Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 21, 2024 - The David Knight Show

03:01:02

The David Knight Show - 02/21/2024

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You
	Using free speech to free minds.
	You're listening to The David Night Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 21st of February.
	Year of our Lord, 2024.
	Well, today, the hearings, the final hearings, this is the second day of hearings about Julian Assange, is going to be conducted.
	It is absolutely amazing the media blackout that is happening with the mainstream media.
	And so we're going to begin by talking about that, and we're going to finish today by talking about that.
	We're going to have Marty Gottesfeld on, because if, as it looks, this whole thing has been set up to extradite Julian Assange, they will be putting him in a communications management unit.
	And there are now several of these in the United States.
	Think of them as domestic Gitmos.
	Where they can manage your communications.
	Where they can store dissidents so they can't communicate with people on the outside.
	And that's exactly what they did to Marty Gottesville.
	So we're going to begin with that.
	We have a lot of interesting updates to political news as well.
	When you look at this massive judgment of about a half a billion dollars against Trump, it's far worse than just the corrupt legal system there.
	It's all based on a very bad law.
	Maybe Trump should have focused on state politics.
	We'll be right back. Well, we have, as the Julian Assange trial hits, we have a lot of people who have shown up from all over the world for several days.
	Take a look at the big crowd here.
	You'll see this kind of stuff on social media right now.
	Right now it is not being censored, so you'll find it on Twitter, at least.
	Maybe not on other social media platforms, but it is completely being censored in the press, all over the Western press, especially in America.
	And we'll talk about the absolute blackout of this, which is truly amazing because this is the most consequential trial about freedom of the press that has happened in our lifetime, and is likely to happen in our lifetime.
	Noisy protest outside yesterday.
	The Royal Courts of Justice.
	You can put that in air quotes like it is here with our Department of Justice.
	Protesters from around the world have gathered to demand the release of Julian Assange, who said in 2011 that almost all wars of the last 50 years have been started by media lies.
	Yeah. By the way, who needs a communications management unit prison?
	When you got the news being controlled by the mainstream media.
	And this is why it's becoming ever more essential for them.
	To ramp up their programs of censorship and surveillance.
	To bring in anticipatory intelligence.
	To bring in the CCPA, the Coalition for Content, Providence, and Authentication.
	That I've talked about so many times.
	To be able to stop you if you are identified by these same people.
	These same mainstream media groups.
	We'll be working, it's a coalition put together by DARPA and Microsoft, to have mainstream media identify you as somebody who is not part of the narrative.
	And then they can, and opposing the narrative.
	And after you're a marked person, then Microsoft will work with the CPU providers, Intel, ARM, and with the application generating software from people like Adobe to prevent you from creating this stuff, perhaps. Maybe it'll stop you from uploading, but I think it'll be there to stop you from creating it.
	And so...
	They've already put this together. It's being funded by the same people who created the internet, who created social media.
	That is the intelligence agencies.
	They want to control the information everywhere.
	Your active reports, major media organizations, press advocates in the Australian Parliament are among those decrying Assange's prosecution.
	Well, I haven't really seen any major media organizations opposing this, really.
	You got some of the big con, some of the big conservatives.
	We'll talk about it. But not only kind of tangentially, because, see, the problem is their guy's part of this as well.
	It's just like the pandemic.
	They can only go so far.
	You know, they say, well, you know, Julian Assange, he gave us some good information about Hillary, and that's what Trump said.
	But then when push comes to shove, they don't want to talk about the fact that this began under Trump and, you know, continued by Biden.
	Just like the pandemic. They hate the pandemic.
	They hate the jab. But they don't want to draw those dots to Trump.
	So you kind of tread lightly there.
	Assange has been held without charge since 2019 at the maximum security Belmarsh prison.
	But he's been under custody for 12, 14 years.
	After spending seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
	So it's about 12 years.
	He was arrested in the embassy in April of 2019 when Ecuador suddenly revoked his political asylum after they had a change in presidents in that country.
	Assange, 47 years old, was being held on behalf of U.S. authorities as well as for breaching his original bail conditions, said the U.K. police.
	Oh, really? Okay.
	Being held on behalf of U.S. authorities.
	So, if the five I's, if one of the five I's, the big I, tells another I to hold somebody, then they can hold them.
	Just forget about any due process, right?
	We take the dissenter and we do the due process later.
	It's just that simple. It's like the guns or anything else.
	Yeah, due process. Well, someday we might get around to it.
	Now, he has been held there.
	He's not been charged with any other criminal offense other than he breached his original bail conditions.
	Does that put you in solitary confinement for five years?
	Put you in an Ecuadorian embassy for longer than that?
	So there's been no actual charges brought even on that.
	They haven't had a trial.
	He hasn't had a conviction.
	Assange was arrested. Inside the Ecuadorian embassy in May of 2019, the U.S. indictment against him was unsealed, revealing a single charge of conspiracy.
	These people are conspiracy theorists.
	They charge everybody with conspiracy.
	Isn't it interesting? Everybody's guilty of conspiracy, except when you say they are conspiring to do something.
	Now, was this a conspiracy?
	Of course it was. It was a conspiracy between the CIA and the British intelligence to come after him.
	And they evolved other NATO countries as well.
	It was a big conspiracy to commit a crime against fundamental values of free speech and free press.
	The conspiracy, they said, was to commit computer intrusion.
	This is the way that they escaped the Pentagon Papers issue.
	Remember the Pentagon Papers?
	You had Daniel Ellsberg, who recently passed away.
	He got some Pentagon Papers information.
	About the fraud of the Vietnam War.
	He released it to the Washington Post and New York Times.
	Steven Spielberg made a movie about what heroes the people at the Washington Post and New York Times were when they defied the government's demands that they not publish this and they published it anyway.
	And there was a court case, and the court case decided that if you are given this information by somebody, then you can print it.
	That's what Freedom of the Press is about.
	And so the New York Times and the Washington Post were protected under that.
	Daniel Ellsberg, however, could be tried because he was the one who stole it.
	Now they had a technicality that got Ellsberg off.
	Perhaps this whole thing was a part of an establishment move against the Vietnam War to make sure that he got off.
	Nevertheless, the finding, which is consistent with free press and free speech, is that if you didn't steal it, somebody hands you something, you should be able to speak about it.
	Otherwise there is no free speech.
	And so what they did with Julian Assange was they tried to pretend that he was active in terms of obtaining these documents.
	And you notice they don't charge him with actual computer intrusion.
	They charge him with a conspiracy to do that.
	Well, I would certainly like to have information, if anybody's got it, about the crimes that are being done by our government.
	You say that? Well, you are part of a conspiracy to get those papers.
	That's the nonsense that this whole thing hinges on.
	Now, they've subsequently added additional charges.
	Because after they extradite him, legally, technically, they cannot add more charges.
	So they've added more charges.
	They're looking at keeping him in jail for 175 years.
	And we'll talk about the kind of horrific conditions that people who are dissidents, like Marty Gottesfeld, being persecuted by a major corporation, Harvard.
	Harvard Medical, the hospital there.
	Or somebody like Schaefer Cox.
	Who is a political dissident who's being kept in one of these communication management units.
	Think about that. This is a recent development, these CMUs.
	And they've now, I think, gone from...
	He was in the first one, which is in Indiana.
	I think they've now gone to like three.
	We'll talk to Marty about it, though.
	But when you go back and look at the Pentagon Papers movie, like I said, back in 2017, which was at this point in time, Julian Assange had been essentially...
	Under arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy.
	And so Steven Spielberg does this movie to show how wonderful the mainstream press is.
	The mainstream press that doesn't fight for Julian Assange's release.
	They had Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep in this Steven Spielberg movie.
	What heroes.
	What courageousness.
	And yet, silence about Julian Assange.
	And of course, what it was doing was it was getting, you know, you can trust the Washington Post and the New York Times because they're so honest.
	You know, when you look at this, Caitlin Johnstone had, I think I forgot to print this out, but she had a tweet I saw this morning.
	I retweeted it. And she said, okay, so these people are saying that because this was done by two presidents, that means that there's nothing partisan here about it.
	This is not political. He's a criminal, and he needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.
	She says, do you really think?
	That these people are acting on their own?
	You don't understand that this is part of the American empire?
	Do you not understand who the real government is?
	The real government? The CIA? You know, other than Tucker Carlson's fantastic revelation last week of something that all of us have been talking about for decades, everybody in the world understands that, unless you are completely living in that little mainstream media bubble that Tucker Carlson thinks you're living in.
	So, why did Assange take refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy?
	Well, he did it to avoid a charge of rape in Sweden, which has quietly dropped in 2019 following a review of the evidence.
	They didn't want to have a trial for that.
	They didn't want to have a trial for him doing anything.
	You take the person, you do the punishment, and maybe you do the trial later.
	Maybe. Who knows? The British government...
	Passed a new National Security Act this last December.
	Very expansive.
	And in it, when they were debating this law, they expressly mentioned Assange's data dumps through WikiLeaks as a major reason for criminalizing investigative journalism pertaining to issues of national security.
	Under this act, journalists from, quote, non-accredited sources, unquote, Oh, I mean, I don't have a license to speak from Nancy Pelosi or her ilk?
	This is something they've been looking at for quite some time, of course.
	And we had, during the Obama administration, they had the FCC go around and interview people in newsrooms, television, radio, and things like that.
	How do you put together the news?
	It's like, listen to your business.
	And this is not...
	First of all, the FCC was set up to allocate radio frequency spectrums and TV spectrums.
	And so this is a public good.
	This is something that crosses state lines.
	And so, you know, they set up the FCC to hold lotteries and to sell off these different frequencies, different spectrums.
	And that's it.
	That's it. But as any self-respecting bureaucracy does, they're always looking at ways to expand their mission.
	Mission creep. And these creeps expanding their mission decided they wanted to get into content, and they've been increasingly moving in that direction.
	And so in the UK, and part of that was to say, well...
	What's the difference between real media and other people?
	Well, frankly, I don't really care, first of all.
	The First Amendment protects the press and also protects the speech of any individual.
	So what? I don't care if you recognize me as the press or not.
	Just look at me as an individual who has equal rights to speak freely.
	And so, non-accredited sources in the UK? Oh, you're not a licensed journalist.
	Or maybe you're not somebody that has been bought out either by money or by delivering access.
	You know, Tucker Carlson has talked about Julian Assange in the past, but not to the people who matter.
	You had Candace Owen asked Trump about Julian Assange.
	The only one. The only one who would ask him about it.
	She didn't press him when he kind of wiggled around out of it.
	Well, I'm not going to say who this is.
	I didn't pardon Snowden.
	I didn't pardon Assange.
	One of them is kind of a spy thing or something, and the other one isn't.
	I'm not going to say which one is and which one isn't, but I had a bad feeling about it a little bit.
	Why did you have a bad feeling about it?
	Just this wishy-washy answer.
	It was about him. But he wasn't even asked that about Tucker.
	Tucker used Trump in his big interview with the first debate.
	Look, it's all about maintaining access.
	That's the way they control these.
	They don't have to write them a check.
	Frequently they do.
	Often they do. Oh, wow, you know, this is for a special grant to study this or that or to shore up media that's not profitable.
	We'll write you a big check.
	But the biggest check they can write them is to show up.
	And if you ask these Republicans, if you are Fox News or Tucker, or if you ask the Democrats if you're CNN or MSNBC, if you ask them pointed questions and persist in it, Well, you don't get access to these people anymore.
	It's safe for Tucker to do it with some politicians that are well past their sell-by date, like Pence.
	You know, he followed up on Pence.
	He made an idiot out of Pence.
	But that was for the MAGA crowd that he did that.
	It wasn't for truth.
	And he doesn't have to worry about not getting access to Pence.
	Nobody wants access to Pence.
	He's gone. And he was a dead man walking at the time in terms of politics.
	With an outcry from both left and right liberals in the UK against this thing that would bar journalists from non-accredited sources.
	You face years of imprison, by the way.
	If found to be publishing material that is contrary to the official narrative.
	This is the death of the West.
	And you see it in everything.
	I've been seeing this type of thing for climate deniers, pandemic deniers, vaccine deniers, election deniers.
	You do not question their official story on anything or you get punished.
	And now they want to take it to the next level.
	Not just canceling people, not just financially deplatforming people.
	They want to go to incarceration.
	And that is what the Assange thing is truly about, taking it, normalizing it to the next level.
	If they can do it to Assange, they can do it to anybody, and that's what they said in their debates back in December, the new National Security Act.
	So people who are liberals, whether they're right-wing or left-wing, described this verdict on Assange as a verdict on the future of journalism and free speech in the West.
	As with the U.S., the European Union, and its member states, the U.K. is taking steps to tighten state control of information.
	By the way, this is many different sources talking about this that are not mainstream.
	Totally blocked on the accredited sources.
	But this is LifeSite News.
	Did an excellent article on it.
	I think they had the best article.
	Tucker Carlson's most recent broadcast revealed, they said, the shocking degree to which U.S. intelligence agencies collude with Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms.
	Again, everybody wants to talk about that.
	Everybody wants to talk about Tucker.
	He didn't reveal anything.
	He didn't reveal anything.
	We knew all of that, but now we can trust it because now it's been told to us by Tucker Carlson.
	Reporters Without Borders tried to get in to observe this trial.
	They were barred actually from visiting him in prison.
	They can't go to the trial.
	They put the trial in a very, very tiny courtroom.
	It only has 15 seats in this courtroom.
	But this same Royal Courts of Justice in London has got a lot of courtrooms.
	Many of them are huge, but they put it in the smallest one that they could find.
	Sorry, we don't have any more room.
	Sorry, sorry. Oh, yes, we'd love to accommodate you, but we can't.
	They also said, as Julian Assange's fate hangs in the balance, it is more crucial than ever for media organizations and journalists around the world to speak out in support of the principles at stake.
	And this is not just about his speech.
	Again, this is about you.
	If you have anything to say on social media or anywhere, When Aaron Day, who I interviewed about CBDC, when he had his little introduction to the book, which is Life Under CBDC, it was simply about this family and how after the father spoke out about one issue that the government took issue with, they essentially took everything from the family.
	They have the power to do it with CBDC. They have the will to do it now.
	That will give them the power to do it.
	So these reporters without borders barred from visiting him in prison.
	They described reporting restrictions around Assange as the worst that they have ever seen.
	Live streaming of the hearing is limited.
	Some crucial testimony is inaudible with the extradition case being heard in one of the tiniest rooms in the royal courts.
	And, you know, it is kind of interesting when Karen and I, when we got married, we basically just lived in London for about six weeks because, and, you know, we didn't have any money, but we just, it's just like one notch above a youth hostel that we're in.
	But, you We did all the free stuff.
	And one of the free things, you know, we'd hang out at the Speaker's Corner, watch the debates and stuff.
	We'd go to Parliament and watch them debate and have Thursdays questions for the Prime Minister.
	I guess they still do that. But we went one day to the criminal court, the old Bailey.
	And you queue up in a line and you don't know if you're going to get in.
	And if you get in, you don't know which case you're going to go to.
	And so we just kind of dropped in on this one case.
	And it was very interesting, the one that we happened to get into, because it had a lot of international intrigue.
	It involved the CIA. It involved Malta, not the Falcon, not the Maltese Falcon, but it was equally mysterious.
	And so we're sitting there trying to figure out, you know, what's going on.
	We're jumping in the middle of this trial.
	Because you can't, the reason I mention this is you can't, at least at the old Bailey, go back to a particular, the public gallery.
	You can't go back and say, well, I want to go back to this trial I was listening to yesterday.
	You don't know which one you're going to go to.
	And so it was getting really, really interesting.
	And then some was mentioned about the CIA and something that happened in Malta.
	And the judge or some guy that's there says, stop, stop, stop.
	Judge, we can't talk about this.
	Clear the courtroom. And we got kicked out.
	Just as it was getting good.
	And just as they started to talk about the CIA. And so we go back and we look at what Julian Assange was saying back in 2011 about war.
	This is one of the reasons they put him there.
	War. Because the goal is not to completely subjugate Afghanistan.
