How the DOJ’s Actions Could Change Everything | Robert Gouveia DSH #1115

When you're overseas and you fill out your form to vote, you're supposed to put in your social or your driver's license number.

The manual says when those numbers come in, if they do not match,

that is not a basis for excluding that ballot in their rules.

And they passed those rules and a lot of those got held.

So you can just write whatever you want.

Try whatever numbers you want.

All right.

We got Robert here today post-election.

How you feeling?

I'm feeling great.

Have that MAGA energy coursing through the veins.

Yes, sir.

I'm liking some of his hires, too.

It's been a whirlwind.

We're analyzing a lot of them.

Big questions about confirmation and recess appointments and whether they're going to have the votes in the Senate to do it.

But I'm excited about it.

Yeah, there's been some good ones, man.

RFK, I think, just came out yesterday.

RFK is big.

Vivek, Tulsi.

It's looking like a good squad of people.

It's a big lineup, and the DOJ, the Attorney General, Matt Gates, Gaits, is going to be a big one.

We've been talking a lot about that.

We cover a lot of the Department of Justice and the FBI, have spent a lot of time talking about January 6th and all the Trump prosecutions.

So if Matt Gaetz gets confirmed to be the Attorney General, that's going to change the whole dynamic because he

for a long time has been pretty steadfast in defense of President Trump, in defense of the weaponization of the DOJ.

And so if he's at the top of the leadership there, the whole dynamic of our justice system is going to change.

Wow, that's exciting.

What do you think is going to happen with the J6 stuff now that Matt's going to be in charge?

Well, right now, it's interesting.

The DOJ, I think, is trying to find themselves, trying to figure out what to do in reaction.

I've saw some articles and headlines that people are horrified and terrified in the DOJ.

Everybody's

joking about it, shredding their files and stuff, trying to, you know, get rid of some of the evidence.

Because in my opinion, the prosecutions of the J6ers, of President Trump and some other people were completely illegitimate.

And so right now, we're observing a couple things happen.

One, some cases have been paused and stopped.

So there's one gentleman called William Pope.

He's a J6er.

He's been representing himself.

He's on X at Free State Will, been doing a great job.

And his trial was scheduled for December of this year.

He just filed a motion to continue that trial.

So it's a January 6th trial.

And he already got one charge dismissed, but it was still scheduled for trial.

So he asked for a continuance and he got it.

He got it.

Another J6er, Steve Baker, got it.

But there are other judges that are saying that the Trump victory doesn't necessitate a continuance, right?

The basis for the continuance was because Trump won.

He has promised that they're going to commute sentences or to issue pardons.

So why do we need to have full-blown jury trials, waste in paneling a full jury, waste multiple weeks of trials?

that will probably get reversed if we can just avoid that.

So some judges are continuing the trials out.

Other judges are not.

And what we just saw yesterday was an NFL player called Antoine Williams just got arrested.

So four years after the fact, he was allegedly there on January 6th.

The arrest warrant and the indictment were filed after the election.

So the DOJ knows that a new boss is coming in.

There's going to be a new sheriff in town.

And they're still arresting Jay Sixers four years later.

And they found this guy with like a key fob that was on his person on January 6th.

And apparently he also wore that key fob when he was on the sidelines at the NFL.

So

we have these FBI agents that are spending all their time,

we joke, playing Where's Waldo, trying to find these little things to match up these individuals, and they're still prosecuting them, even though the American people have vetoed.

Their concern, in my opinion, over January 6th, right?

If January 6th was the biggest thing in people's minds, if they were really concerned about an insurrection and Trump being this monstrous dictator, they wouldn't have voted for him.

And so I think what they have signaled is that there's supposed to be a changing of the guard.

And I think a reasonable, responsible DOJ would recognize that and they wouldn't be racing to try to make last-minute arrests, right?

The game is over and they're still trying to put points up on the board.

That's insane.

It's pretty reprehensible.

I can't believe they're still arresting people.

Filing after the election is over, just dropped it.

And I think that's largely because you have a bunch of FBI agents and individuals who've been working on these cases for four years and they want something to show for it.

And I think that they're animated politically.

I think this is a partisan prosecution.

They want to go after their political opponents.

And this is their last, last gasp to do it.

And Jack Smith, right, his special counsel prosecution is also on the ropes.

And we can get into that, but

the cases are up for a major shift

based on the power.

And as a lawyer, someone that's really shout out to today's sponsor, Specialized Recruiting Group.

When your company has a position to fill, are you really seeing the best candidates?

Sure, you get plenty of resumes, but you may be missing an untapped resource.

Ideal candidates who are not currently job searching.

People who are not actively looking, but who may be open to the right opportunity.

It could be the difference between a good hire and a great hire.

Specialized Recruiting Group is ready to find the talent you need.

Go to srgpros.com, see how our recruitment specialists with the deep understanding of experience and expertise you need can find the right fit for your business.

After all, you deserve to see the best candidates possible, both active and passive.

Whether you're looking for a contract or a direct hire, specialized recruiting group is ready to find the talent you need.

So go to srgpros.com right now to get started.

That's srgpros.com.

Specialized recruiting group, a tailored approach to hiring.

The evidence-based, when you hear people saying that these agencies have been weaponized, and like you see people on the left saying that's just a conspiracy theory, like, how do you respond to that?

We've been covering all of the Trump prosecutions and the civil cases for years, and we can go through them one by one if we want to, but

the DOJ has been weaponized.

We can just look at a couple examples of it.

I mean, one,

there has been no president or former president who's ever been prosecuted in American history.

234 years of historical precedent.

We had functional immunity in this country, right?

We've had many other presidents beside Trump.

I know that the current political environment wants to make Trump this horrendous figure, but we've had other presidents historically who've committed crimes.

One example might be Obama, who eliminated American citizens with drone strikes without any due process, right?

Those are crimes that you could allege.

occurred under a prior president.

And if you wanted to, you could make criminal prosecutions against that president based on the interpretations of the law.

But nobody has done that for 234 years.

We've all given the president functional immunity until very recently when Jack Smith and the Democrats got in charge.

They

appointed Jack Smith, but they didn't actually appoint Jack Smith.

So just to back up a little bit, 234 years, no criminal prosecutions.

Zero against American presidents.

A lot of other presidents did arguably bad things, but nobody prosecuted them because they had immunity.

We can come back to the immunity conversation because the Supreme Court came back down and confirmed there is presidential immunity in spite of what Jack Smith and the Democrats were arguing.

