All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:55:54
The Raw Deal (19 August 2022) with Rolf Lindgren
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Someone.
When I was younger, so much younger than today.
I never needed anybody's help in any way.
But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assured.
Now I find the genuine, I've opened up the doors.
Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate you being around.
Help me get my feet back on the ground.
Won't you please, please help me?
Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
Some of you may have noticed I was not here on Wednesday.
I think Holly Seliger is just sensational and invited her to guest host and while I haven't had any feedback, I'm sure it was a wonderful show.
Meanwhile, I was making a return appearance between before the.
Dane County Circuit Court.
Where I'd been found to be liable for defamation against Leonard Posner for three sentences out of a 440-page book, where I'm under a permanent injunction not to reiterate the content of those sentences.
So let me say just to understand the nature of the case, it had to do with the authenticity of a death certificate that had no file number, no town certification, and no State certification, where some would liken that to a driver's license that had no driver's license number and no state seal.
In other words, it was an incomplete death certificate, which, like an incomplete driver's license, many would suspect not to be a legitimate document.
All right, let me put it that way.
In any case, The court had ruled that I could not introduce a massive evidence I had that nobody died at Sandy Hook, which was going to be the foundation for my defense, that we won't go down that rabbit hole already at the scheduling conference.
Leading one attorney and not representing me because I was pro se, representing myself, and we all know the man who represents himself as a fool for a client, believed that This meant the whole thing was wrong, that this wasn't being conducted according to Hoyle.
When I introduced my counterclaims for abuse of process, because I believe this lawsuit was not brought in good faith, but rather with the intention of punishing me because I exposed that Sandy Hook was a sham.
Where in the book, for example, which Amazon had banned less than a month after it had gone on sale, even though it had sold nearly 500 copies, I brought together 13 experts, six of whom were PhDs, important as a formal certification of your ability to conduct research.
And we established that the school had been closed by 2008.
It was loaded with asbestos and other Biohazards.
It had been damaged by a hurricane.
There was a major flood in 2007.
It had been abandoned.
The condition of the school was dilapidated, all kinds of mold and other stuff.
It was being used for storage.
We had a Videos up of the inside and outside of the school and former teachers are saying, yes, that's what they do with abandoned schools.
They use it for storage.
We determined that.
There were no students or teachers there, according to the official account by.
Danbury State's Attorney Steven Sedinsky, the third.
There were 489 students there that day.
There were 489 students there that day.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
If you subtract 20 that were supposed to have been killed, that meant there were 469 students at Sandy Hook that day that required evacuation.
But Dickinson Drive, the only route in and out, was so clogged you could not have even got an emergency vehicle in and out if you wanted to, much less a string of buses that would have been required.
There were no buses.
There was a completely absurd story by a guy named Gene Rosen.
And a bus driver dropped off, depending on the telling, four or five or six kids at his home, which was adjacent to the firehouse.
I've been there.
I've seen it.
And that he took them into his house and they drank orange juice and played with stuffed animals until they told him their teacher was dead.
Now, this story is just preposterous on its face.
What would Gene Rosen be doing with stuffed animals in the second place?
Because in the first, what would a bus driver be doing dropping off four or five or six kids at a home of someone who was neither their custodian nor their parent?
Gene Rosen was not the parent or custodian.
And he kept making all these emotional appearances, I mean, again and again and again.
You must find 12 different pathetically acted phony Jean rose and videos you can still find him online.
Whether we're ready students there because it's the one bus that's ever mentioned it it's in the context of an absurd story.
And of course.
We haven't found a female manual that was a two day female exercise where they had a rehearsal on the 13th going live on the 14th to be evaluated that we had a.
Portable signs saying everyone must check in.
Well, it says right in the manual, everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival.
We had porta-potties already in place.
I asked cops if they ever heard of porta-potties in a crime scene and they laughed.
I mean, it was so hilarious.
Pizza and bottled water at the firehouse.
Standard for FEMA drills.
They have restrooms and refreshments available.
So many were wearing name tags on lanyards.
Well, that's how FEMA identifies the players, color-coded name tags on lanyards.
We've had parents bringing children to the scene.
Think about it.
What parent is going to bring a child to the scene of a child-shooting massacre?
It's ludicrous!
And then the day of the event, there were no surge of EMTs into the building, no string of ambulances rushing their little bodies off to hospitals where they could be pronounced dead or alive.
There were triage tarps put out, but no bodies of dead or wounded were ever placed on them.
No medevac chopper was called.
They even typically bring medevac choppers even for drills.
Maybe that made them self-conscious.
They didn't want to do it because it was a drill, but it was another sign that this was totally fraudulent.
They did not allow, as Wayne Carver explained, the medical exam for Connecticut was pivotal in making all this appear to be credible to naive Americans who weren't used to being duped so wholeheartedly, right there in front of them, in front of God and everybody, who said they didn't allow the parents to come in contact with the children, that there was a time for that, but instead they identified them on the basis of photographs, and that the children were left in the school and only removed
In the middle of the night, can you imagine leaving a pile of little bodies in a school room?
I mean, how can Americans be so dumb, so colossally stupid they could buy into this?
So, of course, the court had to exclude all my evidence by telling me it had nothing to do with the accuracy or the truthfulness of a death certificate for an individual that allegedly, according to the death certificate, died on 14 December 2012 at San Diego Elementary School, multiple gunshot wounds.
Think about it.
When I brought my counterclaims for abuse of process, because I could see this was what's known as a slap suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, illegal in some 36 states.
