reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript describes an incident on April 18 in which Judge Hannah Dugan was seen outside her Milwaukee courtroom wearing her black robes and confronting several federal agents who were there to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Milwaukee man and Mexican national charged locally with three counts of domestic battery. Milwaukee County released video of the events through an open records request, and the footage is part of the evidence in the case against Dugan, who is charged with obstructing a federal investigation by concealing Flores Ruiz and allowing him to leave her courtroom through a different door after sending the agents to speak to the chief judge. Flores Ruiz, dressed in black with his attorney, is shown in multiple videos leaving by that other door, which prosecutors say was used by jurors and not open to the public. As he exits, he is followed by another agent. When Flores Ruiz gets into the elevator to leave, the agent slips into the elevator as well. According to the criminal complaint against Dugan, the agent followed them down; another video shows the agent following them out of the building downstairs, and once backup arrived, they tried to arrest Flores Ruiz. He reportedly ran north in front of the courthouse for nearly a block before agents caught up with him and arrested him. Federal agents arrested Dugan herself a week later. Eduardo Flores Ruiz’s domestic violence case is moving through Milwaukee County Court, though he is in federal custody on an immigration arrest. The FBI arrested Judge Dugan at the county courthouse one week later on April 25. She pleaded not guilty in federal court last week. In response, Dugan’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the case, calling it unconstitutional and arguing that she is entitled to judicial immunity. A judge set a tentative trial date for July 21.

The plea deal in Hunter Biden's case may be falling apart as the judge questions its terms. The judge asked if there is an ongoing separate investigation into Hunter Biden, to which the prosecution confirmed. This revelation has caused a recess in the court proceedings, as the defense requested time to address the issue. The judge is uncertain about accepting the deal, as it could grant Hunter immunity to future charges, which she is not comfortable with.

An FBI agent at the center of the Russia collusion lie was sentenced with no jail time or fines, despite altering a document that enabled the FBI to spy on an American citizen for a year. Kevin Klein Smith received twelve months probation and four hundred hours of community service for doctoring an email about Trump advisor Carter Page, so the FBI could get a FISA warrant to wiretap him. This is the first guilty plea from special counsel John Durham's criminal investigation on the origins of the Russia collusion lie. Congressman Devin Nunes stated this is the worst thing that could have happened for national security. Nunes said Republicans in the House and Senate had alerted the court to problems with the Carter Page FISA application. Republicans may not support the FISA court moving forward.

Before becoming Florida's attorney general, I was a prosecutor for 18 years, handling numerous trials. This case, previously rejected by various authorities, is now being pursued suspiciously close to a presidential election. The judge, meant to be impartial, is overseeing a situation unlike any I've encountered before.

Caitlin Collins from CNN interviewed a retired US federal judge about a motion involving Judge Marchand's recusal due to his daughter's conflicts of interest. The judge deemed the motion strong, but Collins did not comment. Accusations of bias were made against CNN, claiming they are anti-Trump. The speaker criticized Collins for avoiding the question and praised the benefits of having a press badge. Despite being polite, Collins allegedly ran away upon realizing the speaker's identity.

Director Ray, do you want to reauthorize FISA to spy on the Trump campaign again?

A judge who is unbalanced should be up for impeachment, though that doesn't mean they would be impeached. There should be some chance of impeachment for the very worst federal judges; there shouldn't be no chance. The speaker then introduces Justice Schimmel.

US district judges James Boesburg and Deborah Boardman declined to testify at a Senate hearing titled “Impeachment, Holding Rogue Judges Accountable,” prompting discussion on where things go from here. Boesburg’s rulings, including restricting the White House’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, and questions about his alleged involvement in Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation tracking private communications of Republican lawmakers, have stirred controversy. Boardman is noted for ruling against the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship. Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, says that neither judge is unfamiliar with controversy and their reluctance to testify before the Senate is not surprising. He suggests the hearing will proceed, possibly with other witnesses or a discussion of the rulings’ substance, rather than direct testimony from the judges. The discussion includes a clip of Sen. Ron Johnson criticizing Boesburg for nondisclosure orders, with Johnson questioning whether Boesburg knew about certain laws and stating he hopes Boesburg responds by December 4. The Arctic Frost matter is described as damning by some. Dupree notes that the Senate may hear from other witnesses or source materials, such as conversations with Jack Smith or others involved, rather than compelling federal judges to testify about their rulings. He explains that judges typically do not testify about the substance of their decisions, and that the Senate is likely to pursue other evidence to understand what happened. The conversation turns to impeachment standards for federal judges, which Dupree outlines as the same standards used for presidents and other federal officials: bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Historically, a handful have been impeached and removed, often for bribery or unrelated acts, while challenging rulings through appellate courts has been the usual remedy. Boesburg was reversed by higher courts in the same case, illustrating the appellate process in action. Boardman is described as having issued multiple controversial rulings against the Trump administration, including on birthright citizenship, access to private data from agencies, and restoring America Core-funded programs. The discussion touches on the debate between claims of judicial tyranny versus the idea that judges are entitled to their interpretations, suggesting that the administration has had notable success in reversing similar rulings in the Court of Appeals, which Dupree argues demonstrates the system functioning properly. The segment closes with appreciation for Dupree’s analysis. The closing includes a promotional note for Outnumbered, which is not part of the core discussion.