So they brought these cases knowing that they were against the great weight of American precedent, and they should have known that there was functional immunity for the president, but they prosecuted him anyways.

Jack Smith is the special counsel.

You may have heard his name.

He was appointed by Merrick Garland, by the Department of Justice, to prosecute President Trump.

The problem is, is he's not legitimately appointed.

So we can get into the weeds here a little bit.

I'll try to simplify it.

But in order for a prosecutor, right, a prosecutor has tremendous power.

They can put you in jail.

They can prosecute you, take away your freedom, take away your liberty.

So in our Constitution, we have checks and balances.

Before you can appoint a U.S.

attorney who has all of those powers, the president has to make an appointment.

In our Constitution, it's called the Appointments Clause.

We also have the Appropriations Clause.

So you have to properly appoint somebody into a powerful position before you give them the power to prosecute somebody.

And they have to be in that position to get the appropriate money.

So millions of dollars were going to be used to prosecute Trump.

So this person has to be appropriately appointed.

Yeah.

Happens every day.

U.S.

attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

We know that the DOJ can do this because they appointed a special prosecutor to prosecute Hunter Biden.

And in the Hunter Biden case, that guy's name was David Weiss.

He was a legitimate U.S.

attorney who was appointed by the president and who was confirmed by the Senate, right?

So the DOJ, the Department of Justice, knows how to do that.

They know how to find U.S.

attorneys and make them special counsels.

The special counsel,

Robert Mueller, was at one point a U.S.

attorney.

He investigated Trump, right?

So they know how to do that.

This cycle, though, Jack Smith was never appointed by a president, never, was never a U.S.

attorney, and was never confirmed by the Senate.

Wow.

Ever.

So similar to Kamala.

Kamala was never appointed as a special counsel, but

Jack Smith was, so the way that this worked is Merrick Garland, right?

So the White House, Kamala Harris.

Merrick Garland is the Attorney General, very powerful position runs the Department of Justice.

He appointed Jack Smith,

but the president did not.

So that entire appointment is illegal.

Whoa.

All of Jack's cases are illegal.

And it's not just me saying that.

His case was dismissed in Florida, the classified documents case.

You probably heard of this case.

They raided him.

They raided Trump's residence.

They went into his wife's bedroom.

They went into his kids' bedroom.

took photographs of everything.

The FBI agents were armed.

They were in plain clothes and they raided his house.

He had already been communicating with the FBI.

They had a secure called a SCIF facility at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump invited FBI agents to come in, look around, say, look, it's all secure.

When he did that, they were surveilling the place.

They were just scouting the place out to try to bring him up on charges.

Then they went, they got a full arrest warrant.

They raided his house and they

manipulated the evidence.

So what you saw in those photographs that was splayed out all over the floor, they they actually brought cover sheets in that looked big and scary, like red classified cover sheets, put them all over the documents, splayed them out all over the floor, and then tried to make that like this gory

bit of evidence that they could share with the media.

Everybody goes, oh my gosh, there's documents all over the floor.

We're all going to die because Trump has nuclear secrets that are splayed out, right?

Well, they did that.

They created all of that to look much worse than it is.

And the truth of the matter is, President Trump, as the president, he has the ability, those are his documents.

Okay, there's another part of the Constitution.

It's called the Opinions Clause.

And it says that the executive is entitled to the opinions in writing from his subordinates.

It's in the Constitution.

And the way our Constitution works is the president is the executive branch.

He's like the root person.

So all authority stops with the president.

So let's think about this with classified documents.

If Trump has to get permission from somebody else to take those classified documents.

That person who he needs to get permission from is more powerful than him because they can deny him access to the classified documents.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

That obviously would be a perversion of our system.

And the Constitution confirms this.

He has access to those documents.

They're his documents.

He took the documents out of the White House while he was still president and still had presidential power and brought those to Mar-a-Lago.

So

that case

was

completely dismissed.

And you saw news article after news article.

Trump had nuclear secrets.

Trump was communicating with the Iranians.

All that stuff.

All of that was made up, hyperventilation, hystericism from the left.

These were, as far as we know, we don't know the total details of the documents, but

basically collectible items that he was keeping with him.

And they raided his house for that with an illegitimate prosecutor, with an illegitimate search warrant, in my opinion, that was based on bad facts presented by Jack Smith, who's illegitimate.

And Judge Eileen Cannon, a federal judge in Florida, dismissed the whole case.

She said Jack Smith was illegitimate.

She went through

the different statutes that the DOJ used to say that he has power.

She went through every one of them.

and said, this one doesn't apply.

This law applies to the FBI.

This law applies to hiring outside counsel.

This law applies to this.

In other words, Jack Smith was given way too much power, way too much money, and it violated the checks and balances of our system.

And a federal judge has now dismissed that case entirely.

That's crazy.

Should have never been brought.

Trump had to spend tens of millions of dollars to defend that case, probably billions of dollars in damage in terms of the propaganda from every news article.

Trump stole nuclear secrets, and Trump kept stealing these things.

Jack should have never raided his house, and that case should have never been brought.

Now, Jack Smith, that was only in Florida, which is a different judicial jurisdiction.

So in D.C., the same special counsel has also brought the January 6th case, which is currently still pending, but Jack Smith is really let up on the gas on that because it's looking like he's going to voluntarily dismiss that case based on the fact that Trump won.

So now he's backpedaling.

He's reversing.

Because Trump will just pardon himself, even if he loses, right?

Trump can pardon himself, or more likely, is he would just fire Jack Smith immediately.

So since he'll be in charge of the DOJ, Jack Smith, what they did is they tried to get very clever about this and they created kind of an office for Jack, but not really an office.

He had actually more power than a regular U.S.

attorney.

Wow.

We have a U.S.

attorney for the District of Arizona.

All the different states and different

circuits have different U.S.

attorneys on there, but they're limited geographically.

They can only practice in a certain area.

Jack Smith could operate around the entire country.

Damn.

He had unlimited funds.

They were using a DOJ slush fund that was created back in the, I think, 80s or 90s using a different statute.

So he had unlimited money, unlimited power, no oversight by Merrick Garland or the Biden administration and free reign to just go after Trump and basically anybody he wanted.

Holy crap.

It was crazy.

And a federal judge said, dismissed.

Now in DC,

he's wrapping that up because what is more likely is Trump would come in and just fire him and just say, you're done.

What Jack is doing is because he knows that's going to happen, is he's scrambling right now.

So he's wrapping up his cases.

He's going to draft a report, a big, basically book report, a couple hundred pages of a smear dossier that he'll publish.