Bring a lawsuit to drag a person to court to punish them for exposing something you didn't want to be exposed.
We don't have slap suits in Wisconsin.
When I also pointed out that this involved fraud and theft by deception because he was one of the Sandy Hook parents feigning to have lost a child.
Whereby, sympathetic but gullible Americans contributed between $27 and $130 million in donations, well divided by 26 allegedly surviving families, because there were also six adults involved, a couple of staff members, he's even, of course, supposed to have murdered his own mother.
And that works out to be between $1 and $5 million for pretending to have lost a kid at Sandy Hook.
As part of a FEMA drill, that's that's pretty good stuff.
I think a lot of Americans might sign up for that.
And then when I pointed out that was brought upon the court because the individual came and appeared who was bringing the lawsuit, I already had sorted out was not in fact a man named Leonard Posner.
It was a legal fiction, but someone by the name of Reuben Vabner and that his alleged deceased son, Noah Posner, was another fiction created out of photographs of Leonard Posner's real son, Michael Vabner, when Michael Vabner was a child at the time of Sandy Hook.
Michael Vabner was already in college.
He now spent his time doing standup comedy in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
But the judge said he was going to bifurcate the case and while ordinarily a discovery is allowed on counterclaims at the same time you're pursuing the original issues.
I was never allowed to pursue them at all and of course it would have been hugely revelatory that all this thing this whole thing was a scam.
And then when I explained my background as a journalist, you know, I mean, my God, how many thousands of shows, thousands of blogs.
I had published at the time.
I don't know.
Three dozen books.
I mean, just ridiculous, but the judge would never rule on my status as a journalist, which meant that.
The plaintiffs didn't even have to show I'd been negligent.
I had not been negligent.
They could not have shown I was negligent.
So the judge simply didn't rule on my status as a journalist.
And why am I giving him a seven page background on the whole case and overview prior to the oral hearing, which you can find on my new blog now, jameshfetzer.org.
And I'll explain what's going on there.
Under the heading Why Sandy Hook.
Why the Sandy Hook Posner versus Fetzer lawsuit matters.
You'll find the very document I gave to the court prior to the oral hearing that would take place over a couple of days and where he would rule that I was guilty of defamation.
Fascinating.
I had two forensic document examiner reports about What were then four different versions of the death certificate for the same purported decedent?
And they had concluded in my favor about all four of them.
But the judge simply set them aside as not helpful.
Well.
I was dumbfounded.
I mean, this is not how I understood a court of law should properly operate, excluding evidence.
Making decisions.
The standard way in which the authenticity of documents is ascertaining courts of laws by forensic document experts.
I had not one.
I had two.
But he merely set them aside as not helpful.
And after having found me liable, then we went to a trial for damages.
I was able to secure an attorney at that point in time.
But it was a very strange event.
Barrett captured it perfectly in an article he published, and I highly recommend if you want to get the flavor of all this, legal lynching of a truth seeker, Jim Fetzer's Stalinist style show trial.
I mean, it was really quite fascinating.
We had 12 Madison residents who'd been selected, all under the one 30 and the other younger than 30.
One man and 11 women, all of whom insisted they never even heard of Alex Jones, if you can believe that.
They never even heard of Alex Jones, right?
Give me a break.
During the trial, they projected the image of the very photogenic Noah Posner, a.k.a.
Michael Vabner, as a child.
They made very emotional appeals, they referred to stuff that was completely irrelevant and it implied it had to do with me, really quite stunning all by itself, and wound up assigning a punishment for this alleged defamation of $450,000.
When I would subsequently try to expose that it had been a sham defamation by an imposter, the judge came down on me very severely.
And although it's not the practice in Wisconsin awarded attorney fees where ostensibly he ought to have had none because the attorneys claim they were doing this pro bono out of the goodness of their heart, but managed to come up with 650,000 more in legal fees, leaving me saddled with 1.1 mil.
In liability as a result of this trial.
I appealed it to the Court of Appeals for the 4th District of Wisconsin.
Very strange.
Because I really hadn't quite figured out what was going on here.
In one paragraph, they said it's reasonable to believe, and they gave the official media narrative of what had happened.
Adam Lanza, age 20, shot his mother, then went to the school and murdered 20 kids and six adults, citing two court cases, one involving Neil Hess and one involving Donna Soto, both of which, like the Alex Jones trial, were decided on the basis of procedural issues.
And where in the next paragraph, after having declared it was reasonable to believe the official narrative is saying that it was unreasonable to believe that it had been a two day FEMA drill.
No one had died.
The school had been closed by 2008.
That was unreasonable.
When I subsequently appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I still hadn't figured out what the hell was going on.
I just thought it was strange, stranger than fiction.
And when the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined, I then had 90 days to appeal to the United States Supreme Court if that were my desire.
I had 90 days.
Well, I went to work on it.
And what I discovered was that in Wisconsin, it has a bizarre summary judgment methodology that allows a judge to exclude evidence if he does not, in his subjective opinion, find it to be reasonable.
When I read up about summary judgments before entering this whole process, I found that what happens is that the court has to take every assertion by the defendant to be true, hence that the school had been closed, that no one was there, that it was a FEMA drill to be true, and then ask the plaintiff bringing the suit whether or not he agreed.
And only if he agreed were there no disputed facts.
That would allow the judge to rule as a matter of law on the case because both parties agreed with the facts.
Well, just as you heard from the summary of the Court of Appeals.
There could not have been less agreement between us.
We were 180 degrees opposite.
But it turns out in Wisconsin.
