoenaed information to congress for oversight purposes. He got fired the next week. This is how deep the deep state is. When you got when you have guys like Elon or as smart as that as he is and whatever his politics are, they're there.
Perkins Cooey is right there, the authors of the narrative.
reSee.it AI Summary
I noticed that Norm Eisen inadvertently revealed that Judge Juan Merchan was part of his Bragg lawfare team, which he quickly seemed to regret. I previously suggested that Norm might have been drafting documents for the judge, implying he could have been involved in creating the Bragg case alongside witness Michael Cohen. This raises legal concerns for me. Additionally, I questioned whether Norm's claim of writing a response to the Bragg jury is legal.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen accidentally told the truth that Judge Juan Merchan was part of his Bragg lawfare team. It didn’t take him long to figure out that he messed up. I previously posted that Norm appeared to say that he was writing documents for the judge. If true, that means Norm created the Bragg case, he worked with the witness Michael Cohen, and he worked with the judge. Seems illegal to me.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the strength of the prosecution and defense teams, contingent on Trump allowing the defense team to operate effectively. The jury sent a note, followed by a request to have legal instructions reread by the judge. This process of rereading the instructions took eighty minutes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have a strong team, judge, prosecution team, very good defense team if Trump lets them do their job. I thought today's proceedings with the note coming out from the jury, and then while we were getting ready to answer the first note, we got a second, jury request to have the legal instructions read back to them by the judge, which was an eighty minute adventure.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
reSee.it AI Summary
Norm Eisen is escalating the situation by filing numerous lawsuits with left-leaning judges, challenging the Trump administration. This could trigger a third impeachment if Democrats regain the House. It all could have been prevented if Pam Barr-Bondi had been more alert.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen should have already been under investigation instead he is creating another constitutional crisis by filing hundreds of lawsuits with leftwing judges and daring the Trump administration to defy court orders. This will lead to impeachment number three if democrats take back the house. It could have all been avoided if Pam Barr-Bondi was awake.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Trump administration is adopting a spirit and rhetoric of defiance, but hasn't explicitly stated an intention to defy court orders. They may fear that openly defying court orders would trigger a strong reaction from the American people. Trump exemplified this spirit of defiance on TV, but stated that they will not defy a court order. A government filing is due at noon, which will indicate whether they will escalate or de-escalate the conflict. This case is not about gang members.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jen, you made this point when we were talking yesterday. You know, coffee with the contrarians continues all day long because Jen and I are talking about the news. Then it becomes Diet Coke with the contrarians. We could have lunch with the contrarians, afternoon coffee break with the contrarians, but you can't eat cocktails with the contrarians. The the Trump from Trump on down, the Trump administration is adopting a spirit of defiance that is profoundly contrary, and a rhetoric of defiance of court orders.
But they they haven't crossed the line of saying, on the record, we intend to defy court orders. And I think the reason for that is they know that this is the third rail and it's like they're it's like a a kid touching a hot stove. They believe that if they openly and admittedly defy court orders that the democracy movement, like a volcano ready to blow, that we're covering all over America, that the American people will not tolerate it. So maybe Trump is trying to find a way out of this dilemma. He tested.
He pushed the envelope. You heard him say on TV last night while exemplifying that spirit of defiance. But we will not defy a court order, he says. So it's the usual lying and hypocrisy. Now, noon today contrarians, watch for the government's filing that is due at noon today.
Will they amp up the conflict, or will they lower it down? Remember, this is not a case about gang members.
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently watched Norm Eisen on a live stream, where he seemed to take pride in using leftist courts to undermine the will of over 77 million Americans. I believe he should have faced formal investigation from day one, but instead, it feels like we have a President Eisen. The Trump DOJ has failed to hold him and others accountable for their actions, and congressional Republicans should have acted to dismantle corrupt DC courts. I also see the Democrats potentially shutting down the government, as Eisen suggests that passing the continuing resolution would hinder his legal efforts against Trump.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen was just on a live stream bragging about using leftist courts around the country to thwart the will of 77M+ Americans. I’ve been saying that Norm Eisen should have been put under formal investigation and prosecuted on day one but since that didn’t happen, we now have President Norm Eisen. The Trump DOJ has failed by not prosecuting Norm and everyone who has been involved in lawfare and criminality since Trump 1.0. Additionally, congressional republicans should have also started the process of dismantling the DC courts and holding all corrupt judges accountable to send a message. Where is Pam Bondi?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses a legal victory where a judge found the government acted dishonestly by not providing witnesses for cross-examination and illegally firing employees for performance reasons using form letters, despite outstanding performance. The speaker asserts these employees will get their jobs back.
The speaker criticizes Donald Trump for calling these workers the "deep state" and accuses him of removing them to benefit billionaires, which the speaker calls "Make America dangerous again."
The speaker also mentions another court order where Trump wrongly fired the head of the Federal Labor Relations Authority to limit adjudication of labor issues. The speaker states that over a hundred similar cases have been won, and that profits from subscriptions support this litigation. The speaker thanks subscribers and celebrates the victory for workers, the labor movement, and all Americans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Criticizing, not just what happened here, but then, that the government did not provide candid answers. They wouldn't make witnesses available for cross examination. We were ready. I was in San Francisco. Let him show up in the courtroom.
I was gonna be part of our team doing a cold cross examination. But the judge, said that the failure to make those witnesses available was more indication of dishonesty in some of the representations that the government made. It's an important victory in its own right because it helps these people. The judge talked about how unfair it is. It's so wrong that people were told they were being terminated for performance reasons using a form letter when their performance had been outstanding.
I just said that's not how we do things in America. And, of course, he's so right. So he found that the basis for the firing was illegal, and we've been able to help tens of thousands of people. They're gonna get their jobs back now. And that matters to them.
It matters to keeping our government honest. It matters to fighting back on Donald Trump's wrongdoing, but it matters to all of us to to to our wonderful contrarian family and friends because these are the people who keep us all safe. They're at the Department of Agriculture. They're keeping our food safe. At the Department of Defense, they're protecting our nation, from attack and danger.
At the Department of Treasury, they're making sure that Americans don't get ripped off. These aren't political functionaries. It's such a lie. It's a canard. It makes me so angry when Donald Trump calls them the deep state.
He's removing them to make America great again for billionaires, and it should be called MADA. Make America dangerous again for the rest of us. So we can't have that. I wanted to share with all of you this success that we've had here in San Francisco. It comes on the hill just yesterday.
We got another court order. So terrific. The head of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Trump wrongly fired her to try to cut off adjudication, hamper, limit adjudication of labor, issues. Again, working people, they need to have a place to go.
Unions keep us all strong. They need to have a place to go. Court again found illegal like so many others. Over a hundred cases, myself and my colleagues and the partnerships and coalition, have been involved in. I've worked on dozens of them and or filed or helped with dozens of them.
And so proud to do that. And it is a win, finally, a win for all of you and a win for the contrarian community. Why? We're owned by nobody. So all profits from the contrarian go to support the litigation.
You make that possible by subscribing to the contrary and hanging in there with us. So thank you for subscribing. Thanks. Congratulations to all of you, to the workers, to my wonderful team and co counsel, to the labor movement, and to all Americans who are safer today because of this victory. I'll be back with you.
I'm gonna have another big case that's gonna be filed with your help today. I'll be back with you to share more, but I wanted to come to you live, and we'll put up this video so folks can enjoy it, who weren't able to jump on live. Wow. 2,500 of you just jumping on a call. How terrific.
Thanks, friends. We appreciate you so much. Bye now.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is why the democrats are going to shut down the government. https://t.co/NlrtgCW3ss
reSee.it AI Summary
I question why Mary McCord and Joshua Geltzer initiated the National Task Force on Election Crisis in July 2019, especially considering they discussed the 2020 election and the potential impact of a pandemic. This suggests that conversations were happening well before that date. I believe all participants in the task force, including organizations like Common Cause, Verified Voting, and USAID, should be investigated regarding their roles in the 2020 election, particularly given the possible involvement of USAID in the creation of Covid.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Why would Mary McCord and Joshua Geltzer start a group in July 2019 (the National Task Force on Election Crisis) about the 2020 election and include the possibility of a pandemic? That means they were having discussions prior to July 2019. https://t.co/KG9TRzy16V
Video Transcript AI Summary
I agree that the media is prepared to understand this election cycle, particularly the timeline, due to the high number of mail-in ballots. States like Pennsylvania, which are key to the outcome, may not start counting these ballots until election day. Therefore, the election result may not be immediately known, and that's acceptable. Declaring a winner before all legitimate votes are counted would be unacceptable.
The National Task Force on Election Crises has been working to promote this understanding. When Mary and I started this group in June 2019, we anticipated issues such as a president declaring premature victory, foreign disinformation, and cyber vulnerabilities. While we initially set aside the possibility of a pandemic, we reintroduced it in 2020. This group has been educating media, labor unions, and companies to responsibly manage expectations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jonathan, let me just build on yeah. Well, just to build on Mary's terrific rundown there, two two points. One, just to give, especially this community of of folks who who track ICAP's work, sense of of of how we've played into this. I I wholeheartedly agree with Mary that I think the media is poised to think about this election cycle as exactly the sequence and the timeline that that Mary laid out, and in particular, as one in which because of the number of mail in ballots to be cast, because states that could prove key, even outcome determinative, like Pennsylvania, have laws that don't let those mail in ballots get counted until election day, perhaps somewhat regrettably, but that's the law in some, not all, but some states, that there may not be an outcome known and that that's okay. In fact, what would be not okay would be to declare an outcome when in fact your your legitimate legitimately cast votes haven't been counted.
And part of the reason I think there's been a greater public understanding is work that Mary and I have tried to to contribute to through this group called the National Task Force on Election Crises. And I remember when Mary and I hosted the first meeting of this group that we worked with some partners and other organizations to pull together in June of twenty nineteen at the Georgetown Law campus. And we thought we had enough problems then. We knew we had a president who might declare victory prematurely. We knew we had foreign actors eager to build on 2016 and inject disinformation into our system.
We knew we had cyber vulnerabilities. We actually didn't know we'd have a pandemic. We talked about a pandemic, and we said we could leave that possibility aside to focus on the others. We brought it back in 2020 for obvious reasons. But part of what that group has tried to do is get out there to media organizations, to labor unions, to company, to anyone who talks about these issues with some constituency of some magnitude and help them talk about it in ways that prepare expectations along the lines Mary is suggesting.