Then he'll resign because if Trump comes in and fires him, he's not going to have any money to write the report and he'll get fired before the report is over.

So they're scrambling right now to get.

their final hit job on President Trump in before

he takes power.

will do nothing.

I agree with that completely.

I think they were trying to do this before the election as well.

They were dropping appendices after appendices, thousands of pages of documents on the public docket right before the election.

And Jack Smith was actually trying to get the trial to happen before the election, racing to get it done.

He filed the charges.

Remember, January 6th happened on January 6, 2021.

He didn't bring the indictment on that case until, I believe it was August of 23,

which means he knows six months from then when trial is likely to happen, it's going to be right in the middle of the primary and the election season.

So he was timing the prosecutions to cause maximum damage to President Trump.

And they had their cases.

This was a harrowing situation for President Trump because he was defending Florida, defending the J6 case.

He had the Alvin Bragg prosecution, which we can talk about in New York.

And he had the Fannie Willis prosecution in Georgia, all of which were happening simultaneously until he started knocking them out one by one.

So Jack wanted to have the trial before the election.

Problem is in the indictment that Jack Smith brought, he included a bunch of immune conduct.

And you asked, how is this being weaponized?

Because Jack Smith was charging Trump with crimes for conduct that he's allowed to do.

So if you're...

the president, right, the Constitution says you have to, you have a job.

You got obligations and responsibilities.

You're supposed to do these things.

Trump was doing those things.

Jack charged him with crimes for communicating with his Department of Defense, for communicating with his Department of Justice official, for talking to people in his administration, put those as facts in evidence in the criminal charging document and said, this is illegal.

Well,

the Supreme Court said you can't do that, obviously.

If the Constitution says

you are allowed to do this, you have immunity for those things.

And there's this other trope that comes around that the Supreme Court gave Trump unlimited immunity to go just execute people and things like that, right?

That's never what the decision said at all.

That's obviously ridiculous.

All the Supreme Court did was bucket it into three categories.

And they said,

there is some conduct that a president engages in that is absolutely immune.

You cannot be prosecuted if you do these things.

There's a middle bucket called presumptive immunity, which means if you do it, it's not absolute, but we're just going to presume that you're immune from that thing.

And if you're not, then somebody else can prove that you're not.

Then the final category is you're not immune, right?

So if you did something, there's this story about, you know, Trump could use the Navy SEALs to take out his political opponent and stuff like that.

Probably not going to be protected conduct, right?

It's probably going to be in that other category.

So the Supreme Court made that decision.

What that did is paused.

the January 6th case that was that Jack Smith was trying to get done before the election.

And then when it came came back down from the Supreme Court, because Trump appealed it up there, it came back down.

There was no time to get it done before the election was completed.

And so Jack Smith then started to scramble and just publish huge troves of documents on the court docket.

But I agree.

People, I think, just don't care that much about it anymore.

I think that the election was a giant veto on this.

were pounding that talking point every single day in the media, insurrection, insurrection, insurrection.

And I I think people know that that is not what happened at all.

It was a four and a half hour, five hour riot.

They were back in the building voting that same night.

People who are being prosecuted didn't do anything.

Some people didn't do anything violent.

There were people who were in prison for decades.

The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, their leaders, Stuart Rhodes and Enrique Tario, these are two guys who were not even there on January 6th, not even in the vicinity, not in Washington, got arrested.

They're going to prison for 20 plus years.

Crazy.

Because they're saying that they were seditious conspirators because they were in basically telegram groups with these people.

So 1,500 plus J-6ers,

in my opinion, have been the victims of political prosecutions from the DOJ.

And there's a split right now on what's happening with that.

And I think

the just thing would happen would be for the DOJ just to recognize there's a changing of the guard coming in.

It's time for us to let up, recognize the American people don't want to see this stuff happen anymore and stop stop arresting people.

Yeah, I met one of the J6s at my event last week.

Yeah, he attended.

He said he was in prison for two years.

He said police officers were high-fiving him on the way in and out.

Wow.

Isn't that crazy?

Yeah.

And the conditions I heard in some of the holding facilities were not good.

And

what irritates me and really troubles me the most about the whole thing is that it's a double standard, right?

We have a riot that took place at the Capitol.

And I don't like the imagery that we saw on January 6th.

I don't like any of that.

But what we did see in a couple arenas, well, one,

when there were other riots that took place, when we had the Summer of Love and the BLM protest, and we had the third precinct police department in Minneapolis burned to the ground, okay, a whole police building burned to the ground.

We had billions of dollars of damage.

If you do the estimates on all the riots, it was way more than the two or three million dollars of damage that was at the Capitol.

So billions for the Summer of Love, a couple million million for the Capitol, multiple dead in the BLM riots.

One woman shot and killed, Ashley Babbitt.

We had

just a total outpouring of love for the BLM riots.

We had people saying that they didn't need to lock down, right?

Everybody was locked down except them because they were fighting for justice and COVID didn't affect you if you were fighting for justice or something.

We also had Kamala Harris was making tweets and ex-posts to bail bail people out of custody online if they got arrested for those riots.

So people were burning down buildings.

We had Tim Walls' wife was saying that she was opening up the windows and smelling the burning of her city and had this really weird clip, strange, strange behavior.

But

Kamala was bailing those people out, right?

Sending money so that they could get out of custody so they could go back on the streets.

Crazy.

Meanwhile, the J Sixers, they got incarcerated, been incarcerated for years, and judges are throwing the books at them because they were engaging in less severe conduct than some of the other people were.

And

to me,

that's our justice system enacting two different forms of justice, and it's not appropriate at all.

100%.

And even worse, the BLM stuff, a lot of it ended up being fraudulent, right?

Right.

And a lot of that money was funneled up to some of their leaders.

And I think several of them have been indicted.

Yeah.

they're just buying mansions i i donated to that isn't that crazy yeah and i'm like wow i just funded someone's mansion right they never used any of it to what they actually were saying no they didn't and

i'm hopeful that people well there are repercussions for some of them but i'm hopeful that

the

i i understand people getting caught up in a fury i understand people getting you know in a riot and protesting and those things.

And I don't think that anybody should escape

justice.

I just want justice to be equally applied across the board.

I want it to be applied fairly to the J Sixers, just like it was to the BLMers.

And if Kamala Harris is going to be bailing them out, there's no appropriate reason for them to be holding J Sixers in custody in

subpar conditions as,

in my opinion, victims of political prosecutions.

Right.

Yeah, that's a fair take.