The judge is allowed to set aside or suppress as though it did not exist.
Any submissions by.
Defendant that the judge believes to be unreasonable.
So what I've done in my petition to the United States Supreme Court is point out that this is a defective summary judgment methodology.
And it applies not only in my case, but in other cases of citizens of Wisconsin who are being subjected to a very grossly biased procedure that favors a plaintiff from the beginning that does not Preserve the right to a trial of defendants and is a violation of the 14th Amendment, which requires equal due process through all the states.
By pointing out that in other states, and the contrast case I used was Texas, they have a proper summary judgment procedure, which would have upheld my rights, and as soon as The legal fiction Posner had declined to agree to my stipulations as to the facts.
It would have been sent to a jury for determination.
I would have been able to introduce all my evidence, including the FEMA manual for the two-day exercise, technically a mass casualty drill involving children.
We have the manual.
I published it in the book as Appendix A.
An FBI consolidated crime report for 2012, which shows that at the intersection of Newtown and murder and non-negligent manslaughter, you would have had the number zero, a big fat zero, zilch, nada, zip.
And that the official account of Sandy Hook, the official report from the Stephen Sedinsky III, did not create a causal nexus tying together the alleged shooter With his victims or the weapons he is alleged to have used, because the weapon, the rifle with which he's alleged to have shot his mother, did not have his fingerprints.
And in a rather crucial footnote, as I recall, number 53, they acknowledge that of the 150 slugs they purport to have found there in the classroom, in the school, none of them could be matched to the weapon he is alleged to have used.
Which means it was a forensic failure.
If there's been any as gross as this in history, I'd like to hear about it.
There's no way in which the purported perpetrator of the crime, Adam Lanza, could have been found to be guilty on the basis of this evidence because there was no causal nexus tying him either to the weapons or to the victims he's alleged to have killed.
I mean, it's it's a legal absurdity.
All that was in my brief from the beginning.
My answer, I even began my answer to the complaint by saying, assuming the plaintiff is a real person.
In other words, I was already outing Leonard Posner as a fiction.
And actually, Ruben Vabner is having been the party who came and participated in the defamation, which, by the way, is that fraud upon the court.
But the judge took no interest in this.
He set all this aside only till after we resolve the.
Call it the case in chief.
Where there were three of us who were defendants.
Wrongs Without Remedies, which is a larger company within which Moonrock Books is an entity.
Which is owned by Dave Gary so he was as a car as a company he had to have an attorney he actually had to and then where's my series editor Mike Palachuk and I were both ramblings ain't ourselves I thought.
From the beginning that Dave didn't need to attorneys and we sure as hell could use one.
But that's not the way it played out eventually in the course of events.
Wrongs without remedies would settle.
They'd even agree that they were not going to continue to publish a book.
Mike Palachuk settled as well.
I shan't go into the reasons that motivated them, but I was the sole remaining defendant.
And the whole situation now is before the Supreme Court.
Now, what happened is They have gone after my blog and the book.
Now you think that's ridiculous.
What could they do with a blog and the book?
Leonard Posner spent all his time trying to trash the book, trying to take down blogs.
He's gone after me repeatedly for individual blogs.
He filed all kinds of copyright infringements for photos of little Noah.
He has boasted of having removed 1500 videos from YouTube that dealt with Sandy Hook, all of which were exposing it as a fraud.
Now he brings this lawsuit to condemn me for having defamed him.
He prevails in the lawsuit.
Now they're claiming that I own the book.
I believe from the beginning it was owned by Moonrock Books, not by Jim Fetzer.
Turns out that Moonrock Books had never formally You need a monetary award, not intellectual property.
in the Library of Congress, and that according to their argument, I own the copyright by common law.
Well, if I owned the copyright by common law and they wanted to take the book, then under Wisconsin law, you're only able to satisfy a financial judgment by a financial means.
In other words, you need a monetary award, not intellectual property.
There are procedures in the law for dealing with intellectual property that require appointing a receiver, and the receiver then makes an evaluation, perhaps even take his bids for the value of the property.
Now, notice this action was brought against me for defamation of three sentences in the book and one in an independent blog that were supposed to defame Leonard Posner.
He could not market the book as it stands because it blows apart the whole narrative of Sandy Hook.
I could market the book in a redacted version by taking out the three copies if it were the case that I actually own the book, which they argued I do on the basis of common law.
But if Leonard Posner were even to attempt to market it in a redacted version, it would no longer be the original for which I had the copyright.
He would have altered it.
In my blog, what in the world would he want to do with jamesfetzer.org?
They went after four domain names, two jamesfetzer.org and jamesfetzer.net, and then two others, falseflags.org and falseflags.net.
Well, Leonard Posner is not a proponent of false flags, and he most certainly is not a proponent of James Fetzer.
So I pointed out there was no possible way he could make any money from this, that the value of these to Leonard Posner was zero.
Although, to me, it could be substantial.
Indeed, I have no doubt that if the Supreme Court reverses, as I hope it is going to do, that I will be able to market the book and it's going to sell like hotcakes.
I have no doubt everyone wants to know what all this is about.
When it was first banned by Amazon after going on sale on 22 October 2015, it had sold nearly 500 copies when it was banned on 19 November.
So the court tried to figure out an assessment value, asked me how much I might have made for the book over all the years it had been on sale.
But because after it was banned, I released it for free as a PDF.
But Moonrock Books had a fire sale on the second edition and sold, I mean, the rest of the stock.
And I think it may have come in around $25,000.
The point is, in court, I made these arguments, but they were denied.