And so I I think there's been a lot of work done to try to orient those, voices to take us through that process, Mary described, in a responsible way.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
National Task Force on Election Crisis participants. All of these groups and people need to be investigated for 2020, especially since USAID was possibly involved in the creation of Covid.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Members include: Common Cause Masterson Chertoff Verified Voting USPS Ryan Macias CTCL USAID Brennan Center https://t.co/Yi1dNca3t0
reSee.it AI Summary
Norm Eisen has been accused of using racial undertones to frame Trump's claims of election irregularities in cities like Atlanta and Philly. He collaborated with the NAACP to sue Trump for court supervision post-election, with Tonia Chutkan, a known Democrat operative, leading the charge. I believe those involved in this lawfare should face severe consequences. Additionally, I think it's crucial to remove Norm from the lawfare commission immediately, and I urge a brilliant attorney to devise a strategy to make that happen today.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen came up with a story that there are racial undertones to where Trump said there were election irregularities (Atlanta, Philly, etc). He then got his pals at the NAACP to sue Trump to implement a court supervision of Trump after the election. None other than Democrat operative, Tonia Chutkan, was selected by Norm for the lawfare. Everyone involved in the lawfare must go to prison for life.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Looking at the landscape of election-related issues, several key themes emerge. One major concern is the potential for a self-coup, where pressure is exerted on state election officials to alter results. In Georgia, there's a worry that Trump loyalists appointed to the state election board might manipulate rules to challenge legitimate election outcomes if Biden wins.
Another theme involves disinformation and racist tropes used to undermine voting legitimacy, reminiscent of 2020 tactics targeting urban areas with large minority populations. We're seeing cases in Arizona and Texas using undocumented migrant voting as a false premise.
Finally, there's a push for court supervision of Trump's post-election activities, similar to past oversight of the Republican Party. The NAACP is advocating for this due to concerns about potential misconduct, and a case is currently before Judge Tanya Chetkin.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look out over the landscape. Nobody can process 200. I picked the top 10. And here's the themes that I saw. Donald one of Donald Trump's main elements of coup one twenty twenty rejection of the legitimate election results and what we call an auto goal pay, a self coup, instead of seizing power, perpetuating yourself in power, remember, was pressuring state election officials.
Remember that infamous call to Brad Raffensperger of Georgia? Just find 11,780 votes. One more than he needed. After the election was done, there were no more votes to find. It was an allegedly criminal act.
Well, this time, we see one of the cases we highlight. It's number two on my list, the Georgia state election litigation. This time we see that Donald Trump has implanted his chosen officials inside the Georgia state election board. Three out of the five members are loyal Trumpists, so they are changing the rules to make his kind of false claims a basis not to certify if Biden wins. It's crazy.
Fortunately, that's the good news. Fortunately, groups, bipartisan this is the first nonpartisan election of my lifetime, including a lot of Republicans are speaking out saying this is an outrage. There's litigation. We're keeping a sharp eye on that litigation, suing the board, saying that those rules are, against, constitutions and laws. And I have a question about that.
Yes. I'm only on two out of 10. I'm so long winded. Can I just give the rest I'll give you two more highlights and then ask your question? I'll just spit them out.
Two sentences, Karen. Two sentences. Go ahead. Go ahead, Nora. Second theme that we're a second theme that we saw from coup one in 2020 was that, Donald Trump is a disinformation purveyor, and he uses racist tropes to deny legitimate voting.
In 2020, it was old Fulton County, Georgia, Atlanta, Detroit, Maricopa County, Phoenix. They're smuggling phony ballots. Right? It's got a black under anti black, anti urban dog whistle. Here, you if you look through our cases, for example, litigation Arizona, Texas, the target is supposed undocumented migrants voting.
They're using those cases to drive a meme, like with the Save Act in congress, making something illegal that's already illegal. Third theme is, and the number one case on my list, is, we need a a a a court supervision of Donald Trump's post election activities. There used to be court supervision for the GOP, for the Republican Committee. For for years, there was a consent decree. Case number one, it's in front of none other than judge Tanya Chetkin.
The NAACP is suing to get supervision because of the bad things Donald Trump did in 2020. So there's a bunch more like that. Okay, Karen. Your question.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@julie_kelly2 @mrddmia Just imagine 6,000 people working to persecute Americans and now they are saying that what Trump is doing will hinder keeping our country safe. The hypocrisy is off the charts.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the corrupt DC courts are being set up as part of the resistance. Norm Eisen, who selects these judges, including Tonia Chutkan, has a history of manipulating the system. He collaborated with Judge Emmet Sullivan to move ballots during the 2020 election and used the administrative law act to cover it up. It's crucial that we dismantle the DC courts and hold these corrupt judges accountable.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen says that the corrupt DC courts are going to set up as part of the resistance. Norm would know since he hand selects the corrupt judges for his lawfare including Democrat operative Tonia Chutkan. Norm also worked with judge Emmet Sullivan to move ballots around the country in 2020 and then covered it up using the administrative law act. The DC courts must be dismantled the the corrupt judges must be held accountable. @EagleEdMartin @mrddmia @BasedMikeLee @JeffClarkUS @AlinaHabba @realDonaldTrump @StephenM @PamBondi @Jim_Jordan
Video Transcript AI Summary
The situation is concerning, with those who prosecuted criminals becoming targets, while convicted criminals or those awaiting trial are potentially free to seek revenge. However, there is good news: resistance is growing within the FBI, and there is strong public and court support for democracy and the rule of law. The courts have shown promise in standing up for these principles, and there is an expectation of further developments over the weekend.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The inmates are running the show that the people who did the righteous prosecutions will be the targets and the people who are the convicted criminals of some awaiting trial, are the people who are free to to potentially exact revenge.
Speaker 1: Well, with the good news being resistance mounting within the FBI, loyalty to democracy, and outside its walls, the public, and I think the courts rallying powerfully to the cause of the rule of law.
Speaker 0: I agree with that. I think we've seen the courts doing I I'm hopeful they will they will stand up.
Speaker 1: I'm just guessing, but I think there's gonna be more of that this weekend.
reSee.it AI Summary
I express my deep concern over the actions of Matthew Graves, whose role has devastated the lives of over 1,500 individuals connected to January 6. This situation highlights the troubling weaponization of government. Additionally, I believe that DEI initiatives are harmful and should be eliminated. I attended an emergency session on DEI hosted by the National Urban League, where I spoke about the need for investigation into all parties involved in these matters.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Fatima Graves’s husband Matthew is responsible for destroying the lives of over 1,500 J6ers. Fatima is now concerned about the weaponization of government. @julie_kelly2 https://t.co/mFybiNYIdy
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank you, Mark, and Kelly for that inspiring quote. I’m Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center. After reviewing the recent executive order, I want to highlight three key points. First, the current agenda is not just an attack on diversity; it targets our foundational civil rights. The use of the acronym DEI aims to alienate and undermine the principles of diversity. Second, there is a concerted effort to intimidate businesses and schools into abandoning their anti-discrimination efforts, with federal power backing this bullying. Finally, while these late-night directives may continue, we will defend the right to work and learn safely and with dignity, both in the courts and through collective action. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Mark. And thank you, Kelly, for, closing with that wonderful quote, from Cecile Richards. I'm Fatima Goss Graves. I'm president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center. And I I woke up this morning after reading the late night executive order in all the detail.
And so I changed my remarks and have three things to say. Go ahead. The first is it is really important, I think, that we, focus in on what the real agenda we are facing is right now. And that is they are not just attacking efforts at diversity. They are going for our core and foundational civil rights infrastructure.
And so we should be clear that the reason that they are using an acronym always when talking about rather than talking about diversity and equity. The reason that they are using the phrase DEI every single time is to make it, more alienating and to strip the power away from the ideals of diversity. The other thing they are trying to do right now is to bully businesses and schools and anyone who has been trying to shift their culture to finally address the scourge of discrimination into submission. And that bullying is now gonna take the effect of having the force and weight of the federal law behind it. Rather than following the 60 year old promise of the Johnson era executive order that required those who do business with the federal government, who profit off the backs of taxpayers to use that opportunity to address discrimination, they are saying the opposite.
They are saying you are better off if you do nothing in this moment because we will use our power to investigate you for engaging in thoughtful programs to address discrimination. It cannot stand not only on the watches of those who are around this table, anyone in this country who is worried about the weaponization of the government or who is worried about our ability to work and learn with safety and dignity in this country must show up. That includes employers, that includes people in community, That includes everyone using the power that they have. The final thing that I will just say is that, this the late night missives will continue to come, but that is not the end of the story. All of us will defend the right for people to work and learn with safety and dignity.
We'll do it in the courts, and we will expect those who represent us to work alongside us and to stand up with us as well. So thank you.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
DEI is a cancer that needs to be eradicated.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
It sounds like California has “find the votes” elections. Hopefully republicans have the same type of find the votes operation so that they don’t lose a house seat. @pnjaban https://t.co/tuyH3014O4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cooks, housekeepers, and servers from Unite Your Local 11 have been canvassing voters in California's 45th congressional district, covering areas like Artesia and Garden Grove. We just received an update: our candidate, workers' rights attorney Derek Tran, is only 350 votes behind his opponent, Michelle Steele, which is less than a tenth of a percent. The race is extremely close. According to Politico, the team with the most effective ballot curing operation—fixing ballots that need additional information—is likely to win.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Having me here. Yes. For months, cooks and housekeepers and servers with Unite Your Local 11 have been canvassing, thousands of voters in the 45th congressional district in in California, which is the south part of Los Angeles County and the north part of Orange County. And, that includes places like Artesia and Garden Grove. And, I'm very happy to report we just, while we're on this call, got the vote count update.