	The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States, out of the tax bases of European countries, through Afghanistan, and back into the hands of a transnational security elite.
	That is the goal. I.e., the goal is to have an endless war, not a successful war.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	And so Hillary Clinton said, can't we just drone this guy?
	Babylon Bee had their take on the Trump golden slippers.
	I was laughing about it yesterday.
	Their take on it was that Hillary Clinton had come up with a new line of cement shoes.
	That she tried them many times, never had any complaints.
	None of them were ever returned.
	But yes, no return policy.
	Not just for the shoes, but for the person who's wearing the cement shoes from Hillary Clinton.
	So she says, can't we just drone this guy?
	So I said, you know, when Julian Assange looked at Trump, he said, well, we know that Hillary Clinton is a murderer.
	And we know that she's hopelessly corrupt.
	He says, we don't know what Trump is.
	We'll find out. Well, Trump is the guy who initiated the process.
	He's going to keep you in prison for the rest of your life and kill you.
	We found out who Trump is.
	I found out who Trump is.
	I said the same thing about it.
	It's like, well, yeah, we don't like Hillary Clinton.
	This guy's never held public office before.
	We got a lot of big warning signs about his integrity.
	His integrities were flashing like a neon sign at one of his casinos.
	His integrity problems were flashing like that.
	But, you know, we now know who he is.
	Assange has been threatened with a drone strike by Hillary Clinton, having laid the blame in 2015 for the creation of ISIS by American destabilization of the Middle East, including Clinton's role in the destruction of Libya.
	And as a matter of fact, some of the stuff that was leaked out there, never forget the fact that Hillary Clinton and some of those emails that WikiLeaks put out there.
	We saw that they were coming after Gaddafi at that time.
	I mean, the guy had literally been a terrorist.
	He'd blown up airplanes and things like that.
	But after, you know, Reagan sending cruise missiles and things like that, blowing up tents and some of his family members, he stopped with that stuff.
	And he started focusing on making Africa independent.
	They had a large amount of gold there.
	They have a tremendous reservoir of water that they had.
	And in the emails we saw from WikiLeaks, we saw that the European central bankers were very concerned about the competition that Gaddafi, with his gold standard currency, was going to Go into competition with these central bankers and their fiat currency.
	And so that's why they wanted to take him out, according to Hillary Clinton and some of the leaked memos.
	Her remark about droning Julian Assange was reported by WikiLeaks in October 2016, citing evidence from a U.S. State Department memo.
	And a report from True Pundit, October 2, 2016, detailed the exchange.
	Following Clinton's alleged drone proposal, another controversial remedy was floated in the State Department to place a reward or bounty on Assange's capture and extradition to the United States.
	Numbers were discussed in the realm of a $10 million bounty.
	And the report also noted the bizarre atmosphere of the U.S. State Department under Hillary Clinton.
	A State Department source described that staff meetings were bizarre.
	One minute, staffers were inquiring about the Secretary's blue and black checkered knit sweater.
	And the next minute, the room was discussing the legalities of a drone strike on Assange and of the financial bounties.
	That's what happens when you get these totalitarian girlbosses together.
	Should we talk about the sweater, or should we talk about our assassinations?
	I don't know. We'll just alternate.
	An independent campaign that challenges media bias, is how they describe themselves, FAIR is the name, F-A-I-R, found almost ten times the number of mentions for the Russian dissident Alexei Not Navalny than for Julian Assange.
	As a matter of fact, I looked this morning and I've got a little over a dozen mainstream media sites that I get to.
	Things like CNN, BBC, NPR, USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, things like that.
	And so I quickly pulled them up and did a word search on their website, right?
	On their homepage, I should say.
	Are there any articles about Assange?
	Went through all of them. Zero.
	What about Navalny?
	Oh, well, Politico had seven articles about Navalny.
	CNN had four.
	Washington Post had five.
	There was one article each at Fox, BBC, Guardian, USA Today, New York Times.
	Reuters had two articles about Navalny.
	Altogether, they had the sites that I checked, 26 articles about Navalny.
	Nothing about Assange on these mainstream press organizations.
	Now, if you want to find out what's going on, you've really got to go to social media.
	Why is Navalny, who has never been very popular with the Russian people, so important?
	But Assange is not. Well, because Assange is the West's Navalny.
	He is a dissident.
	Whether or not he is popular, he's very unpopular with the people in power.
	That's what they have in common. And one of the articles that I saw about Navalny said, oh, yeah, they secretly moved him to another prison.
	You know, he was there. They knew who he was, and they were talking to him.
	So they moved him to this prison in the Arctic Circle, And we couldn't find him.
	It just disappeared.
	Nobody knew where he was.
	And then they figured out where he was, and shortly after that, they poisoned him up there.
	I thought, oh, okay.
	Well, we have purpose-built prisons for that, don't we?
	They're called the communication management units that we'll be talking about in the third hour.
	So, you know, how are these things different?
	I compared it.
	The very first day I talked about this when all the stuff happened with Navalny, and I didn't even realize that Assange's court dates were coming up this week, but I said on Monday, I said, so how is that any different?
	It's the same thing. We do the same things.
	You know, we imprison journalists.
	We, you know, people die in prison in America that are dissidents and so forth.
	Why is that different? Well, it's because it's us.
	We're special. So, the New York Times was one paper which cooperated with what WikiLeaks described as a $2 million smear campaign against Julian Assange.
	Let me interject here that we go back and we look at the journalist Gary Webb who exposed part of the crack cocaine epidemic and how they were using that to fund secret wars in Central and South America.
	At first, He got journalistic awards.
	And then they created a smear campaign.
	Not the New York Times, but they used the LA Times to smear him.
	And after they smeared him and got him fired from a lot of different places, then he started to make his comeback.
	And then when he started to make his comeback, just like Navalny, he was murdered.
	They said it was suicide.
	No, he wasn't making his comeback.
	And if you look at how he died, it was not suicide.
	Elizabeth Voss for Consortium News reported in 2023 how corporate media's repeated smears against Assange showed the legacy news media is not simply a second-rate form of journalism in comparison with WikiLeaks, but it is intentionally opposite.
	And so, in other words, WikiLeaks tells you the truth.
	They lie to you in order to start wars, as he said.
	But, you know, now supposedly Tucker's figured this out after working for these sources for the longest time.
	By the way, when they did that with the LA Times, they had several dozen reporters that were working on going after Gary Webb.
	Because it was a pretty big...
	And there were other sources that verified what he had to say.
	And big sources who talked about that.
	As a matter of fact, the guy who was at the very center of pushing this out said he was put up to do it.
	That was the guy's name.
	The rap guy. Anyway, he had the same name as a rapper.
	But he made a lot of money doing it.
	He went to prison for doing it.
	He exposed that the CIA was a part of this as well.
	Validated what Gary Webb did.
	So... Anyway, in 2017, early in the Trump administration, Trump was reportedly willing to negotiate a pardon for Assange if he would out the sources of the DNC emails and if he would disprove Russiagate once and for all.
	In August of 2016, Assange made comments on Dutch television that all but admitted that the source of the DNC emails was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich.
	So why not admit the identity of a dead source, if indeed it was rich?
	Why not disprove Russiagate?
	Why not do this for Trump, so that he could get his freedom?
	Well, because WikiLeaks' obligation, according to Assange, was the absolute protection of sources, no matter the cost.
	It is a principle that may prove to cost the award-winning journalist his life.
	You see, Trump is about things that reflect for Trump.
	He's about Trump. He's incapable of acting, as his lawyer said, except out of his own perceived self-interest or revenge.
	The world is not going to be changed by Trump or people of his ilk.
	Self-serving, narcissistic politicians will not change the world for the better.
	They will change it for the worse.
	There's going to be people who stand on their principles, even if it costs them their life, who will change this world.
	WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks.
	During the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly extolled the leaker of the Democrats' secrets and reveled in the damage he believed WikiLeaks would do to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.
	It's a different story now that Julian Assange is under arrest and facing a criminal conspiracy charge for the theft of official U.S. secrets.
	Do you still love WikiLeaks?
	I know nothing about WikiLeaks.
	It's not my thing. I know nothing really about them.
	I don't really have any opinion.
	Trump's longtime friend and advisor Roger Stone has boasted that he kept the Trump campaign in direct touch with Assange.
	He faces criminal charges for trying to cover up his contacts with WikiLeaks.
	He became a willing player with the Russians.
	That's Bob Menendez.
	Goldbar. I think it's very good for us to finally get him on U.S. soil.
	We can investigate.
	We can basically cross-examine.
	We can find out the facts that only he knows and his connections and how he basically distributed his information.
	WikiLeaks believes that's the whole game, that the charge today is an attempt to get Assange extradited to the US on one crime and then force him to testify or be prosecuted on other things.
	So, Keith, it seems clear there's been an evolution in the way Trump perceives Assange, but there was a time when Americans were really divided.
	This is Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
	...to U.S. national security.
	Is that still the case? Well, not to the extent it was.
	And that's because of what we've learned with the passage of time.
	Assange really does seem to focus more on exposing U.S. secrets than those of other countries, such as Russia or China.
	And in the 2016 election, he seemed clearly to be a Russian tool Speaking of tools, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the 2020 election was running that.
	Are they tools? You better believe they're tools.
	And you noticed in that video, you had Joe Manchin.
	Oh yeah, we gotta get Julian Assange back.
	Why was Joe Manchin's name being floated around?
	Because, folks, he's owned by the CIA like the rest of them, right?
	If they float your name around there, if they promote you, and of course they can promote you even by attacking you, as we see with Trump, but if they promote you and you're allowed to compete in the beauty pageant that we call an election, If you're allowed to do that by the U.S. Empire, by the CIA, the intelligence community, well, then that's kind of a tell.
	And he'd already told everybody where he stood publicly, identified himself.
	Interesting that Menendez would say, well, we're going to have to have some criminal charges against Roger Stone because he's been in contact with Julian Assange.
	Yeah, Bob Menendez, who has been up for multiple indictments of allegations of bribery.
	The FBI found all the gold bars and all the rest of this stuff there.
	That guy. That guy.
	Yeah, he's going to do the investigation for integrity.
	Washington is just so hopelessly corrupt.
	And so is the media.
	All completely owned by the real government that never changes, the CIA. Yeah.
	So going back to some of the things that Julian Assange has said, nearly every war, he said, that started in the last 50 years has been the result of media lies.
	The media could have stopped it if they hadn't reprinted government propaganda.
	He said populations don't like wars, and they have to be fooled into wars.
	If we had a good media environment, then we would also have a peaceful environment.
	It's my opinion, he said, that the media are so bad that we have to question whether or not we would be better off without them altogether.
	Yeah, you don't have to watch them.
	The problem is, we don't want to start picking and choosing who gets to talk.
	You know, I would never cancel, for example, CNN or MSNBC. They are useful examples of what the government wants to push.
	So you kind of know the opposite of the truth.
	So, as I point out here, the former finance minister of Greece, Spoke of his recent visit to Assange.
	He said, Assange has been suffering 23 hours of daily solitary confinement.
	Of course, this has been going on for him for 12 years.
	12 years. This is the same kind of treatment that our CIA government wants to do to the January 6th people as well.
	If you care for your right to know what your government is doing behind your back, then you must support Julian Assange because Julian Assange is dying for your right to know what your government is doing on your behalf.
	And you've got people who are in jail, life sentences, dying because they have the audacity to criticize the government's elections that have always been corrupt.
	It's just that they were foolishly going to bat for the man who had locked them down with medical martial law preceding here.
	So again, today is the second day of the hearings, these extradition hearings that are going to happen.
	And he is indicted also now with the 1917 Espionage Act.
	This is something that characterized the Obama administration, He finished his eight years in 2017, right?
	And so Obama, in his eight years as president, used the Espionage Act against more people than all the other presidents combined in that last 100 years, from 1917 to 2017.
	He had more people charged with that.
	He went after people like Bill Binney.
	He went after people like Thomas Drake, these NSA whistleblowers.
	He accused them of the violation of the Espionage Act.
	Snowden and all the rest of these people.
	So, they have come after him for that, for the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for publishing classified military documents, and so forth.
	And it is interesting that, again, Obama, with heavy CIA connections in his family, Bill Barr, with the heavy connections in his life with the Bush family, George H.W. Bush, brought in to restore the CIA after the hearings that were not about heart attack guns and assassinations.
	The hearings, the church hearings and the Pike hearings were about the CIA and the NSA spying on American citizens.
	And out of that, we got the FISA Act and the FISA Court.
	And then they turned around and used that to rubber stamp their surveillance of Mr.
	and Mrs. Verizon. In other words, they had all of these hearings and supposedly changes at the CIA. And what came out of it was something to stop them from spying on the American public, which they've been doing from their inception.
	Instead, what they'd use then is that act to give them legal cover for that.
	John Rizzo, who was the lawyer for the CIA, he invented this euphemism of enhanced interrogation.
	And he said, I watched those hearings when I was a young lawyer.
	And I looked at it and it's like, they need a good lawyer.
	And so he decided that he'd go to work for the CIA to help them lie better.
	He wrote his book, called it Company Man, because the CIA always referred to itself as the company.
	And he was a company man.
	That's exactly what he did.
	And so Bill Barr was a company man as well.
	Bill Barr worked with George H.W. Bush to help rebuild the CIA and his reputation after all of that exposure.
	And then when George H.W. Bush gets appointed by the CIA as president, he brings Bill Barr in with him as a very young attorney general.
	And as soon as Trump put in this CIA shill, you don't think that the CIA controls Trump?
	As soon as Trump put in this CIA shill, it was only a couple months later that all this stuff rolled out in 2019 against Julian Assange.
	And Bill Barr knew how to...
	How to get his partners in the Five Eyes to grab him and to put these charges against him.
	So his wife, Stella Assange, has warned that if a judge rules against Assange, he could be on a plane to U.S. soil in a matter of days.
	Here is what his wife is saying.
	The United States is abusing its legal system in order to hound and prosecute and intimidate all of you.
	What's at stake is the ability to publish the truth and expose crimes when they're committed by states.
	The outcome of this hearing today will make it clear the extent of the cover-up.
	We are safe!
	you The only fair, I shouldn't even talk about fairness at this stage, because the country that's trying to extradite him plotted to murder him.
	And the United States...
	Yeah. And so, isn't it interesting, when she talks about crimes being conducted by the state, one of the key things that really bothered them was that film called, it's been named, Collateral Murder.
	We see the U.S. military's gunship in the video that they obtained from it.
	Where they're watching people, they got a journalist and a bunch of other people, civilians, that they shoot up and then they wait until the clearly marked medical ambulance shows up and they put the people that have already been shot up into that ambulance and then they let loose again and shoot up the ambulance with the dying people inside.
	Collateral murder. U.S. Army helicopter crews laughing as they gunned down a group of Iraqi civilians, including journalists and children and even the medics that are there.
	And so they published that.
	That was a crime. That was a crime.
	Now, did anybody get charged with a crime for that after we saw that?
	No. What happens when you've got an institution?
	Like I said, any institution can have bad people in it.
	You know, we talk about the police, or in this particular case, we talk about the military.
	It's not an indictment of the institution to talk about the bad people that are there.
	It becomes an indictment of the institution when the institution doesn't do anything about the bad people, when it protects them.
	When in the case of the FBI, and you got Lon Horiuchi, who assassinates a mother, Randy Weaver's wife, holding a baby in her arms, and then they give Lon Horiuchi a medal?
	Okay, we can forget about the FBI now as having any integrity.
	And so when they embrace this, as they did with the collateral murder, instead of coming after the people who did the murder and who laughed about it, they come after the guy who tells you the truth about the murder.
	And then when you look at Vault 7, for example, other people broke in and got Vault 7, which was the CIA blueprint.
	We just had a guy, Joshua Schulte, Who's been sentenced to 40 years in prison for giving WikiLeaks Vault 7.
	And other people got it as well.
	And so Joshua Schulte is kind of like the Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers.
	But they want to now come after the people who published WikiLeaks, unlike the New York Times and Washington Post.