And actually, I'm not unhappy with that.
There's more to the story, but we got Rolf standing by to give us an update on politics, and I know you're going to want to hear from him.
And we'll be right back.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech.
in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
Hey everyone, it's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada—take guns and pose tyranny.
It's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
Oh, oh. oh.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSledge.com, the people station.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs and its website by the hosts, guests and call in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Now, Rolf is here and loaded for bear, but I never got to the bottom line, which is this.
I had two motions, one for reconsideration for the making of the award for reasons I've already adumbrated, which he denied, but also a motion to stay until the Supreme Court rules.
My petition is in conference on the 28th of September.
I'll know by 3 October whether I'm going to issue a writ.
And when I began to mention reasons for this day, and I cited Texas, which I use as my contrast case, the judge just kind of sat upright and said, Texas, this is Wisconsin, as though Texas had nothing to do with it.
And I began to explain to him how one of the criteria for Supreme Court selecting the cases is conflicts between the highest courts of different states.
I mean, that's one of the reasons we have a Supreme Court.
to arbitrate between conflicts of different states.
And he told me he thought my prospects of being heard by the Supreme Court were one in a million, one in a million.
But it's pretty obvious if anyone reads the petition, which you can download from, you know, go to the Supreme Court and look at Fetzer v. Posner, All these cases here have been Posner v. Fetzer, and you can see how clearly I delineate the differences between the state of Texas and the state of Wisconsin, suggesting to me perhaps that a judge has not had the opportunity to review my petition.
In any case, I've already made it through 10 of the 12 steps.
And that's remarkable in and of itself, and I believe that the prospects for being heard by the court are very, very high.
But they have taken the blog, so if you go to JamesFetzer.org, you'll be directed to the Dane County Court records here, where you can read the briefs, the issues I was in court about on Wednesday.
But if you go to jameshfetzer.org, then you'll find my new blog and lots of stuff, including even about Sandy Hook and a recent piece claiming that these trials of Sandy Hook and others, and even mine, have caused a conspiracy theory to collapse.
Well, it's rather gratuitous in its assumptions.
It's authored by a fellow named Daniel Pipes, of whom I heretofore had never heard.
But Kevin Barrett is very familiar and told me it was a badge of honor to be assaulted by the likes of him, lumping me and Alex Jones together.
Meanwhile, we want to proceed to the real meat and potatoes today.
The Epstein-related judge had recused himself of the Trump-Rico case and then signed the FBI warrant, and it looks as though the FBI took documents that they don't want Trump to have access to that they can conceal under the guise of being part of an ongoing investigation.
Rolf, you put me onto that story last night, and I'm so glad you did.
Take it away, my friend.
Yeah, well, I wanted to first of all, I don't I want to get on the record.
I don't believe in the in the criminalization of conspiracy theories.
And I would say that this raid with Trump, which in some ways is another case of criminalization of conspiracy theories.
Trump is always being accused of so having these, you know, whatever his theories are or ideas are always wrong or conspiratorial or racist.
And he's under attack, and now the FBI has crossed the Rubicon, and we've got what's looking like it could be one of the biggest trials in history.
I mean, what are the biggest trials in history?
We've got Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, Joan of Arc, and maybe O.J.
Simpson.
You know, these are the biggest trials in history.
Now we've got Especially if Trump is charged, we're going to have one of the biggest trials in the history of the world.
And right now it looks like Trump is winning.
Trump is playing, not playing defense right now, he's playing offense.
And it sounds like this whole case started where the Justice Department is looking for something To charge Trump with.
I mean, think of all the different things Trump is being investigated on, and they're looking and looking and looking to charge Trump.
They're looking to charge him in New York.
They want to charge him in Georgia, the January 6th committee, and all the other things, you know, the emoluments clause and what have you.
Well, now they found something that probably has a technical chance of charging Trump, which is something to do with mishandling.
Classified material.
President Trump already declassified all the material that he had in Mar-a-Lago.
I spoke to some people who spoke directly to Trump's attorneys.
They said they were there when the raid occurred.
They said they did not have any classified material there.
Everything had already been declassified.
Trump's lawyers were working with the people from the National Archives, and the government is trying to claim that stuff wasn't declassified.
So what Trump could have done is just backed down and gave stuff back to the National Archives that he didn't want to, but Trump didn't back down.
Trump essentially dared them to cross the Rubicon.
Trump dared them.
Because he knew that he did declassify it.
And now they did the rave last week, Monday.
And now we're going to be sitting around waiting.
But Trump is already on offense.
He first wanted the search warrant declassified.
Okay, that's been declassified.
Now he wants the affidavit declassified.
Well, what's going to happen is the judge is going to declassify.
It sounds like he's going to declassify some of it, but he's going to redact a lot of it.
Well, then Trump's going to file another motion to unredact the parts that are redacted.
And this is going to be in the courts.
Just the redactions will be in the courts, could be in the courts for years because this is just the magistrate.
You can appeal the magistrate to the district judge and you can appeal the district judge to the appellate court.
You can appeal the appellate court to either the en banc appellate court or the Supreme Court.
So all these, every time there's something's going to happen, it's all going to get appealed.
And since this is President Trump we're talking about, it's far more likely that the Supreme Court will get involved, especially because we have cases that have no precedence in many cases.
There are many instances in this case.
So this is going to be, Trump is going to be constantly on offense because he's going to be accusing, and is accusing, the government of cover-up.
Because we want to know why they raided his house, what exactly Did they have, they say that they have an informant who knows what Trump had and where it was.