According to Speaker 1, the indictment of two judges is just the beginning, with more to come. These judges were allegedly dismissing immigration cases, releasing over a million illegal aliens in one year, allowing them to potentially gain citizenship. Speaker 1 questions how many judges are tied to cartels or foreign entities and hopes Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are investigating these connections. Speaker 1 believes these judges think they will get away with their actions, but more indictments are expected.

An FBI agent at the center of the Russia collusion lie was sentenced with no jail time and no fines despite altering a document that enabled the FBI to spy on an American citizen for a year. Kevin Klein Smith was sentenced to twelve months probation and four hundred hours of community service for doctoring an email about Trump adviser Carter Page, which allowed the FBI to get a FISA warrant to wiretap him. This is the first guilty plea from special counsel John Durham's criminal investigation on the origins of the Russia collusion lie. Congressman Devin Nunes stated that this is the worst thing that could have happened for national security. Nunes also stated that Republicans had alerted the court to problems with the Carter Page FISA application for nearly four years. Republicans may not be for the FISA court moving forward.

The Supreme Court has established a code of ethics, which they are using to determine if any justices should recuse themselves from a case. It is not binding, as they are not seeking input from other courts. However, it is clear that if a justice's spouse was involved in spreading false claims about the election and supporting the events leading up to January 6th, they should recuse themselves. It is important to consider what actions can be taken if a justice refuses to recuse themselves.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Judge Kaseby, I see an order you issued regarding pronouns in court. Do you require individuals to declare their pronouns? That might refer to a trial management or scheduling order. It states that when introducing oneself, one should say their name and pronouns. Those were not requirements; they were suggestions and invitations for people to identify themselves. You also directed counsel to introduce themselves with their full name and honorifics, and to do the same for their clients. Yes, that’s correct.

An FBI agent at the center of the Russia collusion lie was sentenced with no jail time or fines, despite altering a document that enabled the FBI to spy on an American citizen for a year. Kevin Klein Smith received twelve months probation and four hundred hours of community service for doctoring an email about Trump advisor Carter Page, which allowed the FBI to wiretap him. This is the first guilty plea from John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion lie. Carter Page, who was wiretapped for a year with no charges, will give his reaction. Congressman Devin Nunes called the sentencing disturbing and says the judge who made the ruling is the new judge that oversees the FISA court. Republicans had alerted the court to problems with the Carter Page FISA application for years. Nunes believes this will become part of the Republican platform and Republicans will no longer support the FISA court.