And our candidate, workers' rights attorney Derek Tran, is only 350 votes behind his MAGA opponent, Michelle Steele, less it's a tenth of a percent. So the, the vote is very, very close, and Politico has said that the team with the most robust, ballot curing operation, to fix ballots that will not be counted without additional information, that the team with the better operation on ballot counting is the team that's most likely to win.
reSee.it AI Summary
Norm Eisen orchestrated the January 6 events, focusing on the ballot and jury boxes to address Trump. He initiated the Alvin Bragg charges, claiming a $120,000 payment was election interference. I believe he and others should face charges for misusing millions in tax dollars in their relentless pursuit of Trump, affecting the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm Eisen was behind the J6 dog and pony shows. They were about the ballot box and the jury box to solve the problem of Trump. Norm created the Alvin Bragg charges. He said that a $120,000 payment was election interference. Norm should be charged with the same crimes, along with many others, for spending MILLIONS of our tax dollars in his unhinged pursuit of one man, Donald Trump, in order to interfere in the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections.
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are currently six hearings scheduled, which may increase. The first hearing will serve as an opening statement to the American public, outlining the case. Expect a roadmap of the proceedings presented in a high-tech, engaging format, similar to a mini-series, featuring images and clips from testimony. The focus will be on the events of January 6th and ongoing threats to elections. Witnesses will be introduced, making it feel like a gripping trial. The presentation aims to be compelling and accessible, designed for prime-time viewing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can we expect to hear over the subsequent weeks, from the committee members? I know they will bring witnesses to testify and to present. More subpoenas, I understand, may be issued. But what is your expectation of how things will unfold?
Speaker 1: Well, I think you'll in there currently, there are 6 hearings scheduled. The number could fluctuate up. I I think of it as having worked on the impeachment. I know how flexible these congressional, calendars can be. But, the first, hearing, I would expect, will lay out it's like a opening of a case to a jury.
Except, in this case, the jury is the American people, really. And so it'll lay out here's what where you know, the old saying, Richard. And your business leaders know this well from the presentations that they do tell tell them what you told them. So they're gonna tell them in the first hearing, hey. Here's where we're going.
They're gonna lay out a road map, and you'll hear, again, bipartisan in the best American tradition. I'm sure you'll hear from the chair, a democrat, and the vice chair, a republican, and an extremely conservative one at that. You'll hear, the vision of where they're going. Then there'll be, some, and they're gonna do that. That's not gonna just be blah blah blah.
It's gonna be very high-tech. It's gonna be like a mini series, you know, with images and, clips of the testimony. They've taken testimony from over a 1000 people, very Netflix or Amazon Prime worthy TV in prime time at 8 o'clock on Thursday, to describe, the events of January 6th, but the long lead in and how the threats to our elections are still continuing. And then, I think you'll you'll actually get to meet some of these very important witnesses, I I suspect, so the American people can work again. It's like a trial.
First, you have the opening, then you start putting on the witnesses and the evidence. But a gripping Perry Mason style trial Mhmm. We all know that actual trials are not always that interesting. This will be made for TV, made for prime time.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Norm must go to prison for all of the damage he has done and continues to do. https://t.co/DAXzmk8Nfa
Video Transcript AI Summary
The relationship between Cassidy Hutchinson and Stefan Pascentino may lead to serious consequences for Pascentino, including potential criminal issues. He has already been placed on a leave of absence by one of his law firms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Kind of the Cassidy Hutchinson, Stefan Pascentino relationship, which I think puts Stefan in hot water with the bar. He's already been put on leave of absence by one of his law firms. Potential criminal issue.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is a presentation by Norm Eisen and Joanna Lydgate of States United discussing their “democracy” playbook. https://t.co/KjYjBBAYMb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The anti-democracy strategy in America has four main pillars. First, it undermines public trust in elections through misinformation and fake audits, leading to significant disbelief in election outcomes. Second, it attacks voting rights with numerous voter suppression bills targeting mail-in voting and drop boxes. Third, it criminalizes opposition, instilling fear in election officials and voters through laws that restrict basic election administration tasks. Finally, it hijacks elections by shifting control from nonpartisan officials to partisan actors, including dark money groups. To counter this, a proactive strategy is essential, focusing on enhancing public trust, expanding voting access, holding violators accountable, and protecting elections through comprehensive measures.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: An attempt, and it's just an attempt to kind of, map out what we think is happening here. And our view as an organization is that the anti democracy strategy right now in America has 4 basic pillars. The first pillar, as you see here, is really about undermining public trust. So keeping the big lie alive through things like these fake audits and these election investigations and, of course, an ongoing right wing media narrative. Why to make people not believe in our elections, not believe in our democratic institutions, and ultimately, of course, not, take advantage of the franchise.
And it's it's successful. So the the polling we've done has been certainly really sobering. In recent polls in both Pennsylvania and Arizona, we found that about 40% of voters, do not believe that President Biden won fairly. And we have our communications director, Lizzie, communications director, Lizzie Ulmer, on so, for the Q and A, she can answer questions about sort of where the American people are right now, but, the numbers are still not good. You know, the big lie is definitely very much alive in this country.
The second pillar is attacking the freedom to vote. So, you know, make people not believe and then attack the right itself. So we've seen, as you all know, hundreds of voter suppression bills across the country attacking things like vote by mail and drop boxes and prohibiting outside funding for elections. That, I think, is probably the most kind of well covered pillar in the media, the one people are most aware of. 3rd, much less well covered, is the criminalization of the opposition.
So make people afraid to exercise their right, make people afraid to do the jobs of administering elections. And these are the kinds of bills we've seen that prohibit, criminalize the provision of water at polls or that criminalize the most routine aspects of election administration, making our local officials really terrified to do their jobs, that criminalize things like protests and ballot collection, etcetera. And then finally, the 4th pillar is what we call hijacking our elections. So Norm alluded to this when he talked about election subversion, but these are bills that really channel power over elections from trusted, officials who've always done this work and done it in a completely nonpartisan way into the hands of partisan actors. So partisan, hyper partisan state legislatures, most commonly.
But it's also things like dark money groups coming in to fund these fake audits across the country. And of course, political violence is also on some level about, taking over, our elections. And, and Norm, I think you should talk about the the pro democracy strategy, our plan to attack this because, of course, that that is that is absolutely critical.
Speaker 1: It would be a mistake, for us, and we don't, of course, operate alone. We work with, hundreds of folks, government officials across the country, but we do that, in, Alliance, in an ecosystem of, many other wonderful groups filling this this narrow but deep lane that really hadn't been filled before, providing support and leverage, to those officials. It would be a mistake in doing that work, only to defend as important as defense is. So the other thing that we're always cognizant of, and we really try to balance this every day in the work that we do, is the affirmative, strategy, to secure voting and to advance democracy, not just to hold on to push to new ground. We can talk more about it in the q and a, which is about 60 seconds away.
Enhancing public trust by building bipartisan coalitions like the wonderful advisory committee, who you saw, expanding the freedom to vote by promoting federal and state expansion like our reports on the beneficial effect that the legislation, the latest version of which was just announced today in Washington, will have across the country. We broke it down state by state by state. You can see that on our website. Holding those naughty violators accountable, and we're gonna talk about that. There's some good q and a coming about coming for that.
But we we have done a lot around the country to make sure, for example, that if lawyers are violating ethics rules, that they are held accountable for that. And finally, you have to protect elections and access by working on things like redistricting, pre election day, election day, and post election, which is what we did in 2020. We've kind of worked out the formula. So there is a pro democracy plan.
Speaker 0: So we just threw a lot at you. This is our contact information. We would love to be in touch anytime. And, Sue
reSee.it AI Summary
I discussed the connections between Kamala Harris, her husband, and DLA Piper, particularly regarding the SolarWinds hack and the events of January 6. DLA Piper represented Smartmatic, and its partner, Matthew Graves, is involved in prosecuting January 6 cases. I believe there are significant ties between these entities and the alleged cover-up of the 2020 election theft. I also raised concerns about the narratives pushed by the Democratic Party and the need for investigations into Harris and her associates, including Norm Eisen.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Patrick Byrne mentions Kamala Harris’s husband in relation to 2020. Kamala’s husband was with DLA Piper. DLA Piper represented Smartmatic. DLA Piper, a law firm, “investigated” Solarwinds along with Crowdstrike, Chris Krebs and others. Kamala Harris had a meeting the morning of January 6 about Solarwinds before she went to the DNC for the pipe bombs portion of the “inaurrection”. The FBI released a statement on January 6 saying that the “Russians” were responsible for Solarwinds. Solarwinds was the hack of the 2020 election. January 6 was the cover-up of the theft of the 2020 election. Matthew Graves, the lead J6 persecutor, was a partner at DLA Piper. Kamala Harris is longtime friends with 2020 and J6 architect/lawfare coordinator Norm Eisen. Kamala Pipe Bombs Harris and her husband must be investigated for their roles in 2020 and January 6. Long 🧵 @Kash_Patel
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dominion, a key player in vote tabulation, received a $400 million investment from Credit Suisse, a Chinese bank, just weeks before the election. Another company, Seidel, which recently declared bankruptcy, had its assets acquired by a new entity with ties to George Soros and Venezuela. Additionally, Kamala Harris' husband is linked to one of these companies. The software used for elections originates from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, while the machinery and tabulation services are connected to Venezuelan and Chinese interests. This raises concerns about foreign influence in the election process, suggesting a potential manipulation of our electoral system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's Dominion, and there is Seidel, which is the vote tabulation company. It's over in Spain, but its servers are really in Frankfurt. The Smartmatics, the software is actually Hugo Chavez creation. I can walk you through the how and the why and such. There's a beautiful backstory.
Dominion, in October 6 of this year, 4 weeks before our election, Dominion took a $400,000,000 investment slash buyout from a Chinese bank. Who's the Chinese bank? It's called Credit Suisse. And you're saying, oh, isn't that a Swiss bank? No, Credit Suisse is a Chinese bank, they bought it.
And the Chinese bank put $400,000,000 into Dominion. And then SITL, this company, this European company based in Barcelona, cleared bankruptcy back in June of this year, and its assets were purchased by another company which began using name Seydel. Often companies when they're up where there's some no good nicks and you wanna sort of seal off your trail, you do this. You have one company declare bankruptcy. The assets get stripped out and put in another, and this all is just rubble.
And then when the investigators show up, it's just a pile of rubble they got to sift through. That was done in June. The people who bought it the people who bought it have 2 dubious connections. 1 is to George Soros and one is to Venezuela. And in particular, the guy Venezuela for 20 years had kind of a front agency, PR agency lobbying group in New York.