	And so Vault 7, which they all talk about how this guy's going to jail for 40 years for espionage, but they don't want you to know that Vault 7, what WikiLeaks published at first was the manual of how you could use it.
	Then somebody else published the code.
	And so then eventually WikiLeaks went ahead and published the code.
	It was already out there.
	But what it showed us with the manual was Was that they had tools to break in to anyone, anywhere, and make it look, the CIA could make it look like they were Russians or Chinese or North Koreans or anyone, anyone.
	Friend or foe. They could hack and disguise it.
	And they don't really want you to know that because they're saying if there's a cyber hack, a cyber attack against our infrastructure, then that's grounds for war.
	Kinetic war. Shooting war.
	And how do we determine that?
	Well, what Vault 7 showed was that you can never be sure who did it.
	But we always have these certain pronouncements in the media, don't we?
	Oh, they know right away who did it.
	Whatever happened, they know right away.
	You can't trust any of this stuff.
	Any of it could be a false flag attack.
	And so he tells you the truth about that.
	So what do they do? They charge him with a conspiracy to do computer hacking.
	Vault 7 shows that that's what they're all about.
	Conspiracy to do computer hacking and to use the computer hacking to start wars as well.
	Zero Hedge reported that The Guardian has, meanwhile, commented on U.S. authorities' attempts to bully journalists who worked with Assange to turn against him.
	At least four well-known journalists have been approached by the Metropolitan Police on behalf of the FBI. James Ball, his ex-Wikileaks colleague, who's now with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
	David Lay, the former Guardian and Observer journalist.
	Heather Brooke, a Freedom of Information campaigner.
	And Andrew O'Hagan.
	Who has been commissioned to ghost write Assange's autobiography.
	All of them have declined to cooperate with the FBI. In an article for Rolling Stone last year, Ball said that he had first been approached in 2021 and subjected to pressure, including the threat of being prosecuted himself.
	O'Hagan said that although he had differences with Assange, he would happily go to jail rather than assist the FBI. I would only add, he said, that the attempt to punish Assange for exposing the truth is an attack on journalism itself.
	I noticed that none of those mainstream collaborators who published his material, the New York Times published his stuff, published some of the same stuff that WikiLeaks had, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, none of them were being pursued.
	Which demonstrates a generational bias against internet-based journalism is at the heart of this case.
	And, of course, it is at the heart of that UK legislation.
	And what they want to do in the United States as well.
	All of the five countries, US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, they will all be doing this type of thing.
	So, you know, people who understand, and, of course, the people who are going to stand on principle, Are going to be the people who are going to change things.
	Not these lying, grifting politicians who are controlled by the CIA and acting in their unperceived self-interest.
	President, do you still love WikiLeaks?
	I know nothing about WikiLeaks.
	It's not my thing. WikiLeaks.
	I love WikiLeaks.
	WikiLeaks. The WikiLeaks documents show.
	The Hillary Clinton documents released by WikiLeaks.
	Today WikiLeaks release new emails.
	Secret speeches released by WikiLeaks.
	The WikiLeaks revelations through WikiLeaks.
	WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks.
	Of course, you didn't know that there was a thing called WikiLeaks, right?
	Mr. President, do you still love WikiLeaks?
	I know nothing about WikiLeaks.
	It's not my thing. I know nothing!
	Nothing! Yeah, yeah.
	That's exactly what Trump is.
	He's a Corporal Schultz for the CIA. He doesn't wear the uniform of the CIA like Schultz wore the uniform of the Nazis.
	But he works for the CIA. And he works for himself.
	Incapable of actually except out of his own self-interest.
	Ed Snowden. The outrageous part of the UK's years-long trial to condemn Julian Assange to die in an American dungeon is that the victim of his crime, quote-unquote crime, which is journalism, is a state rather than a person.
	The definition of a political offense which the U.S. and U.K. extradition treaty explicitly forbids.
	His crime is against the state.
	Against America. And they have an extradition treaty between the UK and US, which expressly forbids the extradition of somebody for a political crime.
	And he says, You were just hoping for applause and, of course, for money.
	So we will have more to say about this coming up in the third hour.
	I want to get into some of the politics that are happening here because there's some very interesting things that transcend at the center of what is happening to Trump.
	And again, we look at these things that are happening to Trump And what is happening in New York is wrong.
	There was no victim. But guess what?
	They have a law in New York that doesn't require there to be a victim.
	So this is far beyond judicial prejudice.
	It's far beyond lawfare.
	People who are out of control in the court system.
	The legislature there.
	Put that law in. And then when we look in Georgia, we got Fannie there.
	And take a look at this woman who focuses and is known for doing racketeering and corruption.
	She's involved in a little bit of that herself.
	As a matter of fact, her department is stealing money left and right from people with civil asset forfeiture laws.
	And yet, what does she have at home?
	She brags about how she's got this stash of cash and she's paying off her little boyfriend and stacks of cash.
	See, these are the types that nobody wants to talk about civil asset forfeiture for you and I. Nobody wants to talk about SWAT team raids.
	They want to talk about, oh, look, they did a video raid of Mar-a-Lago.
	But they don't care about the SWAT team raids.
	They're done against us. And some of the people are saying, well, look at what they did to Trump.
	That means it's going to be difficult to do business in New York.
	Well, you should have paid attention to what was happening in your state.
	Instead of being focused on something that you have no control over, forget about Washington, especially the presidency.
	You don't have any control over who is running the CIA. And it's the CIA that is running our governments.
	So we'll be right back. You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Interested in a curated list of the finest classical music?
	Find it now at Alright, before we get into another bit of news here, I just want to do a little bit of housekeeping and thank the people who keep this program going.
	Be very ungrateful for me to not say thank you to those of you who kindly donate and send your support.
	And I'm way behind in the list of people who have donated on Zelle, especially since we had somebody ask yesterday a question.
	Can I tip you on Zelle?
	And I said, yeah, you can tip us on Zelle.
	And it's a good place to tip because there's no fees or commissions there if your bank has that connection.
	And we got 10 people.
	Who tipped us yesterday.
	And it was amazing.
	And very generous.
	And so I've got a list of people, including some of the people the last week of February that I've not read their names on Zelle.
	There's so many that I don't want to do a long segment of just reading names.
	I'll get back to them. And then we've got a list of people who sent us support by mail.
	But let me just read the people who...
	I give a thank you to the people who contributed just yesterday for example Natalie L Mary M Mitchell e Noel are Jeffrey C. Chris T. Stacy a Majeed Z Kimberly M Ramon G all of them contributed yesterday, and I really do appreciate that
	One of our regular contributors who's been around for a very long time, Gretchen C., sent us an email and said they really like...
	We've done one little thing with Substack.
	We want to do a lot more with Substack.
	But we're now posting.
	We finally get the show up.
	It takes us a while to do the outline.
	But we post the outline as well as a link to the show on Substack.
	And they like having that there.
	Good place to find it. We also give that to people who are on Subscribestar.
	And they get a link on Subscribestar to a version of the podcast, the audio podcast.
	It doesn't have any commercials in it.
	Because if they're going to support us there, that is more than we would get from anybody watching all the commercials, more than they would pay us, far more, even if they get in at the $5 level.
	So we really appreciate that, and we send them that link for free.
	And then I wanted to unsubscribe.
	Sorry, I got a tip from Mark G. He said, thank you for your work.
	He says, if you read this, say hi to Ty.
	Hi, Ty. He's another show supporter, whom I became friends with through this show, who lives on the other side of the state, via people's rights.
	God bless you and your family, and like Ty, you can read my full name, as long as the amount is not read, and not for credit, but just to reject anonymity.
	He says, besides, I have my number by now.
	I'm not going to read your last name.
	Make them work for it if they want to get your information.
	I just do that, unless somebody...
	Well, he did ask me to read his last name, but I'm not going to...
	Well, okay. Mark, go sign.
	So, there we go. Read your last name.
	So, you're on the record there. Good for you for standing up.
	I don't try to run from these people.
	Karen told me a long time ago, she said, you might as well do a show because you've written so much stuff out there anyway that you've already got your numbers.
	So, I was like, yeah, I might as well go public with all this stuff.
	It is good to stand up to these people, isn't it?
	Right? That's what all the mass stuff was about.
	Don't you get a good feeling when you refuse to comply with this stuff?
	When you refuse to self-censor yourself, isn't that a good feeling?
	Makes me feel good.
	I hate, you know, that's one of the reasons I got purged so quickly everywhere, is because I'm not going to, when I talk about the vaccine, I'm going to talk about the vaccine.
	I'm not going to say, you know, the thing, that thing that's going around.
	I see people do that.
	I understand why they're doing it.
	But, you know, it bothers me to see people self-censor.
	Really does bother me to see that.
	So, let's see, where was I? I want to, there's something I wanted to talk about.
	I can't quite remember what it was here.
	Let's talk a little bit, okay, let's do this.
	Let's talk about what is going on at Magalago.
	Which I think that's going to be the new name for Mar-a-Lago.
	Just call it Magalago.
	Oh, this is what I was thinking of.
	On Rockfan. Thank you very much, Michelle Obaman.
	Thank you for the tip.
	Uh, and, uh, Travis is reminding me that I need to, uh, remind you that I want to do an ask me anything and you can send those as emails if you want.
	Of course we, you know, we can have people write us a live comments.
	It's just a little bit harder for us to keep track of it because Travis has got multiple places to look for the comments and everything.
	So you can ask me anything live when we do it.
	Uh, but if you want to send some of this stuff in advance, um, you can send it to our email, that is David night show at proton mail.com.
	And you can find that at our website, the David night show.com, which will also show you where you can catch the show and both it's live and archived format.
	And on the video formats, we do have topics that are taken out of the show since it's a three-hour show.
	We give you an outline, plus we also try to take topics out and put those on the video thing.
	And it'll also show you, give you links to where you can find the audio podcast as well.
	Okay, so let's talk about what is going on with the Trump administration.
	And before we get into what is happening, At Maga Lago, this whole thing about the half a billion dollar judgment.
	And Reason really nailed this in this article.
	How a New York judge arrived at the staggering order that he called a disgorgement.
	A disgorgement.
	Isn't that interesting? You know, when they steal your car or your cash or your home or something like that, don't charge you with a crime, let alone convict you, right?
	When they, you know, no charge, no conviction, but they just take it.
	They call it a civil forfeiture.
	So now this judge is calling this a disgorgement.
	Isn't that interesting how they keep coming up with these novel terms?
	But it is actually not just bad politicized courts.
	It is also a bad law that is the basis of this, that allows him to do this.
	And so it's going to be difficult.
	Actually, I think as I looked at this, it's going to be difficult for Trump to appeal this.
	But as Ulysses Grant said, Ulysses Grant, also known as a U.S. grant, He kept the money flowing, didn't he?
	Just like a regular U.S. grant to all kinds of people, all kinds of corruption.
	But one of the things that he said that really stuck with me was he said the way you get rid of a bad law is to rigorously enforce it.
	And that is always, sometimes that may happen to this.
	This is a bad law being rigorously enforced by this judge and this Attorney General, Letitia James.
	This law does not require proof that anyone was injured.
	You know, this is one of the things everybody's looking at.
	What is going on? How in the world could this be fraud?
	The banks were paid off.
	The banks said they did their own due diligence.
	Trump had a disclaimer there that, you know, hey, you know...
	Do your own due diligence.
	And they did, and they moved down his, you know, lowered his projected net worth, but said, yeah, we'll make the loan anyway.
	Yeah, he's inflating this stuff.
	And Travis is telling me, remind people, like the stream.
	Please like the stream. How about that, Travis?
	Is that good? Okay, he shakes his head yes.
	Please like the stream. That really does help us.
	It does help us to get the information out, which they don't want people to see.
	Whether or not I'm right or wrong, I will tell you what I honestly think.
	So please like the stream.
	And on Rumble, A. Woots, thank you very much for the tip.
	Says, Trump is a treacherous coward who belongs in D.C. and hell thereafter.
	Thanks for offering him no quarter.
	I agree. I agree.
	And I say, you know, even though this is, I said this about Dennis Hastert, the pedophile.
	It was groomed for Congress and then put in as Speaker of the House, the longest serving in GOP. He went on many times as other GOP people were outed as sexual pedophile predators.
	And he went on with Rush.
	He said, oh, this is all politics and all the rest of this.
	No, it was real. But they didn't put him in jail for the pedophilia.
	They put him in jail for something that was not a crime.
	Taking his own money out of the bank in measured amounts, they call that structuring, so that there would not be a report.
	As long as he kept it under a certain amount, there would not be any scrutiny of that.
	So he did that. They sent him to jail for that.
	And so Trump, who poisoned, who sent this shot around the world poisoning and killing people, His lockdown, all the rest of the things that he did, the medical death protocol that he paid the hospitals to enforce.
	Nobody's coming after him for that.
	Why? Well, because all the GOP were involved in it.
	All the Democrats were involved in it.
	Biden continued these policies.
	They're not going to come after each other over that, so they're going to come after him over a non-crime.
	But it is important for us to look at this because these types of things are going to hit everybody.
	Jonathan Turley was right. He says this is something that's hanging over the head of anybody that does business in the state of New York now.
	This bad law. Now, of course, we have selective enforcement.
	And they will only use it against their political enemies, you see.
	But the law itself is a real problem.
	When the interest that Ngoron also approved is considered, the total penalties are going to rise to $450 million.
	On its face, a penalty of nearly half a billion dollars, says Reason, is hard to fathom, given that no lender or insurer claimed that it suffered a financial loss as a result of the transactions at the center of the case.
	New York Attorney General Letitia James.
	But the law under which she sued Trump and his co-defendants does not require any such loss.
	The money demanded by the judge's 92-page decision is styled not as damages, but as, quote, disgorgement.
	As disgorgement.
	It's like they're going to make Trump vomit this up.
	And of ill-gotten gains, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
	It is aimed not at compensating people who were allegedly harmed by his misrepresentations, but at deterring dishonesty that threatens the financial marketplace.
	Because we all know that New York City is a pinnacle of honesty and integrity.
	And we all know the same is true of Wall Street.
	We wouldn't want to damage their reputations, would we?
	By inflating the value of assets.
	Uh, proving common law fraud, wrote the judge in Goron, requires, and I'm not even sure if I pronounce, you know, I've read so much about this guy, I know him by, I know his name, I know his face, I've never, I don't listen to any news, so I don't know how to pronounce his name.
	I hope I've got it right. So, uh, if I got it wrong, you can write me and tell me the right way to say it.
	It requires establishing that the defendant made a, quote, material statement, unquote, that he knew to be false, and that the plaintiff justifiably relied on that statement, and that he suffered loss as a result.
	That would be common law fraud.
	And so everybody's looking at this, and they say, wait a minute.
	If you lie, somebody relies on that and they have a damage, that's clear.
	None of that really, you know, those last two things didn't happen here, even if he made a material misstatement.
	Nobody was damaged by doing that.
	However, by contrast...
	This law, Section 6312 of New York's Executive Law, by contrast, authorizes the Attorney General to sue any person who engages in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrates persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on or conducting of the transaction of business.
	And he writes in his 92-page decision, Ingeron says, The statute casts a wide net.
	It defines fraud to be any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions.
	See, this is a problem.
	A law that is that broad, just like a law that is sufficiently complex, is like not having any law at all.
	And it can be used by people like this judge and like Letitia James to come after their political enemies, which is what has happened.
	There's a lesson to be learned here.
	Again, going back to that, this is a state problem.
	As I've said over and over again, the state can be worse than the federal government, as it is in New York City.
	New York is worse than the federal laws.
	They have all that plus a lot more, just like this.
	And if you don't pay attention to what's going on at the state and local level, it can be actually worse than the federal government.
	If you do pay attention, it's a possibility that it could be better.
	We saw this happening over and over again in 2020 with people who interposed Over these Trump incentives to lock people down.
	People who nullified this stuff.
	People who refused to be bribed by Trump to institute medical martial law.
	So you better pay attention to the state level.
	That's the point of me talking about this.
	Even Trump would have been better served to pay attention to state and local stuff instead of getting involved in national politics.
	Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that these false statements inflict on the marketplace, says that judge in Garan.
	That's the way he pronounces his name.
	He says, it's all the more reason that we have to strive for honesty and transparency, and it is undisputed that defendants have made all of the required payments on time.
	But the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky.
	So this is like a pre-crime thing.
	Like a pre-crime thing.
	So just think about that.
	Yeah, they all got paid, but that might not happen in the future.
	And we don't want somebody who is out there inflating his...
	His assets, we don't want that to go on.
	It's always, you know, all New York businesses now threatened by this Trump precedent.
	No, he is a precedent in so many different...
	He is still precedent, isn't he?
	He's still establishing these precedents.
	This is what Jonathan Turley says.
	But it's not really...
	Yes, it is a precedent in the sense that they've now enforced it against somebody.
	They've now enforced it selectively against a political enemy.
	But it was always a bad law.
	And nobody noticed it.
	And so what he's doing is he's enforcing...
	Rigorously enforcing that bad law.
	So the question is, are they going to apply the U.S. grant standard to it?
	Are they going to now get rid of this rigorously enforced bad law?
	Jonathan Turley said, Many businesses are likely wondering, but for the grace of God go I. Undervaluating or valuing property is a common practice, particularly in real estate.
	That is why representations like the one made by the Trump Corporation come with a warning that estimates are their own.
	And that the banks need to make their own assessments.
	He said the line between doing business and a public execution appears to be the dubious discretion of Letitia James.
	We've seen this before as well.
	Interestingly, you go back to the pandemic and...
	Letitia James came against Alex Jones and against Jim Baker, the televangelist who's out of jail, but he's doing other things now.
	Anyway, both of them had silver.
	Now look, I'm not aware of any representations that either of them made that silver was going to cure the imaginary pandemic virus.
	But hey, if you got an imaginary pandemic, can I have an imaginary cure?
	I mean, what's wrong with that?
	It's kind of like the wag the dog scenario where they make up this guy and now we're going to bring him home and then they make up another story to say, oh no, his plane crashed on the way home.
	You know, we've got to put this together for old shoe.
	Well, the bottom line is that silver is good in terms of killing, you know, pathogens and things like that.
	It's been demonstrated. They use it to this day for burn victims.
	They have a salve that they put on people who burn victims to keep them from getting infected and that type of thing.
	But she just said, well, if you talk about silver, I'm going to shut this down.
	So Alex just pulled all of his silver product, even the toothpaste, which, again, if you get silver in your toothpaste, that's going to get rid of bacteria and nasty things in your mouth.
	Sad to see that go, but that was Letitia James.
	She is arbitrary, capricious, and ruthless in what she does.
	Very political as well.
	And so then when we look at Trump and abortion, I find this to be interesting because you had people, pro-life people, and his evangelical congregation that follows him around, saying that Trump wants to have a 16-week national ban on abortions.
	And I've said before that I think, first of all, that's unconstitutional.
	And I think from a pragmatic standpoint, it's unconstitutional for the same reason that Roe v.
	Wade is unconstitutional.
	Always said that. Dobbs, the court agreed with what I had been saying for many years.
	I'm sure that they didn't know that I was saying it.
	But I always said the Tenth Amendment says that there is no authority for the federal government of any branch to decide when life begins.
	That murder, which is what we're talking about here, is something that belongs to the states to regulate.
	And I've also said from a pragmatic standpoint that if you come up with some national line, some national 16 weeks or whatever it is, that is well beyond what it is already in many pro-life states And what will happen is the states where they push abortion, California, New York, people like that, they are going to ignore this law, just like they ignore now marijuana prohibition.
	Marijuana is still a Schedule I drug in the war on drugs, but they ignore it.
	Because there's no constitutional authority for Congress to outlaw that unless they have a constitutional amendment like they did with alcohol.
	And so there is no authority for Congress, for Republicans or anybody else to outlaw abortion or to enable it, you know, to stop people from enforcing laws against abortion, which is what Roe v.
	Wade did. But this is something that's being put out by the Trump campaign.
	I'll just say this. That as the Democrat states will ignore a lower limit, you better believe that when the Democrats get power and they raise that limit or get away with it altogether, that the Republican states will follow suit.
	And they'll say, well, that's the supreme law of the land and we have to obey it, even though it isn't.
	So this was kind of interesting because this is the way the Trump campaign works.
	You've got somebody inside the campaign or people allied with it, and they put campaign promises out there that are not coming from the candidate.
	You know, it's one thing when, you know, Trump promises to fix the border and he doesn't do it, right?
	But now they've got surrogates who are out there making his campaign promises for him.
	And so, as this was happening, it gives him an opportunity to pull back from it.
	So he can, you know, other people can say, oh no, he really is going to do this.
	It's 4D chess. You know, just like Alex was telling everybody, it's not a bad vaccine.
	It's really just sugar water.
	He's got his surrogates out there lying to you about what he's going to do.
	And then he can go out and say now, since he's got surrogates making these claims, he can tell the media, no, that's not me, that's not my position.
	Major pro-life organizations have offered differing reactions to a recent report that Trump privately expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban.
	According to a Friday report from the New York Times, two unnamed sources with ties to the Republican frontrunner alleged that the idea of a 16-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, the article states that Trump said in a private conversation that he likes 16 weeks as a cutoff because it's an even four months.
	That sounds like something he would say.
	So this is how they work.
	Again, the Washington Post then said, according to Trump's team, Trump has not made a decision about whether he would support a national ban.
	And he's also stated that he would not be tied down to a specific number of weeks.
	There you go. See, he can, you know, these people put out leaks that he's really going to do this.
	And he denies it publicly and they say he's just playing 40 chess.
	He's just got to get elected. He's got to say that.
	As President Trump has stated, he would sit down with both sides and negotiate a deal that everybody will be happy with, that his spokesperson.
	You know, like the video I've shown you many times of him sitting down with the Democrats.
	He's got Chuck Schumer there and Dianne Feinstein.
	We're going to do something everybody's happy with.
	Can you do that? Yeah, we can do that.
	We can run this thing through. And he does it by executive order, gun control.
	He blamed the Republican Party's position on abortion.
	For his losses during the 2022 midterm elections, it wasn't him.
	It was the babies that they saved.
	That's why people don't want to vote for Republicans.
	It wasn't this odious albatross tied around the neck of the party called Donald Trump.
	No, it was the innocent babies' lives that were saved.
	That's why you didn't win your election.
	This good Christian man.
	He also criticized DeSantis for signing a law banning abortions after the baby's heartbeat becomes detectable, calling it too harsh.
	So who are you going to believe?
	Well, Winepress had an interesting story about the MAGA prophets.
	They're getting weirder and weirder.
	False prophet claims Trump possesses the Ark of the Covenant in Mar-a-Lago.
	Yeah, that's it. We all know that's where it got sent, right?
	There they are, walking out of Mar-a-Lago, looking back as it was, maybe.
	And it's actually, they must be taking it in and storing it with all the documents.
	That's what's happened to this.
	Yeah, the idolatry for Trump.
	And now it's all about...
	The fact that he's got a replica of the Ark of the Covenant there at what I think we should start calling Maga Lago, the Temple of Maga.
	The Temple of Gloom, I guess we could say.
	The Raiders of the Lost Documents as well as the Ark.
	Wine Press says, as I said, the idolatry we see for Trump is just wild, and it fits the bill for the cult of personality.
	And it's been covered here at Wine Press before.
	The blasphemies, either attributed to Trump or the ones that Trump himself makes, are simply gross, reprehensible.
	His latest being endorsing an AI-generated post that refers to Trump as, quote, the shepherd of mankind who will neither leave nor forsake them.
	A title of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
	I mean, having to type that out is so putrid that it makes me want to hurl.
	A form of disgorgement, I guess we could say.
	What a New York judge.
	Laying aside all the things that belie Trump of being this anti-establishment outsider who was fighting globalists and draining the swamp.
	You know, his warmongering, the fact that he did what the swamp, he left the swamp the way that it was.
	He didn't change anything. He enacted the globalist COVID war against all of us.
	The economic sanctions, trillions of dollars in debt, his stimulus checks that were really an early introduction of universal basic income, and all the corruption that was accompanying all that.
	She said, today I was made aware of this false prophet on a podcast that came out claiming that Trump possesses the Ark of the Covenant in Magalago.
	Yeah, it was presented by Pete Santilli.
	Pete Sinto and I, we had to go back to the Bundy Ranch standoff.
	That guy is something else. Anyway, and it was put on at InfoWars.
	He was somebody who absolutely hated InfoWars.
	He would show up and bullhorn InfoWars during live broadcasts and everything.
	But now, he and Alex have kissed and made up.
	Ain't gonna happen with me.
	I guarantee you. It ain't gonna happen to me.
	There's no way.
	I don't think Alex wants to kiss and make up.
	I guarantee you that I'm not going to.
	But here's Pete Santilli, this broadcast, and he has it with Don A. Clement Petruska was the person who's talking there.
	Look at that thumbnail.
	This is obviously something that is not a real shot.
	This is Donald Trump saying, Bending over with hands together as if he were praying in front of the Ark of the Covenant.
	That's why he's got it there, Mar-a-Lago.
	I think he just likes things that are gold.
	I think he just can't get enough gold.
	And so this is what Pete Santilli was selling people.
	Absolutely insane.
	And he got ravaged by the comments.
	That were there. But anyway, Winepress says, After I picked myself off of the floor from laughter, I watched a few minutes just to humor them.
	And Pete Santilli showed a picture of this lady.
	She's referring to Looney Loomer, Laura Loomer.
	And is that...
	There's Laura Loomer standing next to the Trump Ark of the Covenant that is there.
	Laura Loomer, Looney Loomer, standing next to a supposed replica, and Donnie Clement Petruska, the woman that you saw in that thumbnail, claimed that she saw it also at Mar-a-Lago.
	I'm sorry, MAGA-Lago.
	Pete Santilli claims that Israel gave President Trump a replica of the real thing, which they don't have, because, you know, it's in the government warehouse that we saw there.
	Patricia says that her father prophesied many times of a parallel blessing that God would send on both America and Israel.
	Yes, God put Donald Trump where he is.
	The question is, is Donald Trump a blessing or a curse?
	And then, of course, this was also put on display at Mar-a-Lago, and you had James O'Keefe, who now refers to himself and his media organization as OMG. So we got his, yeah, you're supposed to be astonished.
	You know, the OMG thing of everything he's got out there.
	So is his blasphemy and him standing there, a perfect replica of the Ark of the Covenant.
	By the way, he spells that wrong.
	He's got it A-R-C instead of A-R-K. That's a box, a box, an Ark, A-R-K. 2,700 hours of labor and six pounds of gold.
	And then you had other people who posted up the fact that this is the most valuable and sought-after item.
	Even the Nazis wanted it, according to Steven Spielberg.
	I'm going to give them special powers.
	Except sometimes these people, if you go back and read the Bible, sometimes the people who kidnap this, certain things happen.
	I wonder if we're going to find a gold statue of Donald Trump On its face, with its head and hands broken off like the Philistines did when they took the Ark of the Covenant.
	A close second would be a list of the subjects and truths that authoritarian-minded AI sponsors have instructed their chatties to bear false witness about.
	In other words, leakers and whistleblowers, that list is the unholy grail.
	The one who gets it.
	Who gets a hold of this ark and who spreads it.
	Will rip down the veil.
	That was already ripped.
	And accelerate the awakening above and beyond anything else imaginable.
	Well, back to Wine Press.
	She says, apparently, this is purportedly created by an avid supporter of Trump.
	Displayed at Maga Lago during a dinner party.
	And that's evidently where O'Keefe and Looney Loomer took their pictures.
	If true, says Wine Press, it proves once again the absolute blasphemy of Trump is sacrilege, and his diehard proselytes are willing to commit for him.
	So who is this Miss Petruska, interviewed by Pete Centilli?
	She says she's part of a ministry called House of Destiny, founded by her dad, Kim Clement.
	the so-called church wants to encourage you to achieve your destiny quote-unquote according to their website. Furthermore in their statement of faith the church believes quote we do not bring discrimination or judgment but we inspire hope bringing restoration to life and often healing from the past. So in other words they're just like the prosperity gospel people with he gets us that Super Bowl ad.
	You know, forget about sin.
	Forget about removing the penalty of sin or the power of sin.
	No, no, no. You're fine just the way you are.
	I wonder who would be telling you that.
	That's not God's message.
	That's Satan's message. We want to activate your faith so that you can fulfill God's great destiny in your life.
	Your destiny is to leave a legacy.
	And legacy is influence.
	Okay. So what you're after, therefore, is influence?
	Is that what we're all seeking in life?
	Hillary Clinton is looking for the politics for meaning, I guess.
	They're very much like Hillary Clinton, aren't they?
	Wine Press, again, says, basically, it's a spin on the American gospel of health, wealth, and prosperity, self-help.
	Name it and claim it.
	Bunch of New Age garbage.
	She said, when this information was sent to my inbox today, somebody graciously linked the ridiculous and heretical beliefs of all these people and the myriad of false prophecies by this guy, Clement Kim.
	For example, in 2015, one year before his death in 2016, he He tweeted that people do not need to be born again.
	Okay. There it is right there.
	She took a screenshot of that.
	So, Jesus said you need to be born again, but not this guy.
	Not this guy. He disagrees with that.
	And then there was a screenshot that was sent to her.
	Screenshot taken from a YouTube video promoting Kim Clement's alleged prophecy of Trump Even though Trump is never mentioned in the prophecy.
	But they put this together after the fact.
	This is what the people at QAnon do.
	And you see there's Trump in kind of a quasi-military uniform.
	You know, they've shown him dressed up like Andrew Jackson and other things like that.
	She says, Did you know that Kim Clement prophesied Obama would be baptized in the Holy Spirit in the summer of 2010?
	That he would change all of his presidential policies to richly bless Americans?
	Did you know that he promised that Clement prophesied that rap artist Eminem, Arthur Stephen King, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch would all become Christian evangelists?
	Not just Christians, but evangelists?
	By the end of 2006?
	Did you know that he prophesied in 2007 Bill Gates would do the work of evangelism by giving a bunch of his money to fund churches?
	Was that he asking Gates for money by doing that?
	Did you know that he prophesied Rudy Giuliani would become President of the United States in 2008?
	After his death in 2016, his popularity started picking up steam.
	I guess he's going to become another Nostradamus.
	He was being hailed by more and more people as a true prophet based on his alleged 2014 prediction that Trump had become president, which he never said.
	That screenshot that I just showed you there.
	It's truly amazing what these people will do.
	And how they will spin this around.
	And as I said, when I looked at the Pete Santilli thing, it was like three pages of commercials in the description.
	And that's all they had.
	Nothing there. No transcript or anything.
	Just commercial after commercial after commercial.
	But then there were comments like this.
	The MAGA crowd is blinded, thinking Trump is some sort of savior.
	God will not share His glory with another.
	It is mockery in my eyes to my Lord and Savior.
	He is the only one who can save us.
	There have been interviews where Trump says that he will not ask for forgiveness because he's done nothing wrong.
	Another one. Read the Bible, Doné.
	That's the female guest of Pete Santilli there.
	Russia brings gifts to the Lord and Isaiah and so forth.
	Therefore, the Antichrist system is just as Obama is the Antichrist and also the Muslim body.
	In other words, there's a lot of different Antichrists out there.
	You know, is Trump the Antichrist?
	Well, he is an Antichrist, that's for sure.
	Another one. Alex promoting Trump, Elon, and Christ energy.
	Christ energy The only energy Alex puts out is from his drinking his conspiracy bourbon and link listening to Metallica for horsemen Kim Clement was a false prophet a One new picture of the Ark of the Covenant would Trump would trigger and then General Flynn in 2021 Gave a word-for-word speech proclamation of that occultist Elizabeth Claire profit And I've played that for you many, many times.
	And so, why do I talk about all this?
	Because you need to understand how this is being used.
	Politico, and there's all these, you know, articles on drudge.
	They'll drudge this stuff up.
	Trump allies prepare to infuse Christian nationalism in a second administration.