That's how the justice system should be.

It's comforting to hear that the judges have not been compromised.

You said the one in Florida dismissed this case.

I didn't even know it got dismissed because they published that case everywhere, but they never talked about the dismissal.

Yeah, they talk about the charges and they like to rub everybody's noses in that, but once it's dismissed, they don't like to tell you about the aftermath because then it makes them look foolish for having been so hysterical about the charges in the first place.

Right.

And we'll see what happens in the January 6th case because that one is currently stalled out, but

a lot of people are talking about repercussions against these prosecutors who were involved in these prosecutions because Jack Smith, if you start calculating the numbers, he spent by his own numbers $36 million of money that came from a DOJ slush fund

that he was not even supposed to be pulling money out of.

So that's taxpayer dollars?

Taxpayer dollars.

And it's

much more than that.

It's probably $50, $60 million.

And when you think about...

that from Trump's perspective, he's got to at least match that one-to-one for his defense team.

So if Jack is spending 60 on prosecuting him, he's going to be spending 60 on defense.

But in reality, it's probably three to four times that.

He's probably spending a couple hundred million dollars of donor money to defend himself from these rigged prosecutions.

That's crazy.

And that's just in the federal cases.

He's also got.

The Alvin Bragg case, the New York case, which is that civil fraud trial, which is actually, that's the criminal fraud trial.

Was that with the bank loans or whatever?

That's with the Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen.

So there's two cases in New York.

One, the bank loans was the civil fraud trial, which was with Letitia James.

And that's where he got that judgment for half a billion dollars.

And that case is also on appeal.

And from what we saw in the Court of Appeals, it looks like Letitia James is going to lose that or that half a billion dollar judgment will be cut down dramatically,

which is great news because that case was insane.

And the Court of Appeals judges even started that.

So quick rundown on that case.

This was where

Letitia James was saying Trump was engaging in

fraudulent-ish loans.

So he would go and work with the bank and they would borrow

a billion dollars to go fund the building of a new building,

a new structure somewhere.

She said that Trump was getting two favorable loans, in other words.

He was inflating his assets getting better rates and he should have paid more rates essentially so his loans were unfair problem is nobody complained about it the bank did their due diligence it's there was no victim of the crime and in trump's financial disclosure statements right he says these are my estimates of my assets and my net worth so there's a disclaimer that says you should do your own due diligence you're a bank you can go figure it out that's not my job right and and that's perfectly acceptable to the bank that's how normal commercial business works.

The bank, you don't say, I'm worth $20 billion.

And they say, oh, great, perfect.

Here's collateral.

Here's your loan.

So Trump went through that process.

Nobody complained.

In fact, the banks did business with Trump again and again and again.

They were great.

They called him a whale of a client.

And it was fine.

So it was Letitia James digging in to try to find a crime where there was not.

a crime.

And this is a common thing.

This is something that's been a pattern in history.

I mean, Stalin's chief of police, Beria, was his name.

And he said, show me the man, I'll show you the crime, right?

I'll find you the crime.

And that's exactly what Letitia James did.

And who is she?

She's the attorney general for the state of New York.

Got it.

She ran for office saying she was going to prosecute Trump.

She won.

She prosecuted Trump.

She went and found crimes against him, hit him with a half a billion dollars.

The trial was one of the most rigged things we've ever seen.

The judge's name there was Judge Angeron,

and he had his law clerk.

There was a bunch of weird stuff going on in the trial where his law clerk was basically sitting on the bench with him and co-judging the case.

And then when Trump's lawyers complained about it, they turned the cameras around so they weren't on the record.

And basically, the judge was

being co-judged with his law clerk.

And the law clerk had a relationship with Chuck Schumer, the Democrat majority leader, was campaigning with him at some point.

So it's very, it's a very troubling court in general.

I've heard New York is the worst.

And they do not like Trump at all.

Manhattan and those jurisdictions, they go 80, 80% for Democrats every time.

So when those cases are brought forward,

that case never went to a jury.

That was just a judge.

Judge Angeron, who had a long history of hating Trump, issued a half a billion dollar judgment.

Although I think that one's going to get

leave, like, how is that even allowed, though?

Like, if, if they know there's some bias, bias, you know,

it's the judge.

The judge says, I'm not biased.

Trump files to recuse, it goes up to the court of appeals in New York.

The court of appeal says we're fine with it, and they just let it happen.

Wow, yeah, New York's a very difficult jurisdiction for Trump.

That's crazy, and there's been more there.

They, New York is so bad that they actually, you also heard about maybe the E.

Jean Carroll case.

You hear a lot of people on the left call Trump an abuser or a grapist, right?

Or something like that.

And

that was based on this Eugene Carroll case.

This was a woman who claims that 20, maybe 25, 30 years ago in the 90s, so about 30 years ago, I believe 94, 95, her dates were wrong.

She said that Trump attacked her in a dressing room at a Bergdorf's, which was an old department store in New York City, about 20, 30 years ago.

And

her claim was that he R'd her in the dressing room,

Made the claim.

There's no evidence.

There's no

video footage.

There's no witnesses.

There's no contemporaneous police report.

She didn't report it at all.

Nothing happened.

Trump runs for president.

New York passed a law.

So this is a wild situation.

But this woman, E.

Gene Carroll, met with a guy called George Conway.

who is a big anti-Trumper,

and they created an introduction to another lawyer called Roberta Kaplan.

This team, this cabal of people, used E.

Jean Carroll, which, who in my opinion is not a well person.

Okay.

She names her cat like vagina.

She has trees

in her forest that are painted blue.

You walk out, there's bright blue trees all over the place.

Strange person has accused a bunch of other people of graping everybody, wrote in her book

a lot of stuff about it, was talking with Anderson Cooper.

She said that

being graped is sexy, kind of stuff like that.

So, just kind of a

not a well person.

So, she gets in, in my opinion, so she gets involved in this cabal of people.

And in New York, they literally passed a law.

So, they wrote a bill.

They passed a law called the Adult Survivors Abuse Act.

And what it did is it created a one-year window that allowed you to file civil claims against somebody for old sexual assault claims.

We have a thing in the law called the statute of limitations, right?

You can't just bring claims 50 years down the road.

There's a time.

If you get attacked by somebody, you got to report that because evidence expires, it spoils, right?

We want you to go see a doctor and get a swab and get the evidence.

You can't just bring claims 30 years later, right?

Even if you get a DUI or something like that, the police better charge you within one year, otherwise

it's expired.