Okay, well, what did Trump have and where was it?
Do we know that?
We don't know.
So until we find out, people are going to want to know.
Now there's other things that Trump, he can also play offense on.
He's going to be wanting to make the judge recuse himself, the magistrate.
The magistrate is a crony.
of Jeffrey Epstein.
That's one issue.
He also donated $2,000 to Obama.
Another problem is that he's been writing anti-Trump things on Facebook, so he doesn't look like he's very objective.
I mean, he looks like a hack, a Democrat hack lawyer.
And then you can throw in the fact that he's not even Approved, but he's not confirmed by the Senate.
He's a magistrate.
He's not even confirmed by the Senate.
So there's all kinds of issues with this guy having this all this power when he hasn't even been confirmed by the Senate.
Well, then then we also have Merrick Garland.
You know, is he going to recuse himself from the case?
He's the same guy who's, you know, upset because Trump didn't let him get on the Supreme Court.
So we have all kinds of conflicts of interest.
Another case case where Trump is going to be able to play offense and this is the video of the surveillance.
The FBI came in and searched and they wanted the Trump security to turn off the cameras and they would not do that.
So now they have, and Eric Trump has said there's inappropriate behavior by the FBI agents.
So now we're going to, Trump can release video, this video evidence whenever he wants to.
And then someone can argue about whether it's been Edited or something, people can argue about that, but that's what they're going to say.
But what if they release, it's the same thing with all the other, like when someone gets beat up by the cops, they show a clip of what happened on TV and people can argue about whether it's been edited or not.
But if you can see misconduct on the tape, people aren't really going to care about all the other video.
And eventually Trump could release all the video.
I mean, that could be done.
Are the police going to sue for the video?
And by the way, when they raided Melania Trump's private quarters, they apparently didn't allow anybody in there.
Okay.
Now, did they have a video in there?
I don't know.
But the Trump people weren't allowed in that room when they were raiding through Melania's panty drawer or wherever they were looking through the sickos in the FBI.
So Trump is playing offense.
With this, and of course, it seems as if it's working so far.
We had an election on Tuesday in Wyoming, and Liz Cheney got 29% of the vote.
That's it.
She's been on national television all year and got 29% of the vote.
That's absolutely pathetic.
A week earlier, this rate was on Monday, and we had a Wisconsin primary.
It was neck and neck between Rebecca Kleefish and Tim Michaels for the governor.
And Tim Michaels is the one endorsed by Trump.
And lo and behold, he won by 5%.
That's more than than projected.
Some people thought he might win.
Some people thought he might not win.
But he certainly wasn't projected to win by 5%.
That's another sign that Trump's candidates are winning.
And this raid is not You know, scaring people away from Trump.
Now, I just want to talk a little bit about how the FBI normally operates.
What the FBI normally does to destroy people is they raid you.
And then if it's someone who's famous, then they leak information out to the news media that makes it look like you're guilty.
And then six months later or so, then they charge you With the crime and everybody has already decided that you were guilty anyway by the time they get around to charging you.
And then they and then they later they convict you in the very unfair federal court system.
That's how it usually works.
And this can work on anybody, including very famous people.
It can work.
You know, there's a lot of Trump's friends who are famous who you haven't heard much from lately because they're probably they're under investigation.
We've heard of people having their cell phones taken.
We've heard of other Trump associates being raided.
Peter Navarro, Scott Perry, Congressman from Pennsylvania.
There's been Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone.
There's a whole bunch of people, even Michael Cohen, who wasn't really Trump's friend.
Well, maybe he was at the time.
The fact is, is that this, this works almost all the time.
It's a tactic that they use.
It's like a totalitarian police state.
It works.
And, you know, sometimes the people who they rate are guilty of something, but it's usually, you know, technical things, you know, people trying to save money on their taxes.
So they bent the rules and then, you know, and that's just human nature that people don't want to pay.
A lot of income taxes.
It's human nature.
People don't want to follow a lot of government regulations.
There's so many government regulations, it's almost impossible to follow all of them, especially if you're running a complex business.
So this is how it works.
And of course the FBI, I don't know how they decided to do this raid, who decided it, but maybe, you know, maybe the magistrate jumped the gun and Got this thing going.
Maybe, maybe Merrick Garland wanted to do it.
You know, maybe Joe Biden wanted to do it.
Who knows what really happened.
But, but the fact is they did it.
They crossed the Rubicon and now they're in a life or death struggle with Donald Trump.
Now I want to talk a little bit about Julius Caesar.
Julius Caesar is well known for crossing the Rubicon.
On January 10th, 49 BC, Julius Caesar was in northern Italy, just north of the Rubicon River, and under the laws of the time, if you took your army, you were not allowed to take your army into Italy proper.
So Julius Caesar was the military governor of Cisalpine Gaul, which means Gaul on this side of the Alps.
He was also the military governor on Transalpine Gaul, which means Gaul on the other side of the Alps.
He was not permitted to bring his army into Italy.
He was negotiating with the Senate over criminal charges, very similar to the Trump situation.
There was all this talk of charging Caesar with this, charging Caesar with that crime.
It had been going on for over 10 years, and Julius Caesar was negotiating, and finally he just said, to hell with it.
And he took one legion, the 13th legion, crossed the Rubicon.
And this is a momentous event in history, still talked about.
We still have people still talk about crossing the Rubicon.
We have Rubicon SUVs.
We have, you know, the Rubicon is a very small creek, but it's very well known.