	And so they focus on some of these people around Trump, and some of them say they deny the label.
	They say, well, this is what I believe, but they want to label people as Christian nationalists.
	But you see, they're also using all of this QAnon, Magalago, Ark of the Covenant, and all the rest of this stuff.
	They're using all of this.
	To attack Christians.
	And the purpose of all of this and the purpose of Rob Reiner's document, Rob Reiner will even come out and say, well, there's a lot of Christians and evangelists who don't support Trump and push back against this stuff.
	But the people who are actually out there that are engaged, the Christians who are engaged in the public sphere, we need to shut them down because they're all like Michael Flynn or Donald Trump.
	That's the bottom line.
	They want to intimidate you because they want to make you shut up.
	That's what this is about. If you're a Christian, just stay in the closet.
	Don't talk about any of this stuff.
	And we should not be, we should oppose this stuff.
	We should talk about Trump.
	We should talk about Michael Flynn and how he's, you know, plagiarizing these New Age false prophets and the rest of this stuff.
	We've got to talk about that and oppose it and say, that's not us.
	That's not us. And what they want to do is they want to shut us up.
	You know, when I look at this, they define Christian nationalists in this Politico article.
	That goes very, very long.
	They do very long articles.
	They work out, you know, 10, 20, 30 pages to print these things out.
	Christian nationalists in America believe the country was founded as a Christian nation and that Christian values should be prioritized throughout government and public life.
	As the country has become less religious and more diverse, this guy they're focusing on, Russell Vaught, has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault and has spoken of policies that he might pursue in response.
	Look, the free exercise of religion is under attack.
	Your belief system is under attack.
	People are getting canceled.
	They're getting fired. They're getting sued.
	Some countries, of course, they get imprisoned because of their Christian beliefs.
	You look at this woman who was a high-ranking government official in the past in Finland, who is now on her third prosecution because she made a comment on social media to her church because she disagreed with them having a pride parade.
	So yes, Christian persecution is speeding up, and it is part of the overall rejection of free speech and the free exercise of religion.
	It's an overall rejection of what is encapsulated in the First Amendment.
	Don't you dare go protest.
	Don't you dare speak out.
	Don't you dare exercise your religion.
	And so this is all about continuing the, you know, putting people in a box.
	They intimidated people in the middle of the 20th century with a couple of Supreme Court decisions saying that if you work for the government, you've got to get Christianity out of everything.
	No, you're not establishing a religion.
	You're exercising your faith.
	There's a difference between forcing somebody to attend a church, forcing somebody to pay for a church, and simply freely exercising your religion, which is protected and should be protected.
	And so they intimidated people with that.
	As people are waking up to that fraud of the separation of church and state type of thing.
	Oh, no, no, no. Get any religion out of the, you know, if you're a teacher, you can't have anything religious at work and that type of thing.
	That's now been thrown out by the Supreme Court.
	People are waking up to it as well.
	And so now they've got to find some other way to intimidate people.
	And enter Trump and his MAGA cult to help this along.
	But when you look at this, Christian nationalists in America believe the country was founded as a Christian nation?
	Well, of course it was. Of course it was.
	Just read the Declaration of Independence.
	If you're not completely historically illiterate, you understand that those are Christian values.
	And Christian values should be prioritized through government and the public life.
	We're not talking about any particular religious exercise here.
	We're just talking about a worldview and an understanding that you are accountable to God.
	And when we look at something, this simple definition like this, I've had problems in the past at churches that I went to that I looked at their doctrinal statement.
	You can put down a lot of stuff there, but the devil is in the details.
	You'll find out later, well, yeah, we didn't address that because even maybe the elders didn't agree with what was going on with that.
	So when you look at their characterization of what Christian nationalism is...
	Don't be concerned about it.
	It is simply right now, they've designed this as a pejorative label.
	And even Russell Voight says, well, I don't accept that label.
	I don't call myself a Christian nationalist, and I don't accept what you are saying about this.
	But Politico goes on to say...
	That Trump is not a devout man of faith.
	Oh, that's a revelation. But Christian nationalists have...
	Been among his most reliable campaign activists and voting blocs.
	Trump formed a political alliance with evangelicals during his first run, delivered them a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, is now espousing the Christian rights long-running argument that Christians are so severely persecuted that it necessitates a federal response.
	Well, it doesn't. It doesn't.
	No matter how bad the persecution is.
	We need to focus on the state level.
	We need to focus on interposition.
	Of state and local officials?
	On nullification by them?
	On civil resistance?
	Forget about the federal government.
	On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Trump promoted on his social media a video that suggested his campaign is actually a divine mission from God.
	America should be recognized as a Christian nation where our rights and duties are understood to come from God, wrote Russell Voight two years ago on Newsweek.
	Well, it's 100% true.
	That's the premise of the Declaration of Independence.
	Our rights come from God.
	And it's self-evident that they do.
	He says it's a commitment to an institutional separation between church and state, but not to the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society.
	He got it exactly right.
	But they want to label him as a Christian nationalist.
	He went on to accuse the people using this label of Christian nationalism of invoking the term to try to scare people.
	That's right. The term need not be subjected to such intense scorn due to misunderstanding or slander.
	It's an intimidation tactic.
	And that's what Rob Reiner is doing.
	They also go in to tie in Flynn in this Politico article.
	Trump is talking about bringing his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, a vocal proponent of Christian nationalism.
	There's nothing Christian about Michael Flynn's activism in this reawaken America.
	Understand that. If Michael Flynn wants to present himself as a Christian, he needs to publicly repent of what he did pushing transgenderism on people like that Navy SEAL, Chris Beck.
	In 2014, he was at the cusp of all that.
	He and Donald Trump were leading this country, pushing transgenderism in the early teens.
	Trump for his beauty contest and Michael Flynn at the Pentagon.
	So shut up about them being Christians until they confront that and acknowledge and repent from that.
	They're not. And so Flynn is out there talking about his army of God, and he is somebody who is, anybody who follows him is doing a disservice to this country, and a disservice to conservatives, and a disservice to Christians, because this is a setup just like January the 6th was a setup.
	So Rob Reiner has a different version of nationalism.
	I think we should call it meathead nationalism.
	The guy who is in his only acting role, he was routinely despised.
	He was supposed to be the smart guy who was going to expose Archie Bunker, the bigot, and yet everybody despised Rob Reiner.
	And he wasn't acting, as you can see now.
	He's made some films.
	He said now he's made a film about Christian nationalism that I've mentioned in the past.
	He says there's very conservative Christian evangelicals, pastors, very respected people in the Christian community that are frightened of this Christian nationalist movement.
	So you should be frightened to be associated with it.
	You should get back in the closet, Christians, and shut up.
	Because Rob Reiner is going to call you, he's going to associate you with Michael Flynn and Donald Trump and these QAnon retards out there.
	We show in the film that this movement was the foundation for January the 6th.
	They were moving elements that made January the 6th and the insurrection happen.
	Now we have a speaker in the House who is an avowed Christian nationalist.
	Look, it is true that QAnon and Michael Flynn and a lot of the usual suspects that orchestrated that January the 6th trap Are doing the same thing again with Reawaken America and the rest of this stuff.
	They need to be opposed with this.
	And of course, a key part of what Rob Reiner is doing is to play the race card.
	White Christian nationalism.
	So again, he's going to make everything about race.
	We've got some comments on here.
	Travis is telling me that the stream is having some issues.
	Something is up with our Wi-Fi or the ISP. Stream is dropping in and out.
	I've done everything I can short of turning everything off.
	I have no guarantee that it will fix anything if I did turn it off.
	Our ISP could be having issues.
	Our router could be freaking out.
	OBS could be glitching.
	Restream could be glitching.
	There's so many different possible failure points I can't test it while we are live.
	Okay, so... Disclaimer.
	We will have the full program up later today.
	So, as both audio and video.
	On Rumble, A. Woots, thank you very much for the tip.
	Says, Trump is a treacherous coward who belongs in D.C. Oh, we had this before.
	And OctoSpook.
	Besides being documented mass murderer, liar, and uni-party member, Trump is now a shoe salesman and a huckster.
	Well, that's unfair to shoe salesmen.
	I mean, I've known some honest shoe salesmen.
	And they are not, all the shoe salesmen are not soulless, so to speak.
	They're not heels either.
	But... Stealth patriot.
	It's easy to know what he's going to do next.
	Just go read the World Economic Forum website.
	Yep, that's what he did in the past.
	He's got his Freedom Cities.
	We won't call them smart cities.
	We won't call them 15-minute cities.
	We'll call them Freedom Cities.
	Colton Kimberly, thank you for the tip.
	I've noticed when I have to watch later after the live show, all the likes go back to zero after it is posted here on Rumble, like yesterday.
	I was the sixth like.
	Oh, well, that's interesting.
	We don't necessarily need to repost the live show at Rumble.
	We just leave it up there, I guess.
	I don't know. I just leave the live stream up afterwards and then upload a full version of the show after.
	Oh, okay. That way I can put captions on it.
	Okay. You can't put the captions in there on the live show after it's up?
	No, since it doesn't quite match up in terms of length.
	Oh, okay. Okay, well, we'll work out something.
	It'd probably be better to put them up and have people have a general guide.
	The problem when I put in the timecode stuff is that they inject commercials on the audio stream and everything, so that shifts things.
	So those are kind of approximate anyway.
	Let me just say this before I take a break.
	One person said, hey, Meathead, Rob Reiner, meet John Quincy Adams.
	A Christian nationalist, son of John Adams and Abigail Adams.
	And so he says, when you look at the life of John Quincy Adams, and as a matter of fact, I went to a junior high school that was named after this guy.
	He says, Reiner's work is a pale cinematic shadow of the career of our sixth president, If you want to talk about Christian nationalism, he goes, yeah, he's got a career.
	He's directed a few films.
	He said his best film was A Few Good Men.
	He said the best line out of his best film was, you can't handle the truth.
	Can Rob Reiner handle the truth of how we've had presidents who embraced, openly embraced, and talked about their Christian beliefs?
	And how their Christian beliefs informed their policies and their lives and their attitudes towards things.
	What's the matter with that? He says, John Quincy Adams, a brilliant diplomat, a spy-in-chief, a master of many languages, a friend of czar's who helped to secure his country's Florida, the Pacific Northwest, freedom of speech, peace with Britain, liberty to the Amistad passengers, and ultimately a nation without slavery.
	I'm wondering if Reiner would call Adams a Christian nationalist.
	He says, Reiner's own history of Christian nationalism begins in the 1950s.
	He says, the beginnings of this movement happened in 1954 with Brown versus the Board of Education.
	See, this is where he plays the race card.
	Oh, the white Christian nationalists.
	This comment says, Reiner's history is ugly, meathead ugly.
	By the way, this is David Marshall's piece here.
	It said, two generations ago, less than 1% of white kids attended segregated academies.
	That's a big swath.
	The start of Christian nationalism, quote-unquote, for the whole country, which demonstrates the racism of anyone who supports Trump today.
	Is that the way that we're going to look at this?
	But here's the real history.
	He says, the scary thing is that John Quincy Adams was a Christian nationalist.
	He fulfilled a promise that he made to his mother, he said, Abigail Adams.
	He recited the Lord's Prayer before rising for the rest of his life.
	He read his Bible, attended church religiously, unlike Trump.
	He appealed to divine truth and public statements, including his attacks on slavery.
	And with growing fervency and power as he got older.
	He said, slavery is an offense against God.
	And so you can lump him in there with these other infamous English Christian nationalists like William Wilberforce, who stopped the slave trade, who stopped slavery itself in England because of his Christian values.
	He saw his work as a member of parliament in terms of serving those Christian values.
	He was going, after he became a Christian, he was going to drop out of Parliament.
	And he talked to the guy who wrote Amazing Grace.
	And he said, no.
	Newton told him, he said, stay in.
	That's what God has called you to do.
	And so he made it his life's work to stop the slave trade, to stop that, because of his Christian faith.
	John Quincy Adams is also a dedicated historian who read and or spoke English, Greek, Latin, French, German, Hebrew, and Russian.
	He was arguably America's most talented and knowledgeable diplomat.
	He founded the Smithsonian Institute.
	He said that if the state of Georgia didn't protect Creek Indians from encroachment, an obligation he said that was even higher than that of human authority, it would force him to act.
	In an 1837 address in Massachusetts, Adams showed just how dangerous a Christian nationality was by linking Christmas to Independence Day.
	I won't read all of that to you.
	I'll just say this in summary, that we have to understand that people like Rob Reiner are just doing propaganda.
	They're ignorant of history.
	And they're trying to intimidate people.
	And we don't need to fall for that.
	We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, I want to start talking a little bit about, before our guest joins us, I'm going to take a quick break and we'll come back and we'll talk a little bit more about the Amish.
	No, I'm not turning Amish.
	But they have something to tell people about the vaccine, about food, and the rest of this stuff.
	And there is an essay by Raw Egg Nationalists that really hits this on the head.
	We will be right back. Whether you're feeling like the blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSradio.com.
	you It's the David Knight Show.
	Well, this essay is called The Price.
	And it's from the Raig Nationalists.
	They said, we pay a price when we abandon the ways and the wisdom of our ancestors.
	And he uses the Amish as an example.
	He said it was, and this is an article that had disappeared, so he republished it again.
	It was back in 2021, I believe, when he first published it.
	And at that time, Steve Kirsch had gone before the Pennsylvania State Senate, and he talked about how the Amish were not affected by the pandemic.
	In spite of the fact they didn't wear any masks, they didn't social distance, they didn't get the vaccine, they didn't do anything they were told to do by President Fauci and his assistant, Donald Trump.
	He said, the Amish died at a rate that was 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the rest of the U.S. during the pandemic.
	Because remember, a lot of people are being killed by the hospital protocols that Trump was paying the hospitals to do.
	They did not lock down, mask, social distance.
	They didn't vaccinate. There were no mandates in the Amish community to get vaccinated.
	They basically ignored every single guideline that the CDC gave us.
	And ignoring those guidelines meant a death rate that was 90 times lower than the rest of America.
	On this evidence, it would seem that the Amish, and not the Swedes, and not the Floridians, Should serve as the control argument to judge the success of these public health measures.
	A lot of people talk, oh, well, Florida followed this stuff a lot more.
	And even Sweden did.
	The Amish did none of what we were told, what we were forced to do.
	And yet, they also suffered none of the disastrous consequences we were promised if we didn't wear the mask, cower inside our home for months on end, and immediately line up to be jabbed when the time came.
	It turns out that we were the ones being pushed into a disaster.
	A disaster whose consequences will ramify for many years to come.
	Whether in the destruction of so many small businesses that were called non-essential by Trump, and the transfer of their hard-earned wealth to corporate leviathans like Amazon, Who are essential?
	Or in the unhappy lives of our younger generation?
	Or in the myriad other painful and costly ways like the great poisoning as it gradually kills many people?
	It's not just in relation to the pandemic that the Amish present a picture of unusual health.
	Mr. Kirsch also noted that they suffer virtually none of the chronic diseases that are par for the course in modern industrial societies.
	Nor do they suffer from conditions like ADHD, autism, autoimmune conditions, all of which have been subject to stunning rises in the recent decades.
	Mr. Kirsch believes this is because the Amish are not vaccinated at all.
	They would never release a report to the findings because the report would have a devastating effect to the U.S. government's narrative.
	It would show that CDC has been harming the public for decades.
	And these are more than just inconvenient truths.
	They strike at the very heart the way that we organize our society and the way that we live our lives.
	And so, from this, he begins to talk about a work that was done back in 1939, a book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, by a pioneering dentist named Weston A. Price.
	I know many of you know him.
	But before I get into that and what he found, I just want to say, how was it that the Amish were able to do all this stuff?
	Well, they were able to not do any of this because they were not up for coercion or bribery or blackmail.
	See, this strikes to the very heart of the MAGA denial of Trump's involvement.
	There weren't people coming around door to door, dragging people out and forcefully injecting them.
	And so from that standpoint... Democrats, Biden and Fauci, oh, we didn't force anybody to do it.
	Well, coercion is a kind of force.