And I'm not prepared to name them yet, but it's a guy out of that group, out of that Venezuelan linked PR slash lobbying group has gone, and been part of this deal with Settle. Guess who else is part of it? It's a deal I I don't wanna believe it or not, Kamala Harris' husband shows up with some connection into one of the companies I just named. I'm not ready to talk about more about that. But Kamala Harris' husband is Kamala Harris' husband is linked to one of these.
But that's not the main event. Let's set that aside. The point is that there's 3 companies, the ones that provide the software, the ones that provide the machinery that runs the elections, and the one that tabulates. The ones that provide the software is a creation of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela. The one that does Dominion has, in a month before election, a Chinese bank took it over with a $400,000,000 cash infusion and took it over.
And the one that does the tabulation is a George Soros slash Venezuela. So, America, you need to understand that our election systems are now being provided and operated by Venezuelan, Chinese, and Venezuelan slash Soros entities. That's our that that's who just ran our election. Our election got hacked. This is a slow coup.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
DLA Piper, Smartmatic, Mark Malloch-Brown, Soros
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
@smartmatic Smartmatic is affiliated with Soros lackey Mark Malloch-Brown. They are also affiliated with DLA Piper, Kamala Harris’s husband’s former law firm who also just happened to be involved in “investigating” the SolarWinds hack. They all know what happened in 2020. https://t.co/vrkqmmhuBk
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Kash Patel should investigate Solarwinds.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Matthew Graves must be prosecuted.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The loser that is prosecuting J6 victims is from DLA Piper. https://t.co/bNfL9Z0CsE
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
“Investigated”
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
🧵
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Someone needs to ask Kamala Pipe Bombs Harris why she was at the DNC on January 6. https://t.co/AS4YP2Lt33
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Someone should ask Norm Eisen’s partner in crime Michael Chertoff how he immediately knew that Solarwinds was the Russians.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
“The SolarWinds Wake-Up Call” Michael Chertoff December 16, 2020 Keep in mind that the hack was made public on December 13, 2020. They supposedly had no idea who had done it (and still don’t til this day…. 😉). https://t.co/QvDUFvN6xp
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
DLA Piper has some explaining to do.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Kamala Pipe Bombs Harris and her longtime friend Norm Eisen MUST be investigated for 2020 and J6.
reSee.it AI Summary
In February 2023, Andrew Weissmann and Harry Litman discussed the origins of the Bragg case, emphasizing their involvement in key decision-making meetings. They suggested that the Trump administration should investigate these discussions to uncover the lawfare conspiracy. It appears that Bragg was initially uninterested in pursuing the case but faced pressure, with the lawfare team, led by Norm Eisen, orchestrating events from behind the scenes.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
This is lawfare coordinators Andrew Weissmann and Harry Litman discussing the origins of the Bragg case in February 2023. Harry said he and Andrew “were in places where decisions were made” in regard to the case. Those are the types of meetings, conversations, communications, etc., that the Trump administration needs to investigate in order to get to the bottom of the lawfare conspiracy. It’s pretty clear that Bragg was not interested in the case but he was pressured into it and the lawfare squad ran it behind the scenes with Norm Eisen at the helm. 🧵
Video Transcript AI Summary
Harry and Andrew discuss Mark Pomerantz's book about the investigation into Donald Trump that Alvin Bragg halted. They explore the implications of Pomerantz's writing, noting that Bragg hasn't read the book due to potential harm to the prosecution. They highlight the challenges of proving cases against high-profile figures like Trump, particularly regarding the hush money payments and financial fraud allegations. Andrew emphasizes the need for strong evidence and insider testimony, which are lacking. They also address the ongoing investigation and Bragg's cautious approach, suggesting that the decision to reconvene a grand jury indicates serious consideration of new evidence. Ultimately, they reflect on the complexities of prosecuting such cases and the differing perspectives within the legal team.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. Harry here. And I'm with my the existential version of my good friend, Andrew Weisman, to talk about the big story of the week. The Mark Pomerantz, book about the investigation that Alvin Bragg scuttled some about a year ago. So much to talk about.
And if I can, pat ourselves on the back for starters, I think in these settings, Andrew, it really helps to have people like you and me who were who have been at places where decisions were made in front offices and the and the like and not simply line prosecutors. So I'm hoping we can shed some light on a pretty complicated and in some ways, gnarly story. So first, thanks for being here.
Speaker 1: It's always great to be here. I note that this is I think we're bicoastal now because we have we have LA and New York covered. Nothing in the middle of the country yet, but okay.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, we're the you know, you've heard about them them their, you know, Coastal elites. So I guess I I guess that's us. Man, where to start? Let's just start here. It's one of the big ticket items.
Bragg says, I haven't even read the book because and this is kind of a non sequitur, but because he thinks it could do damage to the prosecution. The book presumably, not his reading of it. Let's 0 in there, and, and Rachel Maddow was kind of pushing, Mark Pomerantz on that point. So Pomerantz's defense is 1. All the facts are out there, especially in Tish James's civil suit.
And 2, for the most part, stuff in there like the teeth gnashing about Cohen's value as a witness are wouldn't be put in front of a jury. So what do you think? I I'm not this is not to fault him. I think you, more than as much as anyone and I but I have the same view, which, you know, it's okay to write a book as long as you stay within the rules. We don't know that he didn't.
No grand jury stuff. But just as a practical matter, how unwelcome is this to Bragg's current efforts? How much can it kind of, you know, muck things up for him?
Speaker 1: So I think there's sort of 2 issues that are embedded in what you, asked about. 1 is the nature of what Mark Pomerantz did in writing a book in these circumstances. Part, I just wanna make sure people understand, this is a book that is being written by a former prosecutor, after, by all accounts, leaking his resignation letter, disparaging somebody who is under investigation, but not charged, CEG Jim Comey with Hillary Clinton. But now that she's on the other foot, it's with respect to Donald Trump, and, did not submit the book for pre publication review or any sort of review by, the office. And, you know, I as I say with respect to that, I've said, John Bolton submitted his book for pre publication review.
Of course, I submitted
Speaker 0: As did Andrew Weisman.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Of course. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 0: You know what? That's one of
Speaker 1: these things you're not it's not just that you've agreed to do it. It's the right thing to do. Because regardless of what you may think is, may not need to be redacted, you're not the end all and be all in making that judgment. And it's not just about classification and what might be privileged or what might harm an underlying investigation. Mark Pomerantz can't know what has happened once he left, so he can't really make what has happened once he left, so he can't really make an informed judgment by that.
So if I were the DA or the general counsel of the DA, I would be royally upset because of that constellation of that of that happening, especially because it's an ongoing investigation. Now turning to your how could it be used?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Although, just to add the the, exclamation point to that, Pomerantz might not have the time, but not just ongoing. But he but, he has revived it in a way that Pomerantz, even without revealing things, kinda dumps all over. Makes it seem like the zombie so called zombie case, we'll get more into this, is really minor league and dibby dab next to the the big righteous prosecution they were pursuing. But yes.
The harm.
Speaker 1: Give a separate issue. The the harm issue is sort of there's sort of a, there's sort of different ways to look at it. There is no question that the book, if there are charges, will be used by the defense because why not? I mean, the you know, I think we've all been defense lawyers. It's like that's your job.
If there's a 0.1% chance that this could help you, why not go for it? There's no downside for the defense. And if you look at the Trump Organization Weisaver trial, there was a lot of pretrial litigation about these kinds of things. Obviously, not a book, but about all sorts of pretrial publicity issues. The kinds of issues that could be raised, selective prosecution, change of venue, tainting of witnesses, I mean, just a whole variety of things that that will go into the mix, and this is where creative defense lawyers think of all sorts of arguments.
Speaker 0: Right. And by the way, more than even tactical legal motions in Lemonade, they've got a blueprint into what everybody thinks about Michael Cohen, who as we sit here now, still looks like they're planning to use. That's just totally valuable stuff whether you anchor, a motion in limonnet, which by which for listeners is just a sort of pretrial legal motion to exclude things, whatever. That's just a valuable vantage point to have had, and they may be able to smuggle it in one way or another at least before the judge.
Speaker 1: Yes. And it actually could become something at trial because, because there is information in there about what witnesses said at certain times, if there's a witness who has read it and been exposed to it, it could come up with
Speaker 0: a
Speaker 1: false examination. In other words, defense lawyers are ingenious as there's they need to be, and they will figure out ways to get that in that a former prosecutor thought, x, y, and z. But by the way, the current administration thought this was a weak case. I mean, that's Right.
Speaker 0: It's like Objection. Oh, please disregard that, Jerry. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's like I'm sorry. What do you want them
Speaker 0: to disregard? Could you Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Could you don't let him know that that there were people in the room who's mister Bragg, please approach the bench. Yeah. I'm sorry. So go ahead.
Speaker 1: So what's so unusual here is the idea that this came out, in the middle of an investigation. And even if you take the view that Mark thought at the end at the initial steps that, that maybe the investigation was over, certainly, by the time of the publication, he knew that's not true. He there were there were many public reports, but also it doesn't answer why he leaked the resignation letter. I mean, that to me, for all of the reasons all of us were completely disparaging what Jim Comey did in both July October, this is what the rule of law means. The rule of law means you don't say it's procedurally the wrong thing only because it was Hillary Clinton.
It's if that's the wrong thing to do, it's because you don't disparage somebody who is under investigation but not charged. And I don't think Yeah.
Speaker 0: Let's take an apt comparison that came a couple weeks ago. People didn't see it. Nora Danahy. She was really upset with what her boss, did, John Durham, and she did what used to count as the ultimate protest. She quietly resigned and never talked to anybody.
So that sure look. Let's just cut to the chase here. There's a lot of score settling, and it must have this would have been the biggest case of his career. He'd been brought in to do it. The Vance had given every indication he was gonna.
Bragg pulls the plug. There there's no doubt that the bruise of that, you know, is channels into a book that is somewhat politic toward brag, but reading between the lines, you know, some real zingers and really insulting to the office as a whole. Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I think I wouldn't necessarily I think the jury's out on whether he pulled the plug. I think I I read this as Mhmm. Vance, I think, did not give a clear go ahead and indict because it doesn't explain if that was what he actually said, why there wasn't an indictment. And I think what Vance did was Yeah.
Actually the correct thing, which was to say, I am supportive of going forward. If it were me, I would do it, but I am not making that decision because it is the next DA's decision.