Julius Caesar, when he crossed the Rubicon, everybody who was his enemy, everybody who was his opponents, his critics, fled the country.
Or surrender to Julius Caesar.
Julius Caesar marched down the west coast of Italy and veered back and walked into Rome and basically was in charge of Rome.
Nobody was there to oppose him.
Pompey had fled.
Cicero had fled.
The Roman Senate, the ones who didn't like him in the Roman Senate, had fled.
And Julius Caesar was in charge.
Okay?
That's not what happened when the FBI crossed the Rubicon.
Nobody's running away from the FBI right now.
Nobody's fleeing the country.
Nobody's going anywhere.
Everybody's standing up, uniting against a tyrannical government.
The FBI is targeting President Trump because they don't want him to run for re-election.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
They don't want Trump to run for re-election because President Trump, as much as he did in his first term, He could do a hundred times more in his second term.
And why could he do a hundred times more?
Because he might, if he gets back in there as president, he may have a pro-Trump Congress.
A Congress, instead of impeaching him all the time, will pass legislation that he wants.
Trump could completely overhaul the entire United States government through federal legislation.
That's what could happen.
The New World Order is deathly afraid of this, and they're going to do anything they can to stop Trump from making America a more free place, a more fair place, and a place where more justice will prevail instead of political vendettas.
Yeah, that's wonderful stuff, Rolf.
It looks as though the magistrate in this case is going to at least partially unseal the affidavit, by the way.
And there's some suspicion that it was a Trump family member who was the source for the affidavit.
That's pretty damn disturbing.
I think that's fake.
I think that's fake news.
That sounds like fake news.
What the media likes to do is run stories like this to get people to argue among themselves.
Okay.
You know, oh, Jared Kushner did it.
You know, okay, that that's very unlikely that it was a Trump family member.
Um, who, who did?
First of all, we don't really know what exactly happened.
We don't, we have to see the affidavit.
They could have made stuff up.
They could have looked at what they did in the, in the Whitmer kidnapping trial.
Look at those, look at the witnesses they had embedded inside of this.
They basically formed a group, a phony militia group.
So we don't know what happened.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump lured him in, actually, because first of all, there's speculation over whether this was stuff from Russiagate that Trump had, okay?
Trump probably has stuff from Russiagate, but what if he told somebody, what if there's somebody in your own ranks who you think you suspect them?
You know what you do?
What you do is you give them fake information, okay?
You only give one person the fake information.
Then if that fake information resurfaces, you know exactly where it came from.
What if Trump said, oh yeah, I got the Russia docs in my safe, for safekeeping, you know, so the FBI can't get them.
And he tells some guy that he thinks is a plant, And we know that Trump brings in enemies on purpose.
People say Trump has bad advisors.
Okay, but Trump doesn't have bad advisors.
Trump does stuff on purpose.
He brings in John Bolton as an advisor.
Remember that?
Okay.
Okay, he could, what if he told fake information to John Bolton?
And then that resurfaced in the Washington Post?
You see, that's probably what he would probably did happen.
Because, because John Trump just literally lambast John Bolton whenever he gets a chance, because he probably knows, he probably caught him lying to him by leaking information out.
You see, Trump has brought many people in who people know are his friends, not just John Bolton.
That's just one example.
But that's a tactic that you use.
It's a military, it's really a military tactic.
It's also used in executive boardrooms.
If you're running an operation, part of your security is to make sure you don't have leakers.
And one way to catch a leaker is to give them fake information.
So who the person is that did this?
I don't know.
Maybe it's someone, you know, I don't know, but I doubt if they found anything.
According to what the lawyers, Trump's lawyers have said, they didn't find anything.
Okay.
They found some stuff.
It's marked classified, okay?
Because Trump just declassified his declassification.
He just posted a declassification memorandum on True Social yesterday.
So Trump ordered a whole bunch of stuff declassified just before he left the presidency, and the bureaucracy It's very slow at remarking the documents.
So what may have happened is documents that Trump ordered declassified hadn't been marked declassified yet.
And the bureaucracy may have done that on purpose so then they can charge Trump for having declassified documents.
And by the way, another aside on this is Trump's true social is going to be getting massive attention.
He's racking up new users.
He's racking up new viewers.
Because True Social is now back on center stage.
So it's really helping Trump build this up, because when he does run for president, he's going to want a large, robust True Social helping him out.
But this is probably what happened.
This thing probably evolved way back when Trump was leaving office.
He ordered stuff declassified, and then he took the documents.
Then the next administration, it was thinking we can get Trump on, you know, they were probably plotting, it's two different people plotting against each other, you might say, or two groups.
It's really one group of bad people, which is the government, at the deep state, plotting to get the good person, who's Trump.
Because Trump has every right to take home these documents.
And at the worst case scenario, and from an objective viewer, This is another advantage Trump has.
This is just a technicality over documents that are not that important.
None of these documents are that important.
Trump has already declassified them.
There's no nuclear secrets in these documents.
That's just fake news that's leaked out.
And another problem that Deep State has is they're arguing in court and in the media The judge is going to be arguing that some of this stuff is so sensitive, we can't release what the documents are, because people want to know, you know, what are the documents that were taken?
Well, how is the government going to argue that the documents are very, very sensitive and can't be seen?
At the same time, they're going to leak them to the New York Times.
How are they going to maintain that argument?
Because then Trump's lawyers, anytime there's something in the New York Times that's been leaked, Excellent, excellent.
lawyers can use that as an argument to declassify everything that was taken in the raid.
Of course, it's already been declassified, but now they can declassify it again, or at least make it public.