	And that's what they did. But there's also the bribery that is involved there.
	It's not just the blackmail. But they were not susceptible to any of this because, you see, the way that all worked, the way the coercion and the force and the bribery worked, They would apply economic pressure to people.
	You're going to lose your job.
	You're going to lose your position.
	That's how they have control over us.
	And the Amish are not blackmailable.
	The Amish haven't taken the bribe for anything.
	They have focused on keeping their community independent.
	They focused on creating a vibrant, interdependent community that cannot be coerced or bribed or blackmailed from the outside.
	Now, they could send troops in and they could forcefully shoot these people, shoot them with bullets, shoot them with vaccines or something like that by force.
	But that wasn't done to anybody.
	The rest of it was done because we made ourselves too dependent on what the government demanded.
	And people were afraid to give up this life of dependency on government money and government orders.
	That's the key thing.
	But let's talk about what Weston Price noticed.
	Back in the 1930s, he published this book in 1939.
	He looked at the lifestyles and subsequent health of tribal groups in many different places, not just the Amish, in Africa, in North America, in Oceania, in Europe, in the high Alpine Swiss herders, inhabitants of the Scottish Highlands.
	What he discovered and documented meticulously, including a beautiful series of photographic comparisons, is a direct refutation of the idea that modern industrial lifestyles and medicine are making us healthier.
	In fact, he showed the opposite is true.
	Born in the late 19th century, Weston Price was originally from Canada, but he set up a shop as a dentist across the border in Cleveland, Ohio.
	This was a time when the traditional diets of Americans in the Midwest, based entirely in animal and plant whole foods, were being displaced by new industrial products, especially refined wheat and canned products.
	The effects were terrible and immediate, and Price saw among his patients, especially amongst the children, growing signs of severe physical decay, Crowded teeth, abundant cavities, malformation of the dental arch, the roof of the mouth, weakening facial structure visible in the nose, the cheeks, and the jaw. What's more, these physical deformities were manifesting themselves in behavioral and developmental abnormalities that had previously been more or less unknown.
	He knew something was happening on a broader level to cause these changes, so he guessed that it had to do with diet.
	And so he was able to document at least a dozen groups that he considered to display perfect health.
	By that he meant he didn't just mean dental health.
	It meant that not only these people avoided facial degeneration that was happening because of dental issues, that was suffering by American children, but their entire bodies were in prime condition.
	These people were fit, tall, had a tremendous resistance to physical ailments of all kind, including chronic and infectious diseases, and they also generally lived into ripe old age.
	He visited the Torres Strait Islanders, for instance, a tribe living on an island off the north coast of Australia. He spoke to an Australian physician who had been sent to minister to them and to the small population of whites who had recently moved there too.
	The doctor said that in his 13 years with the Islanders, he had not seen a single case of malignancy, in other words, cancer, and he'd only seen one that he had suspected might be a malignancy among the entire 4,000 native population. He said he had operated several dozen, during the same period of time, he'd operated on several dozen malignancies for the white population that was living there.
	Price could see that one of the key differences between the Islanders and the whites was their diet.
	The Islanders continued to eat a traditional diet based primarily around nutrient-dense animal foods In particular the abundant seafood the bird life the islands provided the whites were subsisting on refined and canned goods shipped in from the mainland Wherever price found a group that displayed perfect health whether that was within the Arctic Circle or the African savanna He found people who were eating large quantities of food like organ meat blood fatty cuts of meat eggs
	Shellfish seafood milk and animal fat products like butter and lard Price tested samples of the food these people were eating and found them to contain massive quantities of vitamins minerals enzymes and cofactors well beyond the quantities most people in America would have been consuming at the time and Massively in excess of what the average person would consume today even with supplements So there's two things here.
	Number one, we have to understand how important it is for us to have control locally.
	We have to understand that even from the standpoint of Trump, this bad state law, again, being weaponized by the people prosecuting him, but it was a state law, a bad law.
	And things can get much worse for us if we have bad local and state government, because that's where the rubber meets the road.
	And even if you've got somebody in Washington, as we had with both Trump and Biden, who is bribing bureaucrats and institutions to lock us down, to poison us, to abuse us, to make us engage in all kinds of insane compliance rituals, that can be stopped at the local level.
	And the other part of this is the understanding that That so much of this has been put together by these globalist, nationalist organizations, Rockefeller Foundation, the rest of them. And you look at what is happening with Davos.
	They're very highly focused at this point in time on making the food supply even worse, even more poisonous, because that's how they depopulate the world.
	And, of course, they've come up with an excuse, this nonsense about CO2. That's how they're going to roll this whole thing out.
	We're going to take a quick break right now, and we're going to establish contact with Marty Gottesfeld, and he's going to talk to us about his experiences with the communication management units, which is probably where, most certainly where they'll put...
	Excuse me. I had a sneeze there.
	That's most certainly where they will put Julian Assange if they extradite him to make sure that he can't talk to people.
	So we're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Let's go. They created common core to dumb down our children.
	They created common past to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
	And the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidKnightShow.com Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
	TheDavidKnightShow.com If you like the Eagles.
	the Cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	All right, joining us now is Marty Gottesfeld, and Marty's got a lot of different social media accounts.
	I was just asking him where he is.
	He says he's trying to migrate everything to Substack, martyg.substack.com, where you can find his writing.
	But Marty, and we've had Marty on.
	I actually had his wife, Dana, for many years while Marty was in a communications management unit.
	This is where they put political prisoners in the U.S. right now.
	It's where you will see Julian Assange heading.
	And so we want to talk to him about what life is like there.
	It's very, very difficult.
	It is there to manage and to shut off any communication to the outside world.
	And so that's what they designed this thing for.
	And that's why they put dissidents and political prisoners there.
	We do have political prisoners, a lot of them, in the United States.
	So joining us now is Marty Gottesfeld.
	Thank you for joining us, Marty. Thank you for having me, David.
	Tell us a little bit about, just give us an overview of the CMU. We can get to your case in particular, and why you were there.
	And of course, it was a great injustice, and I've talked many times today about it, and we'll talk about that and things that are still happening with your court case.
	But you're out now, but tell us what the Communication Management Unit is like.
	It's a small, self-contained prison unit.
	Guys in the CMU do not get to go out to the prison yard.
	They do not get to go out to the other places inside the prison that the average federal prisoner gets to go.
	They keep it self-contained in a very small area so that they can cramp down on communications, make sure that you can't pass another prisoner a note or have another prisoner call somebody on your behalf.
	They keep even the laundry within the unit.
	It's like a central laundry place, but they're worried that, you know, it's just an example, prisoners will pass notes to the guys working in the laundry and then be able to get communications out that way so they actually keep even the laundry.
	Right, inside the unit.
	And when you buy a commissary, for the most part, it's prisoners who pack the commissary bags, but not for CMU prisoners.
	Only staff can pack a commissary bag for a CMU prisoner, which sometimes makes it harder to even get your commissary if it's a busy week.
	They might not have the staff to actually pack the bags for the CMU guys.
	When I got there April 1st, 2019, to the CMU in Terre Haute, Indiana, and there are two run by the Bureau of Prisons, which is a federal agency of the Justice Department.
	So the one is in Terre Haute, Indiana.
	That's the original facility.
	It was opened around 2006 during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	The wars provided the financial justification for the unit.
	The idea was that they would lock up, like, al-Qaeda guys, You know, jihadi guys there, and they would monitor their communications, and they would mine those communications for intel to use in the war efforts.
	A few years later, they opened up a second communications management unit at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois.
	I spent about a year in that unit as well, so I've been to both CMUs.
	You know, they justified the second unit as they didn't have enough room, you know, in the first one.
	And after they'd been running the first one for a while, they had guys who had, like, keep separate orders, right?
	Like, they can't put this guy with that guy, or they'll attack each other on site.
	So they needed some place that they could, you know, resolve those kinds of problems.
	The second unit basically doubled the CME budget.
	The max capacity of either unit at any given time is about 50-60 guys.
	When I first got there, they were running at about half that capacity.
	There's probably a little fewer than half are, you know, it's hard to even call them real terrorism cases, but they're at least cases that have some nexus to something cognizable as terrorism.
	They tend not to be the really high-profile cases, though.
	The really high-profile cases, they go to the supermax in the federal system in Florence, Colorado.
	So it's important to understand that.
	These are not the only places where they can hold actual terrorists.
	El Chapo will never see a CIA. He went from MCC New York, the high security lockup in Manhattan, straight to the Supermax in Colorado.
	There's no justification to keep these U.S. running for prisoners like that.
	This is where they put a 20-year-old kid who gets indoctrinated on the internet or gets entrapped by the Justice Department or both, who gets caught on a plane to Syria or on a cruise ship to Syria to try to fight on the other side of a geopolitical dispute in which the United States takes an interest.
	Those tend to be the so-called terrorism The Bureau of Prisons gets millions and millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars to run these units.
	They take prison guards with no intelligence training with, you know, who would not be able to cut the mustard at State Department or CIA as intelligence analysts, and they label them intelligence analysts, they give them six-figure salaries, and then their job essentially becomes to give people like me and Julian a hard time.
	Yeah, yeah. Well, it's interesting.
	You said El Chapo, will you not find him there?
	I guess, would they send the Sackler family there for their opioid stuff?
	No, they're not going to go to any prison, right?
	Yeah, but those types of people, if they were in prison, it's a very real possibility.
	I think I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but if the feds were to lock up Trump, for instance, if any of these cases against Trump result in a prison term, even a prison term pending appeal, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have appellate grounds or whatever, but if he does do any time in the federal system, the CMU is a likely place that Trump would go as well.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. Keep him from communicating with the outside.
	They take away his cell phone to tweet with.
	They're worried about his followers.
	They're worried about his supporters, right?
	He can make life very difficult on a CO if he were to say, you know, I have a problem with this particular CO, Mr.
	Smith. Right.
	The Bureau of Prisons would take very unkindly to that, and he'd likely find himself in a CMU. And so, like so many other things, like the Patriot Act itself, we see something that is set up to house people that are violent terrorists, and instead, this thing then turns against, in many cases, people who are dissidents, people who are opposing their narrative, people who are political opponents.
	Schaefer Cox...
	For example, is in one of these.
	He's not a terrorist. He's not a threat of violence to anybody else, but they want to make sure that they cut off his communications because he has influence, and he can influence people against the government narrative that they want to maintain.
	So, Schaefer Cox, was he there?
	Not to mention, one of his case was concocted.
	Yeah. He and I, we were a few doors down from each It's almost laughable, and it would be laughable if they hadn't hemmed him up for so long on it.
	The appellate court largely satirized his case when they reversed it and took away most of his sentence.
	And that was the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
	It's a very liberal court that found the government's When we talk about Trump and lawfare and things like that, I mean, this has been going on for a very long time to other people like Schaefer Cox, but they have the ability to completely shut him down because he doesn't have a big following.
	He doesn't have a billion dollars or several billion dollars.
	And so what they've done to him is horrific.
	And they put him into one of these communication management units that are there.
	Now, this is, as you were pointing out, you're not going to drive to Terre Haute, Indiana, and you're not going to see a sign out there that says Communications Management Unit.
	It's a small part of the prison that is there and a small part of the one that is in Illinois as well, right?
	So this is a subset of that.
	Yeah, and so the town of CMU is actually the old federal death row.
	They built the new federal death row elsewhere in the compound, and then they used the old death row as the CMU. So, like, I've been inside Timothy McVeigh's cell.
	And then they leave up, like, some of the placarding from when it was the death row.
	And it's kind of like an ominous warning, like, keep doing stuff we don't like, and we're going to move you down.
	We'll find a way to concoct something and move you down the road.
	Like, there's a lot of subtle coercion, right?
	You mentioned before that coercion is a form of force.
	And, you know, they have to try to maintain the appearance that, you know, there's a real public interest in running these units.
	And that's why, in my opinion, you do have the 30 to 45 percent kind of, like, terrorism material support cases that are there.
	Those are the excuse, right?
	And prisoners like myself, like, like, And so when you're there, like if you're me, right, when you're on the phone with a journalist, they just hang up the phone, take your phone away.
	If your wife puts you to the press, which Dana did with me, you know, they throw you in solitary.
	I have all the paperwork to prove this.
	I've spoken recently in a few places about what Mr.
	Assange can expect to face in the CMU. And I think I was the federal prisoner with a course of conduct most similar to Mr.
	Assange's because I was publishing, right?
	Very few guys in prison do, right?
	And Julian also, he does publish, right?
	They hate prisoner lawsuits out of the CMU, so they retaliate against any kind of litigation They squelch your First Amendment rights, and then if you try to go to court, they retaliate against you further, right?
	And I think that's something that Mr.
	Assange, unfortunately, can expect.
	When I was preparing to file a lawsuit, they said that my attempted lawsuit was extortion, and they threw me in solitary.
	Even though courts all around the country have ruled that, you know, to try to say that litigation is extortion is frivolous, is patently frivolous.
	It doesn't matter because no one is prepared in the Bureau of Prisons or in the local U.S. District Courts to be fair to you once you're placed in a CMU. Unfortunately, in this country, most of our federal judges are former DOJ prosecutors, right?
	And they get spun that, you know, these are terrorists.
	This is the terrorism unit.
	So you're dead on arrival in court, you know, even before you get there.
	The courts aren't going to want to hear it.
	I'm out now. Before I was out, I had a federal habeas.
	I think we're good to go.
	I think we're good to go.
	Federal habeas is supposed to jump to the front of the line.
	It's supposed to be the very first thing on which a court rules because it affects somebody's liberty, right?
	And liberty interest is one of the highest interest, if not the highest interest you can have in the law in this country.
	But if you're filing a habeas from a CMU, the court just doesn't rule on it until you're already out, and then they can say it's moved, you know, you're already out, but they avoid having any ruling or they avoid having a majority of rulings that could go against the CMU on First Amendment grounds Or on due process grants, right? So this is something that you filed while you were still a prisoner there.
	Is that correct? That's correct. And they still have not heard it, and as you expect, they're going to delay this and then say it's a moot issue?
	Yeah, I mean, that's part of the course, unfortunately.
	But at the same time, you have a federal statute, and we actually put it on the docket to the judge and asked him to rule.
	We said, look, no, look, under the rules, this was supposed to be the very first thing the court did.
	Huge. And we put that on the docket a few months ago, and it's still nothing.
	So, let's, you know, and I want to get to your case and let you tell what happened with your case, because you were there under these conditions, and Dana was working very hard to get information out about this and to get the information about the way they abused your case, how you were a political prisoner.
	But do you think, you mentioned the Supermax prisons, do you think that they're going to send Julian Assange to the Supermax or to the CMU, and what is the difference between the two in terms of prisoner population?
	Well, I think they'll send him to the CMU. The Justice Department has already made what I believe was an unqualified assurance to London that they would not, under any circumstances, send Assange to the Supermax, right?
	They've kind of said that they will initially put him under what are called Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs, which is kind of what the highest classification of communication restrictions a federal prisoner can be under, but you don't need to be I was never under Sam's.
	But it's a distinction largely without a difference.
	You don't need to be under Sam's.
	The problem for them with Sam's is it would cause a diplomatic uproar and the U.S. Attorney General would actually personally have to sign off on it.
	So there is some accountability there where he could later be questioning as to why he signed off on this communication restriction, whether it was They only need to sign off from the Associate Director of the Bureau of Prisons.
	It's nowhere near as high level of official, and those Associate Directors are like toilet paper.
	They get changed often, pretty much for the same reasons.
	So, you know, it's way more likely that he will end up in a CMU. And they claim that the CMUs are general population units, that there's nothing atypical or significant about the hardships in the CMU. They've made these claims to the U.S. courts.
	The U.S. courts have largely credited those claims.
	The reality is, of course, though, it's not a general population.
	Theoretically, I was supposed to get two 15-minute phone calls each week while I was in the CMU. I was supposed to be allowed to call the media, and I didn't even get those.
	But compared to that, the average federal prisoner, depending on his or her exact circumstances, and this is in flux now with some of the prison reform stuff going on, but they get 300 to 500 telephone minutes per month.