Speaker 0: We'll have to live with it. Provisional, okay. I think that's absolutely right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Pomerantz knew he wasn't getting the go ahead from because he would've that's I mean, if he got the complete go ahead, why not just go ahead and indict? And so he knew he had to go to brag for it. And then my view is it's really clear he jammed up Brad. He deliberately keeps him out of being briefed on it before he, is sworn in in January. He's not invited to the so called summit meeting with outsiders being briefed on the case.
And he then tries to sort of ram this through with a sort of ultimatum of not just I'm gonna leave if you don't go forward, now. Not it's like I need a decision now that you're going forward. A decision that you are gonna continue this or need more time, or you want a prosecution memo is I'm quitting. And he he says something in the book that I just found completely outrageous, where he says, wouldn't it be terrible if, obviously, everyone's gonna know if I leave, it's gonna be now immediately, but wouldn't it be terrible if people learned that Cy Vance agreed with me? It won't be good for you.
And then he leaks his resignation letter that says that. I mean, it that is just, that is just not how you behave. I mean,
Speaker 0: you know Absolutely. And by the way, there's already all this tension when he's there because he's brought in and there's resentment in the office. I do wanna sound one counterpoint here. Maybe we can gin up a little bit of disagreement between us always. But as we learned last week, There's a I think that you as you might put it, the jury is out here.
I thought there were credible accounts at the time, not simply from Pomerantz that had Bragg himself at arm's length. Bragg himself having a, a, not a not a prosecution memo per se, but an important summary memo on his desk gathering dust. Bragg himself, who in the one import most important meeting he was at, kind you know, coming late, leaving early, looking at his watch, etcetera. Bragg himself, who didn't truly engage Pomerantz, and Dunn, and who did did seem, not although after there was a lot of protest, he said, yeah. Well, you know, look, we're not completely closing it down yet.
But Bragg, who did seem at the time, to basically be putting it in mothball. So there's a a factual dispute as to how Bragg everything you say is true about, Pomerantz. The question is, was Bragg kind of arm's length and underwater and worried about being the new guy coming in and taking this on? I think there's genuine, dispute about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That that may you know, this one of those things that we know,
Speaker 0: that It's Rashomon all over the same book. Right?
Speaker 1: And it could
Speaker 0: be Mister mister existential. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, it could be just sort of a combination because some of that, all of that could be true. I mean, you know, my big question Yes. Your Pomerantz would be, I don't understand why wasn't he invited to the summit meeting. If you are bringing in outsiders and you're briefing them on everything to get their views on what you think, and you know that the new DA is gonna need to get up to speed and is gonna need to opine, what is the what is the valid, legitimate, good faith basis that you're not including him in that meeting?
Speaker 0: It is I can see that you're waiting to get that crystallized and then come up to him with a with an overall consensus or an overall assessment. You know, I mean, as US attorney, I can imagine something like that would have happened. However, let let's go cut to the summit meeting where by all accounts, there were real strong divisions of opinion among lawyers that Pomerantz respected. And the thing that is maybe most glaring to me about this current PR tour is the I mean, it's a single sound bite, but it's the biggest sound bite, and everybody bit, his now saying, if it were anyone other than Trump, there would have been an indictment in a, what, a flat second or whatever. That's just inconsistent with what seems to be a very strong view from many quarters that there was honest disagreement about it.
He himself puts it at 70%. That's not a flat, second. Nicole Wallace asked yesterday on it, would wouldn't I have been indicted? And, you know, I I said, no. It's just not clear.
You don't necessarily go around indicting on, you know, on 70% cases. So but but that I think that just can't be squared with this flat second idea.
Speaker 1: I agree. And I think the 2 counterpoints I would make are, Mark Pomerantz was asked about sort of Alvin Bragg's comment that, you know, the plane wasn't ready for takeoff. And Mark Pomerantz said, well, no, because the plane was taking off in another airfield and pointed to the Leticia James case. But Mark Pomerantz is smarter than that. To say that there's this civil case where the critical evidence was there was some evidence, there wasn't strong evidence of direct knowledge of intent, but they had the they can use the assertion of the 5th Amendment, and those are sprinkled throughout the complaint.
You can't say, well, this was clearly a case that's ready for take up and point to a civil case. You know, this is a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So I think that's one, data point. And the other is the statement that this would be true for anyone else, I think is belied by something that Mark, to to be fair, candidly admits he was a proponent of when he was there, which was that he thought you could charge, Donald Trump for money laundering and that the predicate, something you need to prove money laundering, is that there's an underlying crime, and the underlying crime was that, was that Donald Trump was the victim of extortion by Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 0: Black of a blackmail. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, no prosecutor
Speaker 0: I mean, that's not his finest. That's like yeah. That's that's a different universe. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1: But just so everyone understands, no prosecutor is going to prosecute the victim of an extortion, as a money launderer. And the problem is is that if you're thinking that this is treating likes alike and that this is not selective prosecution and you are treating everyone the same, which is the goal here, you can't say I came up with this wacky theory where a victim gets prosecuted, and we're gonna use it for Donald Trump, but we've never used it for anyone else and say that your whole goal is to have the even handed administration of the law. So if you're Alvin Bragg and you hear that that's one of the theories that the person's coming to you with, you know, Mark Parmen, to his credit, says, I know I lost credibility over this. And that is, you know, Harry, you and I would have the same reaction.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. I mean, that is so cockamamie. The I think there's a factual question whether Bragg heard it, and that was one of the reasons. But the notion that it it's not simply because he's a smart guy, Pomerantz.
It's not simply that it's out there. It's that being so out there bespeaks a kind of flailing on his part and the part of the team. If you're groping for this kind of theory, then you obviously don't have a dead bang case. Let's spend a few minutes. It's sort of a side thing, but our colleague, Ryan Goodman, did such a kind of elegant and meticulous treatment of the sort of very important material differences between what we knew about the showdown as it occurred, in January of last year that prompted the resignation and what's being said now.
So I'm I have no you must have read Ryan's piece. Yeah? Of course. I I You don't not read any Ryan pieces. So it's really I mean, there are certain things that, I think he well, what so what what what what, you know, jumped out at you from reading from from Ryan's work here?
Speaker 1: Well, so first, it's in Just Security, which is a legal blog that, Ryan helps run at, that is affiliated with NYU School of Law. And just
Speaker 0: Oh, where you teach. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. So Ryan and I actually are co teaching this year. So full disclosure, you know, I'm a Ryan Goodman fan. So, you know, he's he's Have
Speaker 0: you have you met people who aren't in that club? I haven't, but go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's true. People don't say that about you and me or at least me.
Speaker 0: That's true. No. No. No. In fact, I've I noticed on Twitter, we're lumped together.
You're better than me, but we're both
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Complete apologists for DOJ, etcetera. And and, Ryan, why he is beloved not just by all the audience, but by his colleagues. He's so he really generates interesting content and shares it so generously. So a little plug for Ryan there. But, anyway yeah.
Speaker 1: He's also a true academic in the best sense of the word, which is he is really dispassionate, and he bases his opinions in where he comes out based on the facts. And it doesn't matter what he like his preconceived views or Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: Decide. I mean, it's really what you want academics to be.
Speaker 0: As do you and I, but it's a that it's a long but anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Not about us. So, there's really great about us. Yeah. There's enough great points, and there are many of them. I think one of them is he takes, Mark to task, for painting a picture in the resignation letter, the one that's leaked a few weeks after he after the, public departure.
And he takes a task with the idea that there was a uniform consensus that this case should be brought. And that Bragg it is Bragg versus not just Pomerantz, but everyone, everyone on the team. Yeah. And Ryan just goes through all of the ways that that's just simply not true.
Speaker 0: It's indefensible.
Speaker 1: Right. You, Harry pointed out to the outside advisors being split. Well, it turns out internally, there were a lot of maybe most, if not all of the people who were below Pomerantz and Carrie Dunn, were against this. And some people had taken themselves off the case because they thought it was sort of being reverse engineered by Mark, and we gave one example of that. So, I just think that is just not fair.
And it clearly was creating a public perception that is not accurate. And, you know, we just talked about Ryan Goodman and how meticulous he is, and so governed by the facts. And, you know, Mark Pomerantz is not emulating that example in at least that illustration.
Speaker 0: And it's a very important point. But let's, you know, let's 0 in on this because, well, you know, going back to, being on on deadline White House, where you where you live. So, you know, you would have even better. Somehow this got confused this point with the with the question of the merits of the case because, come on, everyone knows Trump committed crimes again and again and again. And why is Bragg such a wuss, etcetera?
Can we 0 in as prosecutors on the kinds of considerations, we weren't there, though Pomerantz takes us partly there, that a sensible, sober prosecutor would be have been raising in December of 2020 to say, look, of course, you know, he's a criminal generally, but here's some problems with trying to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you can you illuminate the good faith, concerns that senior people would have had about bringing the case?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. And that actually just so I'm saying something positive about Mark's book. I mean, he Yeah. Towards the end of his book has a really, I think, excellent chapter about that tension, about what is the right standard here when you're going after somebody so prominent and an acquittal can have such consequences for the country, and how strong should the case be, Right.
Is applying the exact same standard to everyone.
Speaker 0: What what and I'm sorry to interrupt because I this will be 2 questions, but that really is it exactly. Again, I I find this a pretty shades of gray situation overall. But I think, basically, Pomerantz, you take, you know, everything from him and Greg, and you locate this in this the exact fault line that DOJ and all prosecutors are on that has to do with, you know, downside and it has to do with special considerations because he's the former president. The greater risk of a of an even a hung jury, but also also the righteousness. That's what I think Mark does come back to.
And a lot of people, I'm among them, share that view, but it's but, you know, it's it falls to individual prosecutors or even heads of offices like Brad to have to own a debacle. And, you know, that's a that's a real and serious consideration. So you're were were prosecutors in the room? How are you gonna prove this? And what are their strong points?
What, you know, what's the nature of of the hesitation that's expressed, do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, I think in this situation, on there there's sort of 2 buckets of potential crimes. 1 has to do with hush money payments that what to Stormy Daniels. And I think everyone seems to be on the same page there that that is a relatively strong case, but it's a relatively strong case as a misdemeanor under New York law, and there's significant legal hurdles to make it a felony.
Speaker 0: They Debrief, you need another crime, you
Speaker 1: know Yes.