So what New York did is they they created a law specifically for Trump called the Adult Survivors Abuse Act.

So this this woman, her lawyer, and George Conway, they lobbied the New York legislature, passed the law.

It created a claim for her so she could file Trump against Trump from 30 years ago.

Wow.

Okay.

And created this, brought the claim in New York.

Trump, that ended up going to a jury trial.

It was an insane trial.

Trump's people couldn't get any evidence about this woman in front of the jury.

Couldn't talk about her vagina cat, couldn't talk about her blue trees, couldn't talk about any of her other totally disproven claims against other people, other big name celebrities.

None of that was allowed in.

And they brought in evidence

from her, and it was basically her statement and some phone calls that she made to friends in the aftermath.

So basically no evidence.

And it's a civil case.

It's not a criminal case.

So it's just a civil lawsuit.

a criminal case, you'd have due process problems.

You can't create a law to charge somebody with a crime after the fact.

Got it.

Can't do that.

But they did it civilly.

So that's how they got this one through.

Wow.

Then in that trial,

the jury came back and there were two charges in that trial.

One was, you know, we the jury find President Trump either guilty or not guilty of the R.

The other would be the assault.

So two different counts, right?

One, did Trump R her, which would be, you know, the physical.

Yeah.

The other would be, was it just like a digital penetration?

So the jury came back and found that Trump is not

liable.

It's not a criminal case, so it's not guilty.

It's not liable, not responsible for the R.

So did not actually R her, but then found liability on the second one, which was the assault.

So that's just like, you know, the grab them by the purse kind of comment,

which the jury, so in my opinion, the jury was giving her

a victory, even though they did not believe her.

Okay.

She came in and said that Trump R'd me.

And the jury said, no, he didn't.

Found, no, he did not.

Now, the judge came back then.

This is the judge's name, Kaplan II, no relation to the attorney, even though they have the same last name.

But he came out and said that digital penetration is analogous to an R, so it counts.

So you can can say that Trump R'd this woman, and he wrote an opinion about that, and so then everybody in the media took that and ran with it.

Wow.

But it was a created

charge from a New York statute that the victim alleged herself wrote with her attorney.

Then they passed it, prosecuted him.

New York jury found him responsible for that one.

And

that's that case.

Now, I think that is also going to be appealed.

I think that there's immunity issues in that one because it started that emerged from a defamation case, really.

Yeah.

Because Trump said, I never did that to her.

He said, I never did that.

She said, yes, you did.

So she sued him for defamation and created a claim there.

Oh, my gosh.

Trump just made a defamation claim against all the media outlets yesterday, right?

He has.

He sued.

He sued the media a couple of times.

None of them have been very successful.

I wonder why.

Because it's clearly that they're favoring one way.

They are.

Our First Amendment gives the media companies a lot of freedom.

And in order for them to be defamatory, they've got to have actual malice.

You've got to prove that there's some actual intentional malice.

And Trump is such a public figure that they get a lot of protections.

Interesting.

Yeah.

Now, Trump has also sued CBS and other entities for essentially election interference.

They did the

splicing of that Kamala interview on 60 Minutes.

Right.

I saw that.

She came on and answered about Israel and the Gaza situation, and CBS swapped her answers out, essentially.

Yep.

So Trump sued and said that that was an in-kind campaign contribution and that they should not be doing that.

That one looks pretty convincing to me.

That one is completely dishonest.

And I think that there should be something

done about the media companies openly lying on behalf of

Fox News got sued after the election, right?

After 2020?

Yeah.

And they lost that one.

The Dominion.

Yeah, Dominion.

Lawsuit.

That was a big one.

Huge one.

Biggest settlement ever at the time or something, right?

I believe that's right.

$787 billion, something in that ballpark.

Crazy.

Yep.

Which is a whole nother issue.

There's been

the election has gone in favor of Trump, but

there were some interesting things with Dominion over this last election.

Jocelyn Benson, the Michigan Secretary of State, said before the election that there were some problems with a software configuration that was being used for

people with disabilities voting on those machines.

There were problems with those, and that was a national problem, which she alerted us to.

And then there was another situation right before the election in Colorado where

all the passwords for the BIOS of the machines were leaked by the Colorado Secretary of State called Jenna Griswold.

What?

Posted all the passwords to the machines on the internet.

Why?

Didn't intend to do it.

It was in a hidden Excel spreadsheet file.

So they post lists of election information in an Excel spreadsheet.

And in something they posted, they hid it.

Somebody found it and it was all the literal BIOS machine passwords or the voting machines.

Then they covered it up.

So she came out and said that there was no consequence to that because

it...

the machines require two passwords to turn your keys.

And she said, then they're all locked down and they're all secure.

So there's no way anybody could have compromised the machines but i think the bigger concern was the cover-up and what was also interesting is that the republicans started to lodge their complaints they said wait a minute your machines are now vulnerable this is in colorado before the days before the election the colorado governor then deployed he called them air assets so they deployed a whole team of people to all of the machines in Colorado and updated the BIOS passwords days before the election.

That's a problem because the machines are supposed to be certified, sealed, delivered, and used.

You should not be going into them and manipulating them.

Before they put them into service, they create a trusted build.

All the settings are finalized.

Nobody's changing anything.

Nobody's adjusting the tubes, the knobs, or anything.

Put them into service.

So just days before the election, she sent and the governor sent an entire team of people to update all the machines.

And then

they basically covered it up.

They didn't tell anybody about it.

The public had to bust them.

And then they finally started to respond to it.

So the election systems are not nearly as secure as they say they are.

They like to fake that they are.

And

I'm hopeful that

there is

an investigation into these mistakes because I don't want bad elections anywhere.

I mean, that was my next question for you because there was 15 million less votes this election.

So do you think Trump's going to continue challenging the 2020 election?

I think that Trump is right to

flag it.

I don't know that he'll make it a centerpiece of this next administration.

You know, I think he'll constantly reference it and refer to it.

But I think that he's probably future focused on these next four years and not as interested in re-litigating that.

I think

the observation is an interesting one.

that this cycle, there are a lot more votes,

a lot less votes than there were in 2020.

And the numbers are closing a bit.

I know that California is still counting their

total votes.

So that number might shrink a bit.

But people are asking the question about the votes, because I think rough numbers, right?

If you go back through them, Obama got 60-something million.

Clinton got 60-something million.

Then Biden would have gotten 81 million.

So we're in the 60, 60, 80.

Then we're back down into the 60 range, even if it is 69 or whatever the number turns out to be.

So what happened there?

Where did all those votes come from?