General Michael Flynn, a highly respected former general and intelligence officer, recounts a lifelong connection to the ocean and service to the country, describing his career as a path that led him to become the deputy and later national security adviser to President Trump. He frames his experience as a stark contrast between his duty and a perceived betrayal by the U.S. government and its institutions. Key points and sequence of events: - Early career and worldview - Flynn describes growing up near the ocean, surfing, and a commitment to service. He says he loves the country and entered the service to defend it. - He recalls facing what he calls the “worst enemy” in America after returning from service and becoming a target of accusations of treason and being called a Russian spy. - War, policy, and intelligence critique - Flynn discusses the costs and consequences of war, praising sacrifice but arguing that war is a failure of policy, diplomacy, and leadership. - He portrays war as a constant state driven by money within the military-industrial complex and questions the necessity and management of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. - He recounts the moment of taking command of a battalion and witnessing a helicopter crash, describing the grim realities of war and the reaction of coalition forces. - Intelligence reform and career advancement - Flynn emphasizes reforms to intelligence in Afghanistan, referencing a 2010 report titled a blueprint for making intelligence relevant in Afghanistan, which he authored as a senior intel officer. - He explains his appointment to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Senate confirmation process, highlighting the opposition from the existing intelligence establishment (SES) and the resistance within Washington. - He notes how his leadership and intelligence work were both celebrated by some allies and targeted by others who wanted to push him out. - Personal and family impact - Flynn’s wife, Laurie, is described as a stabilizing force; the couple recounts decades of marriage, raising a family, and the toll of public life on their private lives. - He discusses the stress and trauma inflicted on his family during investigations, including the impact on his son and grandchildren, and describes the emotional and financial burdens of legal battles. - Transition to politics and Trump - Flynn relates how his experience and reputation led him to work with Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, where he became a trusted adviser and ally. - He recounts meeting with Trump in 2015, the several-month collaboration, and his view of Trump as someone who could fundamentally change U.S. policy away from endless wars. - He describes the 2016 presidential transition, his offer to be national security adviser, and the initial endorsement by Trump, followed by a White House shake-up. - National security adviser role and the Russia narrative - Flynn explains the circumstances around his appointment as national security adviser and the opposing views within the White House about Russia and sanctions. - He recounts briefing the president and key figures in foreign policy, and the subsequent disputes and accusations that led to his resignation beneath a cloud of controversy, including claims that he had lied about sanctions. - Investigations, FARA, and prosecutorial conduct - Flynn details the scrutiny around his contacts with Russian officials and later the Flynn Intel Group’s work in Turkey, explaining that he was accused of violating FARA for actions tied to a private businessman rather than government-directed activity. - He discusses the narrative of being accused of being a Russian or Turkish spy, the portrayal of his son as a target, and the role of Covington & Burling in his legal defense. - He charges that the government used off-the-books deals and pressured plea agreements to pressure him into pleading guilty, including allegations of a “deal” that would protect his son from prosecution. - The courtroom and legal process - Flynn describes the high-profile court hearings led by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who publicly accused him of treason, stirred dramatic tensions, and threatened prison time for lying to the FBI. - He recalls the shock of the judge’s behavior, the break in proceedings, and the eventual decision to delay sentencing as he faced immense legal and financial strain. - Sidney Powell, exculpatory evidence, and defense strategy - Flynn’s legal team changes: Covington & Burling is replaced by Sidney Powell, who uncovers conflicts of interest and unveils Brady material and exculpatory evidence that had not been disclosed. - Powell’s involvement is described as a turning point that allowed Flynn to challenge government misconduct and pursue the truth rather than simply accepting a guilty plea. - Public support, family resilience, and the pardon - Flynn and family describe a groundswell of support from ordinary Americans through letters, gifts, and fundraising, including a legal defense fund that helped sustain them through financial hardship. - They describe the eventual decision by President Trump to issue a pardon of innocence in November 2020 after the government moved to dismiss the case, noting that Flynn did not seek the pardon initially and that Sidney Powell advised against accepting a plea in order to secure full vindication. - Flynn reflects on how the pardon, while welcome, carried mixed feelings given the years of damage and public misunderstanding. - Reflections on power, governance, and the future - The narrative frames a broader critique of entrenched agencies, media influence, and political storytelling, alleging the intelligence and justice systems have been weaponized and corrupted by political agendas. - The speakers emphasize the importance of truth, resilience, faith in family, and public accountability, arguing that Flynn’s story should illuminate issues of governance, the integrity of institutions, and the need for reform to restore trust in the republic. - The closing messages stress ongoing commitment to fight for reconciliation and reform, with Flynn characterized as a persistent presence who, despite wounds, remains engaged in public life and the defense of the republic. Throughout, the speakers present Flynn as a figure who faced relentless pressure from political and bureaucratic forces, endured personal and family hardship, and ultimately sought redress and vindication through a combination of legal advocacy, public support, and a historic presidential pardon. The narrative centers on themes of duty, betrayal, reform, and perseverance in the face of systemic challenges.

Nancy Pelosi's concern for her image during the Capitol trespassing incident is discussed, with claims that she deliberately avoided security measures and ignored important phone calls. The speaker suggests that it's time to hold Pelosi accountable and bring her before a committee. The conversation then shifts to Donald Trump's upcoming trial and the defense strategy he could employ, including issuing subpoenas for witnesses. The judge presiding over the case is criticized for potential bias due to past associations with Fusion GPS and Hunter Biden. The speaker argues that the judge should recuse herself. The conversation concludes with the speaker highlighting the importance of recusal based on the judge's previous actions in a similar case.