So every advantage, almost most of the advantages in this case lie with Trump, not with the deep state.
Excellent, excellent.
We'll be right back with Rolf Lindgren, the latest on politics from his very perceptive We'll be right back.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
We'll be right back.
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Come on.
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do!
and we must fight back.
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, you burn with us!
Good evening.
Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution Radio.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
Take guns, impose tyranny.
It's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Here's what I take to be the latest regarding the affidavit where Judicial Watch has been in the forefront of seeking to make it public.
This, I believe, is from yesterday.
Judicial Watch achieved a key court victory today over the Biden Justice Department's desperate move to keep the Trump warrant affidavit completely sealed.
The court outright rejected the Justice Department's brazen play to keep the whole document secret.
The Biden administration's unprecedented and abusive raid on Trump's home has created a rule of law crisis that can only be alleviated with transparency and accountability.
James Moon of the Maitland-Mudwick PA law firm in Miami argued on behalf of Judicial Watch.
After the hearing in West Palm Beach, Florida today, which I take to have been yesterday, the court issued an order which stated, as I ruled from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that on the present record, the government has not met the burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.
It is ordered that by noon Eastern on Thursday, August 25th, 2022, the government shall file under seal its proposed redactions along with a legal memorandum setting forth a justification for the proposed redactions.
So that much, at least, Rolf, is in the right direction.
Your thoughts?
Well, that's good.
Yeah, that's good that that happened.
And I guess I didn't necessarily expect it.
But, you know, there's probably stuff in there that that they know that they can just see the problem, though, that they're going to have is they're going to they're going to, you know, you know, you know what these pages look like when there's all these redactions, there's the sentence here, a whole word there, then there's a whole page locked, you know, and then people all this is make people even more curious.
Right.
What's the first thing you think of when you read a redacted sheet of paper?
You want to know what, what's redacted, right?
Okay.
So now, so what they're going to do is that they, once they release this, then Trump's lawyers and, and the media, this is funny because the media is against Trump, but the media of course has been fighting for declassified documents for decades with thousands of lawsuits.
There's, there's going to be more in their judicial watches involved.
And then there's other groups and people want to see what's in these, These documents are one of the things that's different, though, is the government is trying to pretend like this is a legitimate investigation.
But see, half the people in the United States are close to it.
The Trump side of the country, they don't even consider this to be a legitimate investigation.
So when they're talking about we have to protect the witnesses.
Okay, why would you give a crap about the witnesses?
When the witnesses are part of a sham, a sham investigation, excuse me, a sham investigation.
So, I mean, actually we want to know what the, who the witnesses are.
We want to know who's part of the sham investigation.
We want to know, did, did the witness really say something that's, that's, that's worth a search?
Sometimes, what if they cherry picked something a witness said?
Someone took the witness statement, cherry-picked it, rewrote it up in another way, and then gave it to the judge.
Okay?
What if that's what happened?
See, we want to know who the witnesses are.
That's the issue.
And, of course, the government doesn't want you to know, because they want to tell you that they have to protect the integrity of the investigation.
But the investigation has no integrity.
Okay, that's the problem that they have.
And this is very unusual because normally when there's an investigation, a vast majority of people think there is a real investigation, but not in this case.
Now, another problem that's been reported, it sounds like this is true, it's reported by Paul Sperry, investigative reporter from Real Clear Politics, is that the same people being investigated right now by John Durham, the Crossfire Hurricane Gang, are the people doing this raid.
The same people are very similar people.
You know, they may not be exactly the same people, but if there's 30 FBI agents, some of the agents involved are already under investigation.
Well, that's ridiculous.
Isn't it?
Who are the 30 FBI agents, by the way, who raided the place?
What are their names?
Let's look up their back.
How many of them worked for Jeffrey Epstein?
How many of them How many of them worked for Hillary Clinton?
How many of them worked for Barack Obama?
How many of them worked for Merrick Garland or Michael Sussman or James Comey or Andrew McCabe or Peter Stroke or, or whatever?
How many of them?
Let's find out.
That's why people want to know who these people are.
Okay.
And, and of course, when these people were walking around and there may be people who recognize certain people, you know, You know, I wouldn't necessarily recognize some people, but some people who are traveling these circles, they, someone may have seen someone at the, during the raid.
I know who that guy is.
I've seen him before.
He, he's been hanging out with Mark Elias or something.
You know, there's people out there who are going to recognize.
So, so this, this is going to go on and on and on and on over this affidavit.
Okay.
Now some people are speculating that Trump will be charged before the elections.
OK, well, let's think about that for a second.
First of all, the normal procedure with these raids is they do the raid and then they leak and leak and leak for months or even longer.
And then they do the charges.
I don't I don't think they're going to charge Trump before the elections.
OK, that's my that's what I'm going to tell you.
That's what Rolf Stradamus says.
They're not I don't think it's not normal that they would file charges.
They're going to spend months and months in months evaluating the public relations angle of what's going on.
Because really, the legal issues are really not the most important thing here.
This is really about public relations, because they don't want Trump to run for president.
And by the way, it's clear from the U.S. Constitution that even if you're charged with a crime, you can run for president.
And even if you're convicted of a crime, you can still be elected president.
So they can't stop Trump legally from running for president with this.
The only way they could stop him with the charges is if, well, we can't have Trump run for president.
He's been charged with a crime.
You know, we can't do this.
That's what they want you to think.
But is that really going to happen in this case?
Having a dispute over classified information?
Is that even a real crime?