	And CMU prisoners get at most 30 a week, and a lot of the times they don't even get that for various reasons.
	They can just lock the unit down without providing a reason and give no one their phone calls, and that goes on for days on end.
	If you miss your calls through no fault of your own, like if there's a technical issue with the equipment, which has happened, you just don't get your call.
	There's no make-up call.
	You have no in-person contact visits.
	So in the CMU, whereas in the rest of the federal prison, you have contact visits.
	So Dana was unable to hug me for four years.
	And then after NBC dropped the four-part docuseries on my case, Justina Pelletier, the Bureau of Presence simply deleted Dana From my contact information, would not allow me to re-add her.
	Never served me any paperwork to say that, you know, I did anything wrong or Dana did anything wrong.
	And I was not able to speak to Dana for the last seven or eight months that I was going to see in news.
	And then when I was speaking with John Kiriakoub, who is the CIA whistleblower who exposed the Bush torture program, I was discussing a different case that we'll get into that affects Operation Factory.
	Fast and Furious and the efforts to investigate Operation Fast and Furious.
	So I was talking with John.
	They clearly didn't like that.
	They heard Fast and Furious.
	They cut off my call with him.
	Would not let me call him again.
	I have a nephew who is an attorney.
	So he was kind of my last resort.
	I thought, okay, they really shouldn't mess with calls to a licensed attorney.
	My nephew was trying to help me with my case, trying to help me find counsel in the area.
	The calls were of legal I was discussing the restrictions and when they had been applied and the facts upon which there are reasonable inferences of retaliation.
	A very similar set of circumstances to what, unfortunately, He wouldn't let me call him anymore.
	So for my last several months in the CMUs, I couldn't call anybody.
	They just deactivated my phone account.
	They never said that I broke a rule.
	They never gave me any kind of hearing of any kind.
	And that's part of the course when you do things that upset them.
	But Dana quoted me to a reporter at RT, and RT ran an article with my quotes.
	And they took my phone away for nine months and added 27 days to my sentence for being quoted by media.
	These are just some examples, right?
	And this is unfortunately what Julian's going to run into.
	And he's not the type to go quiet.
	He's the guy that was on.
	And I get that.
	But unfortunately, that means he's going to run into this retaliation over and over.
	So, they can make the pledge that he's not going to be put in a Supermax.
	They can say that he's not going to get the special administrative things.
	And yet, you know, what they don't say is that we're not going to put him in a CMU. What's that?
	No, they've not said they're not going to put it in the CMU. Yeah, that's right.
	Nobody knows about the CMU, really.
	That is not out there.
	And so it's like, oh, okay, well, I guess we've got all the bases covered.
	No, they're not talking about the CMU. They're keeping that kind of quiet.
	And that's likely to be what he's going to get there.
	Just to give you an example, David, when I was in the CMU, the SANS guys got their phone calls, but I did not.
	Even though I was never on Sam's.
	During this period where they cut Dana and they just wouldn't let me speak on the phone at all, deactivated my phone account because I was talking about Fast and Furious, the guys on Sam's were all getting their phone.
	I was not. So they actually treated me harsher.
	The guys who were on SIMS, I think a lot of those cases are bogus too, but where there's arguably some national security basis, right?
	Where the U.S. Attorney General himself signed off and said, this prisoner presents a national security threat.
	Those guys were getting their calls and I was not getting one.
	And the most amazing thing about it is, in your case, this was not an allegation of violence or national security threat or any of that kind of stuff.
	What it was was a case of medical kidnapping that you worked to expose against Harvard's Children's Hospital.
	And because they're so heavily connected with government, they use the government to punish you for that, which is truly amazing.
	And I want to get to that as well.
	But you mentioned, and I want to talk about this Fast and Furious thing and what John Kiriaki was talking to you about.
	What is going on with the Fast and Furious?
	What is this information and how did you come by?
	So there's a prisoner in the Terre Haute CMU right now named Donald Reynolds Jr.
	And his case, he didn't realize it at first.
	So he's a firearms collector, or he was when he was out.
	He was a firearms collector.
	He had several historically significant pieces.
	He had a Browning from World War II.
	The government approached him, and they asked him to be an informant.
	And they had no leverage over him.
	He was not a criminal. It wasn't like they had him on something small or trying to turn him or anything like that.
	So he refused, right?
	So the feds show up. They raid his house.
	They raid his parents' house.
	They find nothing.
	No drugs. All the firearms are legally licensed.
	He's got his Class III stamps, right?
	State law, federal law, everything.
	But they concoct this drug case, this drug trafficking case against them, even though they've found no drugs.
	They've never found any drugs.
	And they use that to kind of silence him.
	As the years go by, they give him life plus 75.
	Wow. In this case, it's a first-time nonviolent offender with no drugs found.
	They give him life plus 75. In comparison, El Chapo got life plus 15.
	So they actually gave Donnie a harsher sentence than El Chapo.
	As the years go by, Donnie starts putting stuff together, the names and dates in his case, right?
	And he went to trial.
	He forced him to go to trial like any innocent man would, or he would assume an innocent man would.
	And he starts to realize that all the names and the dates overlap with fast and furious.
	And it took years for the information to come out, right?
	And so then I write about his case from inside the CMU, which was difficult to do, but I got it done.
	And the American Conservatives Did a months-long investigation.
	They published a feature under the headline, The Knoxville Kingpin Who Wasn't.
	They go over all of Donnie's case, they go over all of the names and the dates.
	They conclude in the end that this case is Certainly adjacent to Fast and Furious, the names and the dates, everything lines up.
	And they recommend clemency for Donnie because of the prosecutorial irregularities.
	And they found several witnesses, and I'm sure this doesn't surprise many in your audience, but it would surprise, I think, the average member of the public.
	They found several instances where federal prosecutors filed affidavits saying, this person told us X. A federal agent says this source claimed X. They then compared the trial testimony of these witnesses who sang a very different tune at trial.
	So either the prosecutor was lying or the source was never credible in the first place.
	And that's kind of the story of McDonny's case.
	And he's been fighting to try to get out, fighting to try to expose this.
	And they threw in a CMU and they retaliated against him viciously.
	And my theory on it is, you know, the U.S. House of Representatives during the Obama administration issued a subpoena to the White House for records on Operation Fast and Furious.
	Obama asserted executive privilege to quash that subpoena, and we never got the records from the White House about Fast and Furious.
	Fast and Furious, for those who don't know, the Justice Department allowed high-power, under-penetrating firearms and ammunition to go to walk from the United States to the Mexican drug cartels.
	The Mexican drug cartels that used those firearms to massacre people, Mexican nationals, and also three federal agents were shot by these weapons.
	Okay?
	Yeah.
	And that was actually something, let me just interject, that was something that actually a gun walker program began under Bush.
	Bush?
	Yeah.
	Operation Unreceiver.
	Yeah, it became Fast and Furious under Obama.
	So it really is, you know, the ATF through both of these administrations, as we see over and over again, whether it's a Republican or Democrat that is in office, these same types of things are happening.
	And it was really to carry the water for the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which they wanted to make a case that...
	We had small arms that we would, you know, typically keep pistols and rifles and things like that.
	Small arms are going back and forth, creating this crime problem in Mexico.
	And the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was saying we've got to stop that trafficking in arms across the border, which means that you're going to have to have every piece of firearms or ammunition or whatever identified and recorded immediately.
	In the United States. That was their end goal.
	That was the UN gun control move, the UN arms trade treaty.
	And that's what this was all set up to support.
	And I think even the New York Times, after this all blew up and they had these federal agents get killed, I think even the New York Times said that this was a false flag.
	Everybody understood it was a false flag.
	Okay. Yeah.
	So Donnie, he puts this all together.
	And he's trying to get out.
	He's trying to get back into court.
	The Obama administration had the subpoenas quashed under executive privilege, which a president can claim, whatever the U.S. Attorney General briefs him on the matter, it's analogous roughly to regular attorney-client privilege, except between the president and the Attorney General.
	The problem for Donnie and for the Justice Department arises because Donnie's defense was entitled That's the discovery case where the government's got to turn over all of its evidence to your defense counsel, including evidence that speaks to your innocence, evidence that is not favorable to the prosecution.
	The prosecution doesn't just get to bury that, they have to turn it over to the defense.
	So, this information was never turned over to Donnie's defense.
	Nothing about Fast and Furious was turned over to Donnie's defense.
	This is an appellation, right?
	If it's proven that they withheld this information, Donnie's conviction gets reversed, he gets to come back into court, and as long as his liberty is on the line, they cannot use executive privilege to quash Brady, because the liberty interest trumps the executive privilege interest.
	Mm-hmm.
	Right? They're either going to have to drop the case or the truth about Fast and Furious is going to come out.
	And so he, like myself, and I fear Julian Assange, this is a great example of the type of case that's in the CMU that there's no purpose to protect the public.
	There's no public safety interest.
	There's no compelling interest to protect prison authorities.
	Donnie has never been violent.
	He's not accused. But they'll use the CMU in his case, and in Juliet's case, and in my case, in Schaefer Cox's case.
	And there's another gentleman there named Kurt Johnson.
	Kurt's a great guy. He interceded to stop a murder in the CMU after there had already been one murder.
	There was going to be a second, and then Mr.
	Johnson stepped in and stopped it.
	He was suing big banks on behalf of homeowners in 2008 before the financial crisis segment the loans were credits for a valid Yeah, yeah, he gets sentenced, you know a few months before the crisis Everything hits the fan right and if his case had been a few months later, maybe it would work out very differently Right, but that's another guy who's there in the CMU and again It would be very embarrassing for the system and you know who went to jail in the 2008 financial crisis the whistle
	That's right Went to prison, right these are the types of cases that are in the seniors Wow. And of course, John Kiriakou, the whistleblower, about CIA torture.
	Did they not have the CMUs at that point in time?
	Where did they put him when he was in general?
	So he has written.
	I'm not allowed to have any direct communication with Mr.
	Kiriakou since I'm still on supervised release.
	So I have to preface with that.
	But I do recall that while I was on my way to the CMU, Oh,
	yeah. Yeah, they probably...
	Yeah, they probably did their own individualized CMU just for him.
	That's probably exactly what happened.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about your case because I think it's interesting to see the links that they will go to to put somebody in and to severely restrict their communications to punish you as You pointed out if somebody does an article about you. We have a communication you were trying to you were able to Kind of in some of your legal proceedings were able to get some information out that way to your wife but they pretty much kept everything excuse me about the
	sneeze there they pretty much kept everything under control and Tell us a little bit about why you got there because it truly is your case is truly astounding You are not a threat to anyone other than a very highly politically connected and very powerful, wealthy organization.
	And so we could see this type of thing happening, for example, if somebody were to expose and be a whistleblower about Pfizer or something like that, right?
	Because these people are very highly, it doesn't even have to be a health issue.
	It could be any kind of a whistleblower who's exposing information about a politically connected organization or corporation.
	So tell us a little bit about the background of your case.
	So there was a, at the time she was 14 years old, a girl named Justina Pelletier.
	She has It's a congenital genetic condition that's degenerative, progressive, and sadly often fatal.
	It's the same type of condition that baby Charlie Gard had in the UK. There was a more recent instance of another child in the UK who had this condition, and they effectively just pulled the plug on them.
	They would not allow the parents to seek experimental therapies to try to help these kids.
	Justina has a slightly more survivable form of it.
	Mitochondrial disease is like an umbrella term for a bunch of different genetic disorders, so no two cases are really the same.
	Her gastroenterologist had moved from Tufts University Medical Center to Harvard's Boston Children's Hospital, and Justina caught the flu.
	The flu causes Severe complications for mitochondrial disease patients because mito is a metabolic disorder.
	Your cells in your body have a hard time converting food into chemical energy to run the body's systems.
	So then when the patient gets the flu and has nausea and has a hard time eating, you're compounding this metabolic problem because You know, the food that was getting in already had a hard time being converted to energy.
	Now you're stopping the food from getting in in the first place, right?
	So her primary mito doctor, a renowned guy named Dr.
	Corson at Tufts, refers to Stena to see her gastroenterologist, who, you know, the month before was working at Tufts.
	And this would have been no problem.
	She would have gone right into Tufts and seen him.
	But he had moved to Boston Children's Hospital, I think it was, to pursue a grant.
	So he refers her to Boston Children's Hospital to see her gastroenterologist.
	This is a doctor who had been with her for years.
	This gastroenterologist had actually operated on her to put in a psychostomy tube to help her use the bathroom.
	But she gets to Boston Children's Hospital via ambulance like 3 o'clock in the morning on a Sunday during the blizzard.
	The gastroenterologist is not there.
	She gets seen by a young neurologist a few months out of his medical training.
	He doesn't believe that Justina has mitochondrial disease.
	He refers the parents for medical child abuse basically Munchausen syndrome by proxy where the his theory effectively it seemed to be that Justina's parents were seeking attention and making her sick just to kind of bring attention onto themselves.
	It ignored the diagnosis, it ignored the fact that Justina's older sister also had Mito and was successfully treated for Mito.
	And again, this is a genetic condition so it tends to run in families, it tends to be passed down the maternal line.
	So he either didn't know or ignored those facts, sent Justina for a form of psychological therapy for what they call somatiform disorder or like psychosomatic disorder where like you think you're sick and your brain then kind of makes you sick or your symptoms fit your own perception of your illness.
	right? They took Justina off all her mito treatments, right?
	And that was when her parents You know, really expressed severe alarm because, again, this is a degenerative and often fatal illness.
	You take her off of her treatments, there's going to be severe repercussions.
	And we've seen that there, in fact, were.
	You know, she was walking.
	She could at least feel her legs when she walked into Boston Children's Hospital.
	She was having some trouble ambulating because of the flu and the lack of energy.
	But, you know, she certainly, she was ice skating six weeks earlier.
	Yeah, I remember seeing the pictures of her in scans.
	Yeah. Now she's crippled.
	Now she can't walk, right?
	And it's because they took her, in my view, because they took her off of these mitotherapies.
	And we don't know if she'll ever walk again, unfortunately.
	So, at the height of this case, right, the government alleges that I launched the largest distributed denial of service attack, a DDOS attack, that they'd ever seen.
	Then I basically sent too much web traffic to the public hospital.
	Let me interject here for a second, because this went on for quite some time, and she's degenerating throughout all of this.
	Yeah, this went on for over a year.
	A clear case of medical kidnapping, and there's been other allegations of medical kidnapping by other people over and over again from this particular institution.
	And so this has gone on for quite some time before the allegations came out.
	Go ahead. They had a word for it at Boston Children's Hospital.
	They called it a paradectomy.
	A appendectomy is removal of the appendix.
	A hysterectomy is removal of the uterus.
	A paredectomy is removal of the parents.
	That's what these doctors call it that came out of the Boston Globe.
	And at one point, Boston Children's Hospital is monitoring between Boston Children's Hospital and the state.
	Justina's communications. They're clamping down on Justina's communications.
	It was almost like she was in her own little CMU inside Boston Children's Hospital.
	She couldn't discuss her care or treatment with her parents and they would terminate the call or terminate the visit.
	They limited the parents to one 20-minute phone call a week and I think one in-person visit for like 40 minutes or an hour or something like that.
	Again, control the topics of conversation to prevent anything from getting out.
	They would not allow the parents to photograph Justina so they couldn't document and show the public that she was deteriorating.
	They couldn't show the public what she looked like now versus what she looked like before.
	At the height of this, Justina's parents published a handwritten note by Justina where she talked about the kinds of things that the psych ward people had done to her.
	It was, they hurt me all the time, they don't let me sleep very much, please harm me.
	That note comes out the day before the government alleges I launched this huge distributed denial That's right.
	What I did was I took down their donation portal.
	That's right. That was the allegation.
	Taking down their donation thing.
	Not that anybody was harmed by this, but just taking down their donation thing during a fundraiser event.
	They alleged that people were harmed or could have been harmed, but the jury wouldn't convict on it.
	When all the facts were errant in court, they did not obtain a conviction.
	Under the federal law, the bar is so low for them.