It is not unusual for a crime to generate publicity. Ultimately, a judge will decide at the time of trial. The speaker wants this to happen in Collin County and for Collin County citizens to decide this. The speaker no longer understands it. Their personal address has been exposed, and they have received graphic and racist threats. That would not be something that could be done even if desired.

The judge presiding over the case has family ties to individuals involved in anti-Trump campaigns and investigations, raising concerns about bias. Despite requests for recusal, the judge refused, claiming he is impartial. A gag order on Trump was issued, deemed unconstitutional by critics.

There’s no reason Judge Marshawn should have been assigned to this case. He’s not part of the panel of 24 judges that handle these cases, as he is an acting judge. The claim that he was randomly assigned is impossible since he isn’t in the selection pool. Interestingly, he was also assigned to the Trump organization and Steve Bannon cases, despite not being a regular judge. Moreover, Judge Marshawn has ties to organizations opposing Trump, and his daughter earns millions promoting Democrats. The circumstances surrounding his assignment raise questions about the randomness of these selections.

Speaker 0 questions if anyone has been held accountable for lying to the FISA court for the Carter Page warrant. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing disciplinary process. Speaker 0 expresses concern about reauthorizing extraordinary authorities due to the agency's history of abuses and concealing information about allegations against the president. Speaker 1 tries to shift the focus to reforms, but Speaker 0 insists on discussing the reauthorization of section 702, highlighting the agency's track record of abuse, illegal surveillance, and political targeting.

A major ruling has been made in Georgia's election interference case against Donald Trump and 14 co-defendants. Judge Scott McAfee has allowed Fulton County District Attorney Fonnie Willis to remain on the case, although he noted an appearance of impropriety regarding her relationship with a prosecution team member, Nathan Wade. Trump’s attorneys argued for her disqualification based on this appearance, but the judge found no actual conflict of interest. Willis can either let Wade go or step aside with her entire office, but the case can proceed without significant delays. This outcome is seen as a positive for Willis, allowing her to continue without the complications of bringing in a new team.

As a former member of the judiciary, I witnessed numerous FBI abuses. However, after becoming speaker, I received a confidential briefing on the importance of section 702 of FISA for national security, which changed my perspective. I urge all members to attend classified briefings to make informed decisions. Opinions have shifted after these briefings, highlighting the importance of being fully informed. Translation: The speaker discussed their experience with FBI abuses and how a confidential briefing on FISA section 702 changed their perspective on national security. They emphasized the importance of attending classified briefings to make well-informed decisions.

An individual sent two FBI agents to the White House to interview a senior official, Michael Flynn. This action bypassed typical protocols involving the White House counsel, which would have been followed in administrations like those of George W. Bush or Barack Obama. The speaker believed it was early enough in the administration to circumvent the usual process. A call was placed to Flynn, informing him that a couple of agents were being sent over to ask him some questions, to which Flynn agreed. The agents interviewed Flynn in a conference room at the White House Situation Room, and Flynn allegedly lied to them during the interview. Flynn pleaded guilty to this. Flynn was not informed about the specific purpose of the agents' visit beforehand.

The discussion centers on the Inspector General's (IG) report on the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Speaker 0 claims the report vindicates the FBI from accusations of treason and illegal spying. However, Speaker 1 points out the IG's findings of significant inaccuracies and omissions in the FISA applications, including 17 errors. Speaker 0 admits to being wrong about the FISA process but maintains the Steele dossier was part of a broader mosaic of facts. Speaker 1 counters that the IG found the dossier essential to obtaining the FISA warrant and that the FBI renewed the application multiple times despite knowing the Steele reporting was not credible. Speaker 1 highlights that the CIA informed the FBI about Carter Page's relationship with them, but this information was not shared with the FISA court. Additionally, an FBI lawyer allegedly altered a document to state Page was not a source. Speaker 0 states the IG did not find misconduct by FBI personnel, only mistakes. Speaker 1 notes that the case of Kevin Klein Smith has been referred for criminal investigation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the IG did not find criminal misconduct, political bias, or illegal conduct.

The speakers discuss the importance of following the facts in a high-profile case. They mention concerns about bias and conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the funding of certain officials. They question the motives behind statements made by these officials and suggest that the case should be moved to a different jurisdiction for a fair judgment.