Speaker 0: Basically, that that's in the process of. Yeah.
Speaker 1: There is even with a misdemeanor, there is a factual issue about you would have to show Trump's knowledge of a false filing, of a false business record. And it's there's nothing in, the Pomerantz book that actually to me answered that question. And
Speaker 0: And one more thing on there. You know, it's always about, intent. He said at the time, he didn't do it for it it would need to have been for, campaign finance, you know, chicanery. And he said he was trying to protect Melania's feelings. Now nobody really believes that, but again, beyond a reasonable doubt, you know, on intent evidence is always the sticking point.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The second part is sort of this, the sort of large financial statement fraud. And there, I thought there was a bit of a disconnect in Mark's book because he spends a lot of time saying you need a narrator, you need a cooperator. And he talks a lot about why Michael Cohen even that Michael Cohen, you know, plead to perjury, and also even after he plead recant in some of his, pleadings, which is really not a great fact. You know, I put on Sammy Gravano.
I have put on There
Speaker 0: you go. Sammy the ball. Right.
Speaker 1: But but, you know, I've had they it's very hard to put somebody on when they've committed a crime after they've said they've they're gonna cooperate. Right. All of the other things about incentives go away. But anyway, he says it's really important to have a narrator, and you need a you need an insider. And I agree with that.
I mean, in Enron, you needed you need someone there. In the Manafort case, really helped to have Rick Gates there. Not that he was necessary. We indicted the case without him, but having somebody sort of walk the jury through what they know happened, but they need to have someone say it. This is what it is.
And then they look for the corroboration. But on the financial statement case, there is no insider. There is nobody who is cooperating who gives that, at least according to you know, at least as of a year ago, according to Mark's book. Maybe they have somebody, maybe they don't. I suspect they don't.
And so that is a case where you're it's really just inferential. Now you can make pretty good inferential cases depending on the documents that you have. But, you know, this is, Donald Trump, like a lot of people, like mob bosses, like Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay at Enron, do not use email. There's a reason people don't use email. There's a reason Vince Gigante said, nobody I I'm nobody gets to ever use my name.
He didn't want anyone to be talking about to do it.
Speaker 0: That's every boys and girls, that's the, bathrobe guy wandering around in the West Village. Great colorful defendant. Sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: And the boss of the Genevieve Stanley. So people take steps that they can't be pinned down to what was happening at the time. And, so that makes a criminal case harder. And so I really, based on reading just reading the book, I could understand an honest to God, good faith disagreement on whether there was enough. Even if you agreed on the standard that it was being applied, but whether this really met that standard.
I don't agree that this would be an easy call, and in a New York minute, anyone else would be charged. This would be a serious conversation. I I mean, I ran the fraud section. I have dealt with very complicated white collar cases. And when you don't have documents or an insider, the idea of going forward would be exceedingly fraught.
I can't readily think of a case that we brought where we didn't have either of those. When we charged Ken
Speaker 0: Let me push that oh, no. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: When we charged Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, we didn't have emails, but we ended up with cooperators who could take us into the room and corroborating them was key. Other times, you you get you joke you get over that because of the person's own writings. But to have neither makes it a very difficult case.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And this is what I meant up top, Andrew, when I was, you know, patting us on the back. It really matters that you and I have seen a whole spectrum of cases, and you can see how this, you know, people are making sort of judgments about how it fits in the whole when, you know, it's it's it's just you it really helps to have had a broad view. But I think what you're saying, obviously, there are documents here with, radically different and false valuations. But what we don't have is documents, e.
G. Emails or people in the room as to guilty knowledge. Now the closest thing, you know, again, it's just it's for for listeners out out there. You have people on cable channels who are saying, and it seems believable what a, you know, that Donald well, basically a person, Michael Cohen. Donald Trump, you know, controlled everything.
He knew everything that was going on, and I think that's part of what Andrew means by inferential. You can infer that he did there. But I just wanna say that when you're when you're having this kind of crucible conversation among prosecutors, it's just very different from a friendly roundtable. You think about what a bruising cross examination looks like in the hands of skilled defense attorneys and how much blood is on the floor after your star witness has testified and what it feels like for the case. That's very different.
Now there was one document. Whatever you wanna say, but I'll just add to the mix. There was this one document that I hadn't been aware of that where he did sign to Trump the application for Deutsche Bank, and, you know, with that that contained a lot of false statements. How would, if you're assessing the case, I I assume you wouldn't think that a silver bullet. Why not?
But also, please, what what anything I prompted from before.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, this is where if you're a trial lawyer, a lot of times you you can hear Michael Cohen on a cable channel saying, well, he knew everything. Yeah. That's I don't think that's admissible. You know, that's not that's you actually need to know that's an opinion. It is like, what's that based on?
I mean, you actually need to have how do you of everything? Okay. So No
Speaker 0: sense just fighting this out, but let's just assume for now that that much might be admissible, but just very it seems to me it prop there are ways to get that in, but we don't have to fight the evidence question. But even so, the here comes the bruising cross examination.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. So, I think what you would get in with Michael is, like, you know, he was careful. You'd get the underlying facts from which you could then make an argument that he's a micromanager, and then you get to argue to the jury. But the conclusion that he knew everything is, I think, something not in this world.
But, anyway, we don't have to we we so lucky that we get to the point where we are arguing that for real.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Right. We should have such problems. Right?
Speaker 1: So when, when you have a piece of evidence that a defendant signs something, that obviously is good for the government, but you really need to know the circumstances under which they signed it. 1st, how how long is the document? What were they told about the document? Did they read the document? But there's also this legal issue under New York law, because it is there's just it's not a terribly attractive case because federally, you wouldn't have to show, that there was actual causation and reliance by the victim bank.
But under New York law, and this is I'm no expert on it, and this is, you know, one of the tensions in the book in between Pomerantz and Bragg is sort of that Pomerantz didn't was never a state New York lawyer, and so doesn't know the law on that, is that there is this need to show causation and reliance, and that there are ways to try and charge around that. But it was really unclear that Deutsche Bank actually cared about this stuff, and the loans were all paid back. So there was both a factual issue about what he knew and what he, understood when he signed something, and then there's a legal issue about, does it even matter because the bank wasn't harmed, and they might not even care? So, again, that's by the way, it's certainly a good fact to have Trump signing something in the same way that in the Trump Organization trial, and the where the one that Weisselberg plead guilty to and ultimately testified in, it was a good fact that you had Trump signing off on some of the sort of reimbursement payments, because it would see it's not enough, but it suggests knowledge.
But, you know, Pomerantz to his credit said, we didn't charge Donald Trump personally there because we didn't have an insider. We didn't have somebody walking us through that. And so that argument, which I thought was compelling and convincing as to why Donald Trump wasn't charged in the Trump Org trial that the Manhattan DA's office brought and convicted and won. But I think that applies equally to the financial statement case where you are gonna very least
Speaker 0: This case does. Yeah.
Speaker 1: This is where you're gonna have that same question about you have neither emails nor witness. Now, it's very hard to say this is apples to apples because a lot of this is very factually dependent on whether there's enough proof or not. And I have to say on that, leaving aside the whole brouhaha of who got jammed up and what was said, and who said what to whom, and was there bad faith, and all of the things that are, you know, the muck that swelled. At the bottom line is you could imagine good faith on all sides, and this is an honest disagreement about whether there's enough. I don't think that's worthy of, disparagement in the press, you know, of any one side.
But you know, Harry, you and I am sure have been in situations where there's been a debate about whether to bring a case or not, and there's people who disagree, and you're not thinking that the person on the other side is weak, or lily livered, or dishonest. You're just thinking this is somebody with an honest assessment of the facts who's viewing it differently.
Speaker 0: I'm very glad to hear it in fact as an ultimate decision maker. But look, there's so there's no doubt. He is politic. He with a few notable exceptions, doesn't trash brag, pretty tough on the office. But there's there's no getting around the score settling aspect of this.
I I just had a quick follow-up point and then and then and a question. So the follow point is you're so on something like the quirk of New York law that you might lose on materiality, you have to be aware that that's the same as an acquittal. It doesn't matter what the reason is. You go after it and and Trump wins this bizarre, legal motion or there's either a dismissal or a hunger or whatever. That's that's that's as bad you know, that's just the the headline is just you shoot you shot at the king and you didn't kill.
Let me let's see when the time we have left. Let's talk a little bit about where we are now because Pomerantz, canvases a wide range of theories. Another, by the way, implicit rebuttal of the notion it was such a dead bang winner. If that were true, you'd you'd figure out the main theory and go with it. But they obviously were considering many different things, different crimes.
Now Bragg has Wait. Wait. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Up until mid December 2021, they were still futzing around with what theory might work. I mean, this is like Yeah. Weeks before the new DA comes in. So
Speaker 0: you Exactly.
Speaker 1: You could hardly say, oh, this is all baked.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Right. That's right. I mean, including the forecocked, one about the money laundering victim blackmail, etcetera. Okay.
But now let's flash forward to, you know, I I don't think we've had any credible reporting. That doesn't mean it didn't doesn't exist of really important new evidence developed by Bragg. And in fact, the and there are also indications that his focus is, on what's the people in the office called the zombie case, the one that wouldn't die, and that you've referred to properly as the kind of money laundering or campaign crimes, whatever, involving Stormy Daniels. It seems to me that Bragg, after all that's happened, when he reconvenes a grand jury, it's not to just kind of, you know, peruse possibilities. He wants to go because it's gonna look if he has a grand jury and then he, again, says never mind.
It he'll really look weenish might be the word. But, on the other hand, we don't seem to know what may what now has come to his attention that makes it look like such a strong, case. So do you have a sense or surmise of the specific case they're building and whether it's different from one of the several ones that Pomerantz and Dunn and company were constructing back when Bragg first came in?
Speaker 1: I don't. I have I have some thoughts, but I I agree with you that it's very opaque. Yeah. Almost frankly as it should be, which is that since Mark left, there's really been no or very little leaking in the sense that, you know, you're not gonna see any sort of sense of what's going on. A couple of thoughts on that, though.
1, you know, they did have a trial in the fall, and I could and and if you remember, Weisselberg and the Trump Organization were do everything they could to delay that case. And to keep the trial date, I could see the office trying to keep as much as possible out of the press, to not give any fodder for change of venue, motions about delay. I don't know that that happened. I'm just thinking about what I would be thinking about if I had an upcoming trial, and I really wanted it to stick. If you remember, there was a lot of Yeah.