And

we covered the 2020 elections.

We saw a lot of very strange things happening then.

I'm of the opinion that the election was rigged and that our government was responsible for it.

It happened in multiple different ways.

And we were watching for it again this cycle.

Yeah.

Watching to see if they were going to do it.

Did you see anything this time around?

We did.

Yeah, we did.

We saw a lot of attempts and a lot more litigation from the Republicans to stop it.

Philadelphia, right?

Philadelphia, the big ones, well, I mean, the biggest one was they tried to throw Trump off the ballot, right?

If you remember that.

So in Colorado,

he was off the ballot there, and then Maine was following suit and Michigan would have followed suit.

But the Supreme Court came back 9-0 and said, that's insane.

You guys can't do that.

So they put him back on the ballot.

But that was, you know.

The most obvious form of cheating is to just disqualify your opponent.

They did that to RFK, though.

They did that to RFK.

Yeah.

And they beat up Bernie Sanders, too.

I mean, they do it to everybody.

Those guys didn't have the money to fight it or the influence to fight it.

Exactly right.

Right.

And they tried to put Trump in jail.

They tried to take away all his money.

They tried to kick him off the ballot.

So I don't know how else you can weaponize the justice system or the levers of power than those three things.

I mean, it's pretty egregious.

Yeah, if he didn't have the money to fight it, I mean, most people would have just given up.

Right.

And the people.

And the people were behind him, too.

He had support no matter what, right?

People kept seeing these indictments.

And I think that they were thinking the indictments would shake off his support.

Oh, he's a convicted felon, which is kind of a misnomer, right?

And he's got 94 charges.

They kept using big numbers, like this is this big scare tactic.

But I think the people saw through it, and

he's fortunate that he has that support, right?

I think we're all fortunate because I can't imagine anybody else who could weather what he went through.

And by him weathering that, we get to see really the rot that's in our justice system and how perverted all of these components are.

And we don't want that in our country.

And I think people spoke

pretty resoundingly.

I couldn't believe some states didn't require ID.

I thought that was a rumor, but and then you see that chart where all the states she won didn't require it.

Yep.

It's like, what the hell is going on?

Yep.

And they do very sneaky things with that, too.

So there's

a lot of sneaky things.

One thing that Jocelyn Benson, she's the Secretary of State in Michigan, that she tried to do this last cycle, but was stopped twice on this.

And she's the referee, okay?

She's the scorekeeper for the elections.

The Secretary of State in all the states, they should be nonpartisan and above the political fray.

She hates Trump and has done campaign appearances with Hillary and all sorts of stuff.

She,

the way it works in the states, there are laws, right?

We pass laws, the legislature writes laws.

From there, the election officials will create a manual to interpret the laws.

Let's say you're an election worker, you're working there, accounting ballots or whatever.

They're going to give you a manual and some training.

So when you see these envelopes come across your desk, what do you do?

Well, you open up the manual and you follow the instructions.

One of the instructions from Jocelyn this last cycle was when you're checking signatures to consider them to be presumptively valid.

Okay, so when the signature comes across, you presume it's valid.

If the name matches the thing, just presume it's valid.

What does that mean ultimately?

Doesn't mean, it means you're not checking anything.

Okay, if it's presumptively valid, if you're presuming that it's legitimate, then you don't check.

So she put that in the manual,

and the Republicans sued and said it's not presumptively valid.

You have to check to make sure it's valid.

And they won that.

Then she changed it again.

She came back and said initial presumption of validity, saying, we'll check it later.

Republicans sued again,

tried and won, right?

So she was not allowed to do those.

But those are the types of things that they were trying to do and got stopped on this time.

The other things that they did have success on was in various states, they're called Yuokava ballots, Uniform Overseas and Service Members Voting Act, right?

So if you're overseas, you're not living in the state.

We want residents of states to vote in state elections, but you're serving the military, you're overseas.

And that sounds like it's a great thing for the military and our overseas service members.

But the problem is the law is so broad, it's also overseas Americans and any of their essentially dependents and spouses and kind of whomever else wants to be in that list of people.

So what a bunch of states were doing is saying, and not through laws, okay, so the legislature and the Congress of the state are not making these changes.

These are the election officials who are making these changes.

And they're saying, they did this in Pennsylvania.

When you're overseas and you fill out your form to vote, you're supposed to put in your social or your driver's license number.

One of those numbers can be validated.

The state is either supposed to check your citizenship and residency status or the feds are through your social.

The manual says when those numbers come in, if they do not match,

that is not a basis for excluding that ballot.

Whoa.

Okay.

In their rules.

And they passed those those rules and a lot of those got held.

So you could just write whatever you want.

Write whatever numbers you want.

So they're not checking.

They're not actually checking the lists.

And they say that federal law gives them the right to do that because they can't disenfranchise a voter based on something like this.

Like their argument is the right to vote supersedes the right to

validate.

Wow.

There's a fight right now.

It's happening in Pennsylvania.

There's still one Senate seat that's outstanding.

They're doing a recount.

It's going to take several weeks, maybe a month to do.

30,000 vote different.

The Republican is leading right now.

The Democrats are fighting.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said multiple times, if a ballot comes in and it doesn't have a date on it, it's an undated or a misdated mail-in ballot, it cannot count.

Makes sense.

Because you don't want the election to be over and a bunch of ballots to come in and you don't know when they were dated, right?

Because you can deliver a bunch of undated ballots after after the fact, theoretically.

What they want, and the Democratic Party is fighting for this, is to count those ballots.

And they are counting them.

And they're saying, you have to sue us to stop us from counting those ballots.

And it's happening right now in Pennsylvania.

The Republican Party just announced two new lawsuits there.

So it's always fighting for these things around the margins.

It's out-of-state ballots, it's signatures, it's registration requirements.

During COVID, we saw in Wisconsin, you could register to vote online and you didn't have to submit any ID.

All you had to do was just check a box.

So you could create a fake registration, essentially, and as many as you want and get ballots.

And there's no validation.

This is the other part of the problem.

There are laws that say that the states need to reconcile their lists with the federal lists, but they're not doing it.

The federal lists are not, they're not giving access to the states.

So Homeland Security and others, they'll just give the most basic rudimentary list

to the states.

and the states are supposed to check their lists of their voters against the federalists, and they're just not allowed to do it.

So our voter rolls are very problematic.

Elon Musk called out Michigan's voter rolls, said that there are more voters,

more registered voters than there are citizens who can vote.