	All they had to prove was that I potentially, not even actually, but potentially impacted the medical diagnosis, treatment, or care of one individual.
	And they couldn't meet that ball.
	They failed to meet that ball.
	In federal court with a pro-government judge, literally everything going forward, and they would not allow me to plead defensive enough.
	Like, if I'm in a dark area and I see someone being attacked, you know, with a knife or with a gun, right, and I shoot the assailant, right, and then they charge me with murder, right, in the United States, you're supposed to be able to plead defense of another, right?
	It's just like self-defense.
	If someone were to attack you and you were to take action to defend your own life, if someone were to attack your wife and you took action to defend your wife's life, or if someone were to attack your child, you were to take action to defend your child's life, right?
	So they just wouldn't let me argue that.
	They took it away. They took it out of the jury's purview.
	They told the jury instead that my good motive was no excuse.
	for the crimes charged.
	And then we find out that the federal judge who sits on my case is a clerk, shareholder, and director of a for-profit family seafood business called Slade Gordon& Co.
	Inc., that Slade Gordon& Co.
	Inc. donates to Boston Children's Hospital, that Boston Children's Hospital publicly thanks Slade Gordon& Co.
	Inc. on the very same website the government alleges I brought down.
	We find out that the Harvard Hospital's We're all allegedly affected by the DDoS, do industry research for Slade, Gordon& Co.
	Inc. and an industry trade group called the Seafood Nutrition Partnership to market the company's products to the public as heart-healthy.
	We find out that the judge was a board member and a member of the corporation of an organization called New England Home for Little Wanderers, that his brother was also a board member of this organization, and that this organization, since 2003, has partnered with Boston Children's Hospital to divert juvenile psychiatric inpatients to outpatient stay.
	Which is what they were trying to do with Justina as soon as she became hot potato, right?
	And then we find out that one of my jurors, in this case, from a jury that was supposedly drawn randomly, was an accountant for the Home for Little Wanderers.
	And she steps forward on the first day of trial and says, hey, I was an accountant for the Home for Little Wanderers.
	I'm worried this might cause a mistrust.
	And we move to dismiss this juror, and the judge refuses.
	And the judge never discloses that he was a board member at the New England Home for Little Wanderers.
	Then we find out that the first witness in the case, the government's first witness, was a contractor with an agency that actually did the IT work for the New England Home for Little Wanderers.
	And the judge never discloses this and never recuses from the case.
	And the number of connections, I mean, this is just scratching the surface in my case.
	And I have all the documents to prove it.
	And you mentioned that there's a new filing in my case.
	I've moved to vacate the conviction.
	You get one chance after your appeals are done, you get one further chance under federal law to attack the conviction, and I've moved to do that, and the filing is pending in the U.S. District Court in Boston right now, but unfortunately it's pending before the very same district judge, the same person with all these conflicts of interest gets to decide whether the conviction should be overturned.
	Wow. And when we look at Julian Assange, I didn't get into this earlier in the program, but the judge, well, there's two judges that are residing over this thing.
	One of these two judges has a very, very long history with British Intelligence and Ministry of Defense.
	He has even been involved in enhanced interrogation cases and things like that, just like Tom Rizzo that I mentioned.
	Yeah, and so, I mean, he's got a very, very long history with the very people who are coming after Julian Assange, just like this judge in your case.
	Yeah, and Assange will be tried in the Eastern District of Virginia over here in the United States.
	That's the jurisdiction where they indicted him.
	That's known as the intelligence court, right?
	To people like John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, right?
	That's where they bring all these intelligence cases.
	And basically, your jury pool...
	It is Alexandria, Virginia.
	Your jury pool is pulling from these very same federal agencies.
	And the U.S. judges, unfortunately, they don't disclose, largely.
	The Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago published a front page expose.
	They found that 131 US federal judges had sat over 650, presided over 650 cases in which the judge owned an equity interest in one of the parties.
	So that's like Microsoft sues Amazon, the judge owns stock in Microsoft and the judge does not disclose, right?
	And does not recuse himself, right?
	And to put that into perspective, because the Wall Street Journal, I don't know why they didn't, but they never did.
	The U.S. doesn't have that many federal judges.
	131 federal judges is about 1-6.
	It's about 1-6 for the federal judges.
	So, with a very, you know, I mean, less than comprehensive.
	I mean, there was good work that the Wall Street Journal did, and I'm not trying to impugn it, but their search was just like surface line.
	And with a comprehensive in that they went over every judge's disclosures, but they didn't look too deeply into each particular judge's situation.
	They found that one in six U.S. judges broke the law when it comes to recusal.
	Now imagine what a deeper analysis would do.
	And imagine Julian's judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, who likely have serious ties to these contractors, likely own equity in stock.
	Right, and companies like Norfolk Brumman, right, and the other defense contractors, right, the people who sold the tanks, right, the people who sold the weapons, you know, to the military, and, you know, Julian arguably cost them a lot of business because he made it a lot harder to continue to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	They lost a lot of money because of his reporting.
	Yeah. Well, it truly is amazing.
	And of course, you're talking about a surface looking at conflict of interest.
	They wouldn't have probably discovered the kind of connections that you discovered with this judge if they just did a surface analysis because there was a couple of different levels deeper than just the surface.
	Yeah, that's exactly my point.
	And, you know, they discourage attorneys from looking into these issues and Would not file to recuse my district judge.
	They feared him so much.
	They feared retaliation from him.
	At least that's the only logical explanation that I was ever able to conjure, was that they fear this guy so much, they will not brief the issue.
	And so I was left to do it, per se.
	And then, you know, if you brief something like this unrepresented, they, you know, they The lawyer who has himself for a client is a fool, right?
	But at the same time, they make sure that none of the court-employed attorneys are ever going to brief this.
	They make it very likely that even a private retained attorney would ever brief this.
	And then you try to brief it yourself, even if you have all the documents, all the evidence.
	They say you're some wignut because you want to present yourself.
	Well, you really are a fighter, and it is truly, I'm sorry for what happened to you, but how long were you, you went into the Supermax in 2019, so you were there a little bit less than five years.
	How long were you in that, not the Supermax, the CMU? Yeah, I was never in the Supermax.
	How long were you incarcerated for?
	Sure. So I was in the CMUs one way or another from April 1st, 2019 to June 9th of 2023.
	So a little more than four years.
	I was split between the two facilities.
	I did time in both.
	I've seen both. There are some meaningful differences, but nothing really that would affect Julian or nothing that would affect his extradition case.
	The bottom line is they're going to put in one of these units.
	They're going to do so for unconstitutional reasons.
	They're going to violate his constitutional rights.
	There's really no reason that Britain should extradite him, and there is no representation from the U.S. government that is credible in terms of preserving his rights.
	If we're just real here, he's only being prosecuted because he told the truth.
	And people found that embarrassing, and it went against, you know, powered, moneyed interests.
	And there used to be a time, I feel, in this country, where that wouldn't be an issue, where they wouldn't be able to go after you like this.
	And with Assange in particular, right, they agonized for what they've written in this case because You know, the ramifications of it.
	The Obama administration, they call it the New York Times problem.
	Like, how are they going to justify prosecuting Assange but not prosecuting the New York Times?
	And the thing is, now they're just very selective.
	The federal laws are written in such a way that they can pick on anybody.
	That's right. Well, I'm starting to say...
	What we're starting to see is in the UK, they said, well, if you're an accredited organization, you get a different standard.
	So we have a dual standard for so-called non-accredited, non-establishment media than there is for other people and for anybody who is exercising their free speech.
	And as Ed Snowden pointed out, he said what he's being accused of are crimes against a state.
	And the extradition treaty between the US and the UK specifically excludes somebody from being extradited for crimes against the state.
	Most extradition treaties have carve-outs for political offenses or for that kind of thing.
	That's something that you expect to see in an extradition treaty.
	Yeah. And yet what we have now is all of the Western governments are rapidly moving towards criminalizing dissent.
	And that is what's so concerning about this.
	They're moving against the press, the independent press.
	They're moving against individuals exercising their free speech.
	But it is all about criminalizing dissent and criminalizing information.
	It's not enough for them to ban people.
	It's not enough for them to financially deprogram people.
	They have to now move to criminal penalties.
	We see this happening throughout Europe.
	There's the movement towards this in the U.S. as well.
	It's a very foreboding harbinger of what is on its way when they can do this to Julian Assange.
	York Times problem, going back to the New York Times and the Washington Post and They didn't come after the press people.
	It's one of the reasons why they're alleging that he had incentivized somebody to get these papers.
	It's so tenuous what they're coming after him for.
	It's pretty transparent that this is political persecution.
	Yeah, I mean, what journalist would not encourage a source to come forward?
	And how explicit does that encouragement have to become before it's a problem?
	You know, and the conspiracy laws of the United States, even a tacit agreement, they call it, an unspoken tacit agreement, is enough to find a conspiracy.
	So under this theory, really any journalist who runs a secure dropbox, right, could be said to be tacitly encouraging people to violate the I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the way dissent is being criminalized.
	And I think it really, on the other side of it, it shows that, for the most part, these government narratives are so weak, so flawed, That they know they cannot stand the scrutiny.
	When you feel truly confident about your perspective, about what you're doing, your actions, you don't mind the scrutiny.
	It never bothers me to get a tough interview question about Justina, about what if this had done...
	I'll answer those questions.
	I don't mind being in the hot seat and answering a difficult question because I truly believe in what I did.
	I think it passes muster.
	But when you know your argument is weak, that's when you can't have people question it.
	That's right. And we've seen this with the so-called science behind climate change, the so-called science behind the pandemic and everything.
	Oh, you can't see my data.
	You dare not question me about this.
	And so immediately when somebody shuts this thing down and they don't want to show you their data if they're talking about science, or they want to shut down anything that is about dissent and claim national security of some sort, we know exactly what is happening with it.
	And as you point out, they're very fearful about this.
	They understand how weak they are in this, but it is also something that makes them a lot more dangerous because they're going to start lashing out in new ways against people in terms of punishments and even imprisonment for this.
	And it is really sad to see how every aspect of the First Amendment is actually being just trashed and shredded with these actions.
	Yeah, and if they succeed in expediting Assange, then the message really is that they can get any whistleblower anywhere.
	This is a test case.
	If they succeed in getting him, that means that they can get you in the UK and all the Commonwealth nations, they can get you anywhere in Asia, they can get anywhere where they have influence, anywhere where they're able to hold aid or cooperation or any of these kind of unilateral or bilateral diplomatic arrangements.
	And the U.S. does.
	We buy influence all over the world.
	All that aid we give, we don't do it out of the goodness of our hearts.
	We do that to buy influence.
	At the same time, you have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
	I can't bribe a customs agent.
	If I go on vacation to the Bahamas and I'm going to get some liquor or something I'm not supposed to bring in, if I slip the guy a 20, Right?
	I've committed a felony.
	I've violated the four practices act.
	But if the US government gives some country a billion dollars worth of aid, say to fire a prosecutor looking into, you know, sun on sun.
	Yeah. That's perfectly legal.
	That's perfectly legal.
	Yeah. So I'm going to 20, I'm going to prison.
	He does it with a billion, I'm going to Miami, on which I pay taxes.
	Yeah. I'm going to prison.
	That's right. He does it with a billion dollars biometting.
	And, you know, don't you dare ask.
	Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's amazing that the double standards and just the corruption, the corruption, the ruthlessness, as we turn more and more authoritarian.
	In terms of what is happening with your case now, you've got this action that is pending there.
	Is that... I know that Kiriakou served his time and was released.
	He wanted to get a pardon because if you've got a criminal record, that limits you during certain things, certain activities.
	In his particular case, it was keeping him from getting his pension.
	Of course, the interesting story that he had about Rudy Giuliani wanting a couple million dollars to do that for him with Donald Trump.
	But apart from that, I mean, is that in play with the filings that you have there?
	Is that part of it?
	So a clemency comes later, or usually comes later.
	It can be granted at any time, but one of the arguments they try to use against you when you go for a pardon, right, is that you have to exhaust everything in the courts, right?
	They don't It's imperative to do whatever he wants.
	First, you exhaust everything in the courts.
	You give the courts the opportunity to do what's right.
	So I'm still kind of at that stage.
	But if this fails, then yes, the next thing up would be a pardon.
	I feel I'm a good candidate for that, especially given what happened to Justina, what Boston Children's Hospital has been seen doing after Justina.
	They really have kind of committed themselves as a partisan political organ.
	That comes with benefits to the institution, but it also has other ramifications, which means that my case might be viewed in a partisan light because of the partisanship of the other actor.
	So yeah, my focus first and foremost has to be the litigation, at least for now, and then we'll see what happens after that.
	Well, I certainly wish you the best with that.
	And again, I appreciate your tireless efforts to help other people in the CMU that are unjustly convicted, that are political prisoners, to expose this kind of incarceration that is directed towards political prisoners, enemies of the state, for whatever reason.
	And we've seen this net continue to get wider and wider, going after parents who speak out at a school board meeting, for example.
	It is absolutely insane to see the way they are extending these borders of people that they allege to be threats to them, extremists, terrorists, and all the rest of this stuff.
	They have no other way to support their policies.
	They have nothing else.
	That's right. Yeah, they are desperate.
	And so people can find you again at Substack, martyg.substack.com.
	And of course, while you were still incarcerated, your wife, Dana, ran a lot of social media platforms on Facebook and other places that were under Free Marty G, and those are still available as well.
	People can find you also on Twitter at Marty Gottesfeld, G-O-T-T-E-S-F-E-L-D. But again, martyg.substack.com is really probably the best place for people to find you, isn't it?
	It's a new flagship. Yeah, a new flagship.
	Yes, good. Thank you, David.
	Thank you so much, Marty. Thank you for the work that you do.
	It is very important. People need to understand what is happening with us.
	We'll be right back folks, stay with us.
	We'll be right back.
	do
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis and the News, You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
	Well, we just have a couple of minutes left, and this time I want to talk about another aspect.
	We talked earlier about the situation in New York, you know, the half a billion dollars that they're coming after Trump and that type of thing, a disgorgement.
	And it's due to a law, a bad law there, that doesn't require that anybody be harmed.
	It's just, well, we think that you were doing business and you were engaged in misleading statements, so we're going to take everything from you.
	A bad law that is combined with some political persecution.
	And when we look at what is happening in Georgia, Fannie Willis...
	She had an amazing back and forth.
	I didn't get into all this because I don't want to get into all the soap opera aspects of her life and of Donald Trump's trials because, again, they're doing this to push him to the forefront.
	They want to run against Trump.
	But when you look at what was revealed in her particular case, she hired a...
	She was sugar daddy, I guess sugar mama, to some guy that she hired.
	She's paying him off in cash, massive amounts of cash, no receipts.
	And again, it's Reason Magazine, which most of the press does not talk about civil asset forfeiture to their credit.
	They do. And so they said, well, what about this cash thing?
	You know, that is evidence immediately of a crime for anybody else, and yet for her.
	No issue at all.
	Even when there are connected allegations of illegal activity, the fact that she has this cash, nobody's going to go to her house to confiscate it.
	Nobody's going to confiscate her house either, as they do.
	And in her office, being involved in RICO stuff, she's also involved in civil asset forfeiture, a significant amount of the budget of her office is funded by theft.
	Which they call civil forfeiture.
	Reason said, We're good to go.
	Or she's right today, and she and her colleagues owe the rest of us a pass on our taste for financial anonymity.
	And so, he was paid more than his colleagues, about $654,000 in all.
	A lot of this is money which Willis seemingly benefited in the form of expensive vacations and other pleasures of life.
	Did I ever make him produce receipts to me?
	Whatever he told me it was, I gave him back the money in cash.
	You gave him cash before you ever went on a trip?
	Oh yes, she said.
	My grandpappy told me I need to keep about $15,000 around in cash.
	That hasn't stopped the police from stealing money from people left and right.
	You got cash? Well, you're obviously doing drugs or something else illegal, so we're going to charge the cash, not you.
	Thanks for listening. Let me tell you, The David Knight Show, you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	Ha ha ha! And you want to know something else?

▲