Pushing where they wanted the trial to happen after the midterms, and the trial didn't happen after the midterms. So, so that's sort of one point. The second is that there are signs that with respect to Weisselberg, that the strategy was, okay, he gets charged. We work out this unusual agreement, that's very bespoke. He goes he testifies.
He goes to jail, and he is currently in Rikers. I mean, nobody should be in Rikers. He's a 75 year old
Speaker 0: Just in a hell hole. Right? Rikers? Oh my god. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Tons of litigation over it and the conditions there, and, you know
Speaker 0: It's frightening to walk through as a civilian, honestly.
Speaker 1: So he is there now. There have been reports in the New York Times of, discussions between the Weisselberg's defense lawyers and the prosecution about potential new charges. If you remember when Weisselberg plead guilty, and I wrote about this for just security, a really unusual feature was that there was no coverage given to Weisselberg for any crime other than what he plead to. Usually, when people plead guilty, the there's the the defense lawyer wants a piece. They wanna know that the person's not gonna get charged again.
They wanna know, okay, if he pleads to this, is he done? And prosecutors tend to work out some kind of, you know, language that gives them some protection depending on the circumstances. Here, what was unusual is there was 0, no coverage for anything. And then when Leticia James, the New York attorney general brought her case, buried at the very back of the complaint, it's like, you know, it's like paragraph 600 and something, is
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: Direct allegations about Allen Weiseberg committing insurance fraud. That is Yeah. And and so when I saw that
Speaker 0: But that's in the Times story. It's it seems totally solid. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So and it seemed very objective, and there seemed like you could put it as a victim insurance company and get the information, and it was all about Weisselberg saying that our financials at the Trump Organization are audited when they're not. So that seemed really solid. And so one of the things you could be doing if you're the DA's office is saying, well, there's nothing that focuses the mind, like being in Rikers Island and facing new charges, and hoping that that puts as much pressure as they can on him. And maybe he flips and maybe he doesn't, but they then at least done, you know, their job, which is to take all appropriate steps to hold him to account criminally and hope that he change changes his mind about cooperating. And just
Speaker 0: So I agree with that. It's just, there's I think there's as you say, it's opaque and there's no clean theory. It's just to me, given what the consequences politically, and he's a DA. He thinks about it for Bragg of convening this grant jury and then tiptoeing back, suggests strongly that you'd have done this first. And he, was and he and he didn't.
So I is is he really hoping in rolling the dice? Andrew Wiseman, I so I started this podcast many moons ago because I felt that the sound bites on TV that former prosecutors who were, you know, supposedly had specialized knowledge, just didn't do near justice to the real conversations I'd experienced with colleagues as a prosecutor. And man, is this totally brings it home. It's it's a pleasure really to, talk to you, and I you know, it's it's really the thing that, that that just can't be captured on cable. Thank you so much for being here to tease through a really interesting but, tricky situation that is dominating the news, I'd say, in a more superficial way this week.
So, so so nice to share this time with you and try to muse about it or surmise about it together.
Speaker 1: It's great to be nerds having this conversation. We really Yeah. Create it. And it's it's I
Speaker 0: thought you're not a nerd. Come on. Room Raider knows better. I, on the other hand. Alright.
And with that, thanks, and, hope to to, see you, Andrew, soon and everyone else as well. Thanks a bunch.
Speaker 1: Take care.
reSee.it AI Summary
I find it amusing that Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord openly discussed which laws to apply in the Trump documents case, while they accuse Trump of weaponizing the government. Those involved in this lawfare should face prison time, starting with charges of sedition against Weissmann and Norm Eisen.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Lawfare coordinator and Russia collusion criminal Andrew Weissmann admits that he and Mary McCord were in on the internal debates on which laws to use for the bogus Trump documents case. It’s funny that they always screech about Trump weaponizing the government when these criminals spent years plotting their lawfare. Everyone involved in the lawfare must go to prison so that it never happens again. I would start by charging Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann with sedition.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Retention is crucial here, as we should focus on what occurred at Mar-a-Lago rather than the White House. The chaos surrounding the former president's departure cannot justify the 18-month retention of documents at Mar-a-Lago. The challenge with the Espionage Act, specifically Section 793, lies in the National Defense Information (NDI) aspect. The documents in question don't need to be classified, but it's essential to demonstrate to the jury that they contain national defense information. I'll let Mary address the internal discussions we've had on this topic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you notice, I talked about retention, and that is because precisely of what, Ryan and Carol talked about, which is not focusing a jury on the issue of what happened at the White House, but rather what happened at Mar a Lago because this whole issue of could something have been sort of lost in translation and there was a rush and the and the, you know, former president didn't wanna leave the White House and sort of the chaos can't be a defense if you're talking about the retention at Mar a Lago for 18 months. The problem with, 793, the Espionage Act, is the NDI component of that, which is the documents don't need to be technically classified, but you would need to show the jury that this is national defense information. I'll leave to Mary sort of the the internal debates that she and I have been part of on on how to use that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I noted that Lisa Monaco, who joined Biden's DOJ in April 2021, expanded Rudy Giuliani's search warrant to include January 6, suggesting her involvement in targeting him. Rudy exposed Biden's Ukraine corruption, implicating more individuals. Key figures like Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann seem to have influenced the DOJ's actions. The January 6 committee appeared to be a law enforcement operation aimed at gathering evidence against Trump. Additionally, the attorney linked to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss has connections to Ukraine and Burisma, highlighting a broader cover-up of Biden's corruption.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Russia collusion criminal Lisa Monaco (who really runs Biden’s DOJ) joined the administration on April 21, 2021. That same day she apparently expanded the search warrant for Rudy G to add January 6. That should tell you that she was in on it. The reason why they are destroying Rudy is because he exposed Biden’s Ukraine corruption which actually involves many more people, not just Biden. Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, and Mary McCord are some of the players behind crackhead Jack Smith. It sounds like the FBI and DOJ/Merrick Garland needed a push to get onboard. The sham J6 committee was a law enforcement operation to collect evidence since Merrick wasn’t moving fast enough. Their dog and pony shows were simply to tarnish Trump and get public buy-in for the then upcoming prosecutions. @Kash_Patel should find out who was in the investigations unit and get hold of their work products.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump's immunity as a sitting president is temporary, and there have been significant actions taken regarding investigations. The DOJ, under Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco, expanded the investigation into Rudy Giuliani to include January 6th. They established an investigations unit to look into various individuals, potentially up to Trump himself. However, the FBI remains cautious due to past controversies like the Comey incident and the Mueller investigation. A report on the investigations is expected to be submitted to the Attorney General, which could vary in detail. The key question is how Garland will handle the report, with a strong sentiment that it should be released promptly, regardless of its content.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And if it's just a tiny crack, but not, you know, get rid of these cases forever and making the point that, you know, Trump's immunity is temporary as a sitting president. But, you know, him, you know, him going around the FBI to get search warrants from post office cops and the inspector general, him him pushing back on the FBI who didn't want to execute a search warrant on Mar a Lago, pushing forward with that. The first day Lisa Monaco was on the job. She went in and expanded the, search warrant, application on Rudy Giuliani's things to include January 6th because before, it was just for his Ukraine stuff.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So they seem like and and then he put together Merrick Garland and and Monaco put together what they call the investigations unit in June to to start investigating the lieutenants at the Willard all the way up to Trump if necessary. They seem pretty bold in their actions in that way, but in in other ways, you know, particularly with the FBI, which is part of the DOJ, and you and I have talked about this, Andy, they really were very cautious because of the, quote, unquote, black eye they've got in 2016, you know, with the Comey thing and the Mueller investigation. And so that's why they were extra extra cautious. So I'm interested to see what happens here if a report is written, whether it's released, and if there are reasons, if they decide not to.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I'm quite confident a report will be written and submitted to the AG. It has to be under the regulations. That's what's called for. Now that as we discussed, I think, last week, that could be a very terse, short to the point statement on a in the form of a letter, or it could be, you know, an extensive report that actually talks about the evidence and the charging decisions and things like that.
And with with detail, we don't know what that's gonna look like. And then the next question is, whatever it is, what does Garland do with it? I I agree with you and and your sentiments of that. He should release it. What no matter what it says, he should release it promptly.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The attorney that worked with Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss to destroy Rudy also has ties to Ukraine and Burisma. It’s all related.
reSee.it AI Summary
The CIA has never truly functioned as a central intelligence agency; instead, it acts as the covert action arm for the President's foreign policy advisers. Its role includes supporting or overthrowing foreign governments while crafting intelligence to justify these actions. Disinformation plays a significant part in its operations, targeting the American public with misleading narratives. The discussion on the CIA's role in disinformation and media infiltration continues, and I’ve shared a video link for further insights.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
“The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting "intelligence" justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapon capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target audience of its lies." Part 1 👀
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many people misunderstand the CIA's role, believing it primarily gathers intelligence. In reality, it functions as a covert action agency, focusing on overthrowing or supporting foreign governments and conducting disinformation campaigns, particularly targeting the American public. The CIA develops relationships with the press through various means, including direct contacts and planting propaganda. While some journalists may knowingly publish CIA-favored articles, others may do so unknowingly. In Vietnam, the CIA created the Diem regime and used the press to promote an illusion of its legitimacy. During that time, the press and government often cooperated closely, viewing the CIA as a trustworthy entity. The CIA also established a system, referred to as Wiesner's Wurlitzer, to influence media narratives globally, with current efforts focused on rebuilding its covert operations and penetrating various institutions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A good many of us do not have a clear picture of what the CIA does. I think many of us believe it is an intelligence gathering agency that it gets information, that information becomes intelligence, and then it passes it on to key areas in the government. Is that an accurate impression?
Speaker 1: No. It isn't. It's my view, and it's supportable by all the, evidence we can see in the church committee report, the pipe committee report, and, other collateral information. The CIA is not an intelligence agency. It's a covert action agency, covert action being overthrowing or supporting foreign governments.
Another part of covert action is disinformation, and the, American people, in my estimation, are the primary target audience of the agency's disinformation operation. And I view Vietnam, the entire Vietnam War was brought to us, sold to us, by agency disinformation operations. That's the when I say us, I mean the American people.