And

the Secretary of State is confirming that, essentially, saying that they're going to be purging a bunch of voters, but they have to do it after the next two election cycles because of the law.

So it's a mess.

The election system is very, very messy.

And we covered dozens of lawsuits in the election leading up to the election, but there were hundreds of them that we couldn't even get to

in every single state.

Despite all that, you still won all this.

Still one.

Too big to rig, I think, was the margin.

In 2020, it was very narrow.

Okay, Arizona was like 11,000 votes.

Georgia was 11,000.

Wisconsin, I think, was 12,000.

So very narrow.

And that,

in my opinion, enables the fraud.

Yeah.

When you have such a close gap,

you can make the difference with 10,000 Yuacava ballots.

100%.

Or 5,000.

And you stack them up.

5,000 registrations, 5,000 Yuacavas, 5,000 signatures, dead people.

There's a lot of dead people voting, right?

Yeah, 2020.

And you bundle them up.

Dead people voting, dead people

making donations.

Act Blue is a

super fundraising platform for Democrats.

And they have all these fake profiles of people who are making hundreds of thousands of donations, like $7.

I remember when $5, $6.

James O'Keefe exposed this.

The people donating didn't even know they were donating.

Right.

That was crazy.

He was showing up to their houses like, what the hell?

Right.

And a Republican person

had his name just listed on one of those and he's suing them.

Crazy.

So he's now one of those people who had his name.

It was actually a fake name that he used.

They created a company and made tons of donos on this fake name.

Nuts.

I got to ask about Carrie Lake since we're in Arizona.

I was shocked she lost this time.

Yeah, it's a bummer.

I think that Arizona

will not be well served, would be more well served if we had her in some sort of leadership position.

And it's a bummer that that doesn't look like it's going to happen this cycle.

I don't have a good explanation for it.

I think people are asking a lot of questions about the data.

They're saying that

Gallego, who she lost to, presumably, she put out a video

that was kind of a concession video, but not really a concession video.

Just said, we're going to be working together in the future and we'll see where this goes.

Right now, the vote margin, I think, is nothing that she can close.

I think even a recount would be tight because it's 70,000 votes.

Now,

it's interesting because Trump obviously won Arizona.

Carrie Lake did not.

But Gallego, the person that she lost to, got more votes than Kamala did.

So don't know exactly if...

Has that ever happened before?

I've never heard of that.

I don't know.

Yeah.

It's interesting because why would you not vote for the top of the ticket?

Yeah.

Usually the senator gets way less votes than the president.

Yeah, the top of the ticket, a bunch of people are voting for Gallego, but not for Kamala.

Plus, Carrie had so much traction from the last time she ran, and there was that whole case of what was it rigged or whatever.

She did, man.

And she was put in a really bad spot here in Arizona by the national republican leadership the republican senate campaign committee didn't donate anything to her as far as i know not a dollar that's weird they spent millions in tons they have huge buckets of cash and they spent millions on other senators and other losing races but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who's retiring now and who's going to be replaced by jon thun

didn't like Carrie Lake for whatever reason.

And he always made these snide comments like, the quality of the candidates matter.

And we're like, well, who are you talking about?

Which candidates are the bad candidates?

And then Carrie Lake didn't get any money at all.

And she could have used a lot.

She definitely could have.

Gallego here.

She probably would have won if she had more funding.

And the Democrats in Arizona, man, we had abortion ads 24-7

on all the media everywhere constantly.

Abortion, abortion, abortion.

And those win the woman vote.

Yeah.

And so maybe that's, maybe that's why

the vote numbers were what they are, but it's a bummer.

We'll see what the next status is.

Some people are wondering if she'll make it into the Trump administration, if she'll get a nod in some role or something, ambassador or something like that.

Yeah, we'll see what happens.

Last case before we wrap up, I know you've been covering the Diddy stuff pretty extensively.

Do you think he will ever walk around again?

That is a good question.

He has been trying very hard.

He's filed multiple, I don't know, five, six maybe motions to get out of custody.

They're not letting him out.

And he's offered tons of money.

Everything.

His house.

Everything.

Passports, family.

He's probably offered to snitch at this point.

Everything.

Everything that we can see, it's like everything the guy has, and they're not letting him out.

Damn.

And there's talk that more charges will be coming down the pike.

And I'm curious to see what those are because the charges that he's currently charged with, based on some of the evidence that we've seen,

don't to me seem that serious.

Like they're serious.

Anytime you're trafficking a human, it's a serious thing, right?

Human trafficking is a serious crime.

But the way they're framing this is that he basically brought adult prostitutes on an airplane to travel around the country.

Their defense is that these were models who were not prostitutes at all.

If they showed up and they engaged in whatever, that's their personal prerogative.

But that's not trafficking.

But if Diddy did that, I mean, how much of Congress is doing that?

How much of Hollywood is doing that?

Flying these

models around?

That's what this is all about.

And the reason they charged him with that is because it's a non-bondable offense.

You cannot get out of custody.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

So it's trafficking a person across state lines since it's sex trafficking.

You cannot get out.

That's what they got taped with, too.

In Romania.

Yeah, trafficking, right?

Is that right?

Yeah, I think that's right.

That is right.

It's harder to get the Romanian court documents.

Yeah, but

yeah, the Diddy stuff,

they want him in custody.

The court is not entertaining it at all.

We also covered the Epstein case and the Galen Maxwell case.

And same with her.

They would not let her out.

She promised everything under the sun.

And I think there's probably a reason for that.

It seems like he pissed off the wrong person, honestly.

Something happened.

I don't know.

There's a lot of rumors that people who were at the Diddy parties all suddenly started to come out and endorse Kamala.

I saw Usher come out.

And

I think J-Lo, right, who's Diddy's ex-girlfriend, came out.

And a bunch of other people

all of a sudden, hey, we love Kamal all of a sudden.

So don't know if it was

when I think about these things, I don't think that Epstein,

I'm sure, you know, clearly a bad guy,

but much worse than I think we know.

Right.

Right.

They just tell us, it's a limited hangout.

So they tell us these little bits of things that give them enough plausibility to make the arrest and hold them in custody, but we don't know the full depth of it.

And that is a troubling component to this.

I mean, Delinne Maxwell was the number two for Jeffrey Epstein, and she's the only person who's in prison who was connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein's dead.

They didn't prosecute any of the people who used his services or anybody who's flying to the island.

And there's a ton of people who were doing that.

So

what was Diddy?

And I think Diddy was just a parallel to Epstein.

Epstein was the honeypot for academia, the tech bros, and big money, and for politicians.