Speaker 0: Well, that had to be done, of course, through the press. Yes. How else would one reach the the American public? Well, how does the CI the CIA how does the CIA develop its relationship with the press?
Speaker 1: Well, it happens on many levels in many different ways. It could be a a, director of agency, contact with the publisher, or it could be a lower level agency employee with a lower level person or managing editor, per se, or it could be hiring, agent people, agency people and placing them in the news, organization or it could be giving information to a reporter and winning his goodwill. It could be just a friendship sort of basis. It sort of covers the scheme of relationships that you can have, you know, in any social situation.
Speaker 0: This relationship demands participation on the
Speaker 1: part of the press,
Speaker 0: though, does it not? Of course. Well, how does it participate?
Speaker 1: It can participate in many ways. It can, publish articles that the agency wants published.
Speaker 0: Knowingly publish it because the CIA wants it done
Speaker 1: or unknowingly? Well, both. Knowingly, most of the time, I would guess. And sometimes the information is passed to a reporter as valid information, a good scoop, if you will, when it's just a planted propaganda. So the agency uses the press in numerous ways to achieve its, what I call, illusion building properties.
Speaker 0: When you were, with the CIA in Vietnam, did you have any direct connection with the press?
Speaker 1: No. I didn't. I do know of the case of the, the press in Saigon in the early fifties, where they were meeting directly with Colonel Lansdale, 5 members of the most prestigious newspapers in the United States, were meeting with Colonel Lansdale, the agency's man in Saigon.
Speaker 0: How often would they meet?
Speaker 1: Quite frequently. I don't know the exact frequency. But you will look at the press coverage for that era, and you'll find no mention of agency activities in the press. Yet the agency was totally responsible for the creation of the DM regime. It, it created the DM regime.
It, built an illusion about the DM regime, and it used the press to sell the illusion to the United States, the illusion that lives lives on today in the United States.
Speaker 0: Do you think that those 5 members of whom you speak had any idea that they were being used?
Speaker 1: You have to the atmosphere of those days where the press and the government were so in tune on the, the issues that I I believe the it was it was a very much a cooperative effort more than a a using effort. The press viewed the situation, as the government did and and both cooperated in in putting across the stories.
Speaker 0: The CIA was a were good folks to which one could be associated? Was that what you're saying at that time?
Speaker 1: At that time, yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: Of course, the agency developed what they called, Wiesner's Wurlitzer. That was, what they call an organ that he could play any any tune he wanted anywhere in the world at any time. Supposedly, they had 1 they owned 1 newspaper in any country of the world, and whatever articles they want run, whatever themes that they wanted to propagate, all they had to do was just press the right buttons and that that, those articles and and themes would would come up in those countries. I think we'd like to know who Wizzner was. Wizzner was a former deputy chief of the operations branch of the CIA.
Speaker 0: And he created the world itself?
Speaker 1: He created the world itself. And we find now, this came under the corporate action staff of the agency. And from recent information, William Casey is concentrating all his efforts in rebuilding the agency in developing the corporate action staff. That's the staff that that, develops in international organizations, international press organizations, international organizations of all types that, penetrates press, religious, academic, institutions, here here at home and abroad. This is where he's concentrating the the rebuilding effort.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
The CIA, disinformation, and media infiltration continued. https://t.co/1FOOT3zwdm
Video Transcript AI Summary
The CIA's objective in spreading disinformation is to create an international anti-communist ideology, justifying actions like overthrowing governments in places like Nicaragua by linking them to larger threats. While some high-level officials may be aware of these operations, many in the State Department are often kept in the dark. The agency employs various forms of propaganda—white, gray, and black—to manipulate narratives. Although covert actions are being rebuilt under current leadership, manipulating the press today is more challenging due to increased skepticism among journalists and the public. While it would be difficult to sell another war like Vietnam, it remains possible with a sustained effort.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why does the CIA do this? What is the objective of the CIA when they put out disinformation, when they, you might say, co opt the the press? One function of
Speaker 1: the agency is is noted by the, church committee is to create an international anti communist ideology. Well, it's my thesis. The reason you wanna create this international anti communist ideology so that when you go down to Nicaragua and you wanna overthrow the government of Nicaragua, well, you have you can't justify to the American people going down there and overthrowing that government unless you can link it to a greater threat. It's just a little insignificant nation. But if you can link it to a greater threat, then you're justified in overthrowing it.
And that's exactly what's happening in Nicaragua. It's it's not the Nicaraguans fighting to sustain, the way of life that they want. It's the Cubans or the Soviets or the Soviets and Cubans who are supporting this regime, and we have to we are therefore by working against the Nicaraguan government, we are actually, thwarting the the plans of the Soviet Union. That justifies our actions in that country.
Speaker 0: Do you think the state department was part and parcel to the CIA plan, or was the State Department taken in by the CIA?
Speaker 1: I think at the very highest levels of government, the National Security Council that directs the agency, the probably a very small clique of people knew about it, but certainly at the working levels of the State Department, even Daniel Ellsberg, who I've talked to recently, said he had no idea that he worked on the FOID paper. He had no idea that this was based on an agency COVID operation. Now this is just one example of, you know, thousands that could be brought up. The agency routinely
Speaker 0: Tell me another one, then. Do what? You were talking about the
Speaker 1: Some I can't talk about. I'm afraid I just can't I mean, under security restrictions not to. But look at the white paper in El Salvador. It was based on the discovery of communist documents, in El Salvador. And, supposedly, a leader of a small communist movement had gone around to, Vietnam and gone to West Germany, the PLO, all our presumed enemies in the world, and they had all promised to support him.
This document was discovered all at once just as Reagan was taking office, and this would, form the basis of a white paper on El Salvador. And many critics have pointed out the the obvious fallacies within the white paper and the obvious forgery that it was. That's another one, and there are examples of doctor photographs that I can't talk about. And the planting of articles is a routine. It's almost it's a daily thing that goes on.
You have a theme that has developed, the anti communist ideology, which you constantly are planting articles in newspapers in one country. You pick it up and replay it in another country and you use the techniques of white, gray and black propaganda. What's that mean? White propaganda is more or less a US government statement. Everybody recognizes it as such.
Gray propaganda is a statement the sourcing is not quite clear. It's fuzzed up. Black propaganda would be if the agency would put out something, say, from the Communist Party of China and make it appear authentic. One good example of this, during the Cultural Revolution in China, the agency, through its radio transmitters on Taiwan, would would come in at the tail end of, radio broadcast mainland radio broadcast, and they would pretend that they were just continuations of the program. And they would say, well, the situation is terrible in China.
You know? There's a uproar, the upheaval of the Cultural Revolution. Well, there's a there's sort of a playback on this and that the agency, foreign broadcast information service, was picking up those broadcasts, and they thought this information to be authentic. And they were disseminating it to the intelligence community, and the intelligence community was saying estimating the situation based on agency, disinformation.
Speaker 0: Let's, let's pin down something you said a moment ago. Does this covert action exist in the CIA today as greatly as it did in the past?
Speaker 1: As I understand, the the covert action staff is being rebuilt on a massive scale, that director William Casey is concentrating all his efforts in rebuilding this staff. And, we can assume that it's operating again in academia, in the press, in the religious groups, in international groups, in labor, youth, students. If it isn't now, it will soon will be.
Speaker 0: In your opinion, is the press manipulated as much today as in the past?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's as possible to manipulate the press as much today as was in the past. The press is much more skeptical, as are the American people in general. It'd be more difficult to do it, yet I'm I'm sure that in some areas, of course, it is being manipulated.
Speaker 0: I think you've answered my question in part already, but the public, in your opinion, cannot be hoodwinked as easily as they as they were in the past. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: Right. I don't think they can be hoodwinked as easily. However, some of the illusions of the past continue, and one of those illusions is what the Vietnam War was all about. Well, do
Speaker 0: you think with the manipulation of the press, which you have explained and which you believe still goes on to a degree, do you think another war such as Vietnam could be sold
Speaker 1: to the American people? Not nearly so easily. I think it could be done, but it would take a more sustained effort, more across the board effort. I think there's a lot of skepticism out there and it would be very difficult to sell, but it could be done.
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Link to video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx_2L_eYVjU
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
January 6 working 🧵. Need to capture the info in one place. 😀
@listen_2learn - The Researcher
Since Trump folks are being politically persecuted for wanting to bring forth the real electors, can we now retroactively prosecute these imbeciles? https://t.co/lPOITwoUSG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Republican electors, this message is for you. The electoral college was established to protect the nation from unfit candidates and ensure that only qualified individuals become president. You, along with 36 other electors, have the power to make a significant impact by voting your conscience on December 19th. This does not mean supporting Hillary Clinton, but rather selecting someone competent for the presidency. Your vote can give the House of Representatives the chance to choose a qualified candidate. The American people trust you to represent us all and fulfill your constitutional duty. Donald Trump lacks the necessary qualifications and respect for our constitution. You have the opportunity to be remembered as heroes who changed history. Your patriotism and service to the nation are respected. Unite for America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Republican members of the electoral college, this message is for you. As you know, our founding fathers built the electoral college to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Speaker 1: An eminent degree. Someone who is highly qualified for the job.
Speaker 2: The electoral college was created specifically to prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president.
Speaker 3: There are 538 members of the electoral college.
Speaker 0: You And just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference.
Speaker 4: By voting your conscience on December 19th.
Speaker 0: And thereby shaping the future of our nation.
Speaker 4: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 0: I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 3: As you know, the constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person.
Speaker 0: Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to.
Speaker 1: But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent
Speaker 0: Especially competent to serve as president of the United States of America. By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the house of representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency. I stand with you. I stand with you. I stand with you.
I stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, independents, and liberals.
Speaker 4: And all citizens of the United States.
Speaker 0: The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all.
Speaker 4: And that you you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself.
Speaker 3: What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications of the president.
Speaker 1: He lacks the necessary stability.
Speaker 2: And clearly the respect for the constitution of our great nation.
Speaker 3: You have position
Speaker 0: The authority and the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero. Who changed the course of history.
Speaker 3: And you have my respect. You have my respect.
Speaker 0: You have my respect.
Speaker 4: For your patriotism. And service
Speaker 0: to the American people. Unite for America.