Diddy is the honeypot for

pop culture, movies, Hollywood, celebrities.

And so we know that the Epstein case was very problematic.

And I think Diddy is Epstein on steroids.

Really?

That's an interesting take because I just saw a Sugar Knight on Michael Franzise's podcast two days ago.

He said, I don't know how much he knows, but he said Diddy's just a pawn.

I think that's probably right.

So there could be a bigger game out here.

I think Diddy is probably

beholden to intelligence in some way, shape, or form.

He has to be.

For him to do that that long with no repercussions.

Exactly right.

People are saying he was part of the intelligence.

Exactly.

He was protected.

So somebody is just cashing that in.

For what reason, we don't really know.

Either it's a sword so that they can go get something from him that they could use against other people, right?

To use offensively to get other people to comply.

It's a shield because Diddy was...

in possession of something that they didn't want him to be in possession of anymore and he was not cooperating.

So they had to cash that out.

Yeah, who knows?

There's a lot of different explanations for it.

But when we were covering the Diddy trial, he had, I'm sorry, the Epstein trial and really Epstein was dead.

So they went after Galen,

allegedly dead.

So then they went after Galen

and prosecuted her.

And we got photos of inside.

We got, you know, descriptions of he had four different properties.

They didn't get into details about cameras and recordings and all of that, but

you could could see through the big blocks of redactions, all the files, redacted, redacted, redacted.

Huge black pieces of paper.

You can't read through it.

But what you could read, you know,

there's much more going on.

It's not just a sex pervert and, you know, some friends.

It's an operation.

There's a whole operation there.

So Diddy is, I think, another

example of that.

Yeah.

What determines if it's redacted or not?

Is that the lawyers?

Yeah, a lot of reasons.

They always come up.

A lot of them are personal privacy reasons, especially in these sex cases.

They say that they're victims and privacy interests of the witnesses, right?

Even if you're just named in there, even if you did nothing wrong, you're like, I had lunch with Jeffrey Epstein and you're in the court documents, like, oh, great.

So they want to protect that person's privacy.

Victims get a ton of privacy rights.

So don't even use their names and stuff like that.

So they redact that.

Now,

my opinion is those are the fake excuses to redact a lot of the rest of the materials.

Right.

You know, the

black book, and there's a bunch of other lists of people who they want to protect.

You think Trump's going to actually release it?

That would cause chaos, I think.

I hope so.

I hope he does.

I hope there's a full cleaning house.

I want to see the JFK files.

I want to see the J6 files.

I want to know why they deleted their text messages on J6.

Who did?

The Secret Service.

Oh, they did?

Wow.

They have no audio recordings from the assassination attempt.

The Secret Service has nothing there.

We know that there were, the government admitted that there were eight confidential human sources in the crowd on January 6th.

Eight that they admitted in the Proud Boys trial.

There were five Proud Boys defendants.

There were eight confidential sources that they admitted in that case.

Okay, so in one criminal trial that sent those guys to prison for decades, more informants than defendants in that one.

And the defendants, defense team, they identified 50 people that were government sources or government informants, but the court would not let them come in because they were from a different agency.

They were from HSI, which is Homeland Security Investigations.

And the prosecution didn't need them.

to make their case.

The government just said, that's not our evidence.

We're not even using that evidence.

So it's not relevant.

So we only need the FBI team.

There were eight informants, more than the Proud Boys, plus 50 other people.

So my point is that the J6ers were very likely outnumbered by federal operators in many ways,

in many of these cases, like the Proud Boys case specifically.

And I'd like to know the numbers of those informants, who they were, who was behind all of that.

That's crazy.

They were out there.

They got to the bottom of it.

Holy crap.

So it was all planned then, if that's the case, if they were outnumbered.

I think it was planned.

I think it was coordinated.

I think that there's evidence for that.

Trump created,

Trump had multiple conversations before January 6th.

He talked to acting Secretary of Defense Miller and Mark Milley.

These were two guys who were responsible for the DOD, for securing Washington.

And they

asked,

Trump ordered them to take care of it.

They said, we'll take care of it.

Trump also sent a request to the mayor of Washington, D.C., her name is Muriel Bowser, sent her a request to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops around the Capitol.

At the time, the Democrats were flipping out about that.

They said, Trump's going to take over the Capitol.

We can't let him put National Guard up.

So Mayor Muriel Bowser refused it in writing, in a letter, sent back, said, we don't need your help.

We've got everything secure.

Leave us alone.

So

that's their jurisdiction.

It's Congress.

It's not, we have a separate but equal government, co-equal branches.

They were responsible for their own security.

And if you read the Capitol Hill Chief of Police, they have their own police department at the Capitol.

If you read his book, it's called Courage Under Fire.

His name is Stephen Sund.

He explains in detail that he made multiple requests for support from the National Guard and from the DOD.

And they refused to send it when he requested it, but they did send it to their houses.

He talks about it in the book.

He says, they can respond because all the DOD officials sent people to protect themselves, but not to protect the Capitol.

And he was waiting for hours making phone call after phone call because they wanted this to happen.

Wow.

They used this to impeach Trump the second time.

They needed to keep something over his head.

with the impeachment so that they could control him on the way out because there were concerns that he was going to release a bunch of of files.

He was going to declassify all the Epstein stuff, declassify

JFK stuff, right?

Maybe pardon Edward Snowden, maybe pardon Julian Assange.

All of these things were about to happen.

So they created this to try to impeach him again and to try to stop him from ever winning.

That's crazy.

And they failed.

Yeah, the JFK stuff I saw, I think on Rogan, he said he didn't release that because there were still people alive involved.

Which is a scary thought.

That is scary.

And there's no.

It's been a while.

It has been.

And there's no accountability on that.

If they're alive

and they were not involved,

why can't we know about it?

Right.

If they were alive and they have some role in it, if they were complicit in it or they know something that's nefarious, that's why you'd have to protect them.

That makes me think it's CIA or some government internal thing, to be honest.

I think that that's probably right.

And I think RFK Jr.

has hinted that way, too.

Yeah.

Hopefully he doesn't, man.

Well, Robert, it's an awesome work to people watching this.

Keep up with you.

We're on YouTube.

Yeah, if you search my name, Robert Covea, you'll find us there.

The name of the show is called Watching the Watchers.

We live stream five days a week, 3 p.m.

Arizona time,

5 p.m.

Eastern time.

We'd love to see you.

Perfect.

Thanks for coming on, man.

Thanks for having me.

Yep.

Peace, guys.