It sounds more like a civil issue, doesn't it?
So they're going to be evaluating, the guys in the Deep State are going to be sitting around, the Deep State Brain Trust, they're going to be sitting around evaluating the public relations angle of what to charge Trump.
I don't think they're going to charge Trump at all before the election.
They will drag it out.
They will drag it out.
No, another angle is, I don't think that's going to happen either.
I think that Trump will wait as long as possible to say he's running for president.
Some people say, "Well, Trump may announce that he's going to run for president quickly.
That way, if he gets charged with a crime, he can say that he's a candidate." I don't think that's going to happen either.
I think that Trump will wait as long as possible to say he's running for president.
I think he'll wait until at least next July, maybe even August, September, October, or heck, even in November.
Because Trump doesn't need to announce that he's running for president sooner.
He already has a giant organization.
He already has lots of money.
He already has name recognition.
He doesn't need to announce that he's running for president very quickly.
He doesn't need to.
And even if they charge him with a crime in the spring, then It's still going to look political anyway, because people know he's looking at running for president.
So just because he's not an official candidate is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
So I don't think Trump is going to quickly announce that he's running for president.
So that's another issue.
Also, the fall elections themselves are going to make a difference of what happens, because it's widely expected the Republicans will take the House.
Now, originally, the Republicans were looking at taking these massive Numbers of seats.
You know, I've heard that 70 seats were targeted by the Republicans and only like 20 seats are targeted by the Democrats.
Now, the polling is not as good as it was a few months ago.
I think that the Republicans will definitely take the House no matter, I mean, no matter what.
As far as the Senate, the Senate was looking to be Republican.
Recently, going back a year or so ago, it was looking At first, it looked Democrat, if you go back to last year, because the electoral map favors Democrats in this election, in which there's more seats up in battleground states where Republicans could lose a seat than Democrats.
However, then the polling started to shift after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
So by the middle, by the end of last year, It was widely believed the Republicans will take the Senate.
Now, all of a sudden, the polling doesn't look as good in some of these key Senate races like Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia.
OK, my my opinion on this is that Wisconsin will will we're going to take Wisconsin with Ron Johnson.
He's he's Ron Johnson already beat Russ Feingold twice.
So I don't see him losing to Mandela Barnes.
I would say that Herschel Walker, I believe Herschel Walker will win.
He's running against essentially a special election incumbent who won right before the January 6th.
It was, to me, a fluke election.
Herschel Walker is also a famous star person, personality.
Arizona, you know, with all the illegal aliens coming in there, I don't really see the Republicans losing that.
I think there's a little bit of a problem with Dr. Oz.
I just heard that he isn't running a very good campaign.
He should, on paper, be a great candidate because he's a TV star who can cross over to, say, suburban women who maybe watch his TV show, but so far they say he's not doing very well.
Now his opponent has stroke and is not 100%.
So how that plays in, it's hard to estimate.
So maybe we lose Pennsylvania, but we don't have to take Pennsylvania to take the Senate back.
We've got a great candidate in Nevada, so I think Nevada, we're going to take that one.
So the Senate right now, they say now is actually leaning back towards Democrats, but the issues that most voters care about all favor Republicans, and those issues are inflation, crime, the border, and then throw in Critical race theory and education and gender bender stuff at the at the schools and then throw in the election integrity.
You know, normally what happens is is that in the summer when people aren't paying attention, the polling doesn't, you know, looks.
You know, it's hard to know from the polling, but all of a sudden in the fall when people start to zero in on the issues, then there's usually a big push and it's usually against the party in power.
Because usually the party in power is a corrupt group of people who aren't in the people's interests.
And that's exactly what the Biden administration has been.
They haven't kept, you know, any real campaign promises.
They've just basically done what lobbyists want and then spew out propaganda.
And, you know, I don't know, I don't really believe that people, there's enough people anymore who watch these mainstream news shows to believe this propaganda anymore.
I think there's too many people Who get 100% of their news off of alternative websites that I've never even heard of on the internet.
So what's going to happen with the Trump raid?
A lot of it will depend on who wins the Senate.
If the Republicans win the Senate, they're going to start investigating the investigators.
They're going to investigate the January 6th Commission.
They're going to investigate the Trump raid, and they're also going to investigate the origins of Of the COVID virus and many other things, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Republicans are already going to be investigating the same things, because the Republicans in the House will have nothing else to do but investigate, because nothing else they can do, because anything they pass will never pass the Senate if it's Democrat, or if it does pass the Senate, it'll be vetoed by the President.
So there's nothing much else for the Republicans to do in the Senate, or in the House, but to investigate in the Senate.
They're there.
They have to confirm judges and things like that.
So they have less time for investigations, but they have fewer people to do the investigation.
So there's a it's a very complicated situation.
But no matter how it shakes out, it looks like Trump has the advantage.
Trump right now has the advantage to be elected president in 2024.
The Republicans can win the elections in 2022.
By hammering on the issues that people care about, that'll set it up for Trump.
I would like to see Ron DeSantis be the running mate.
That would be the best one.
If that happens, then Trump would have to move out of Florida.
You can't have both candidates from the same state.
You can't have two people, according to the Constitution, they can't both be from the same state.
That would be interesting if a judge charges Trump with a crime and then puts his bail conditions that he can't leave the state, and then Trump wants to move to Wisconsin or something where the national convention will be, and then he'll have to fight over something like that. and then he'll have to fight over something like that.
So that's another thing that could happen is if they try to charge Trump, then he's going to have a bail hearing, and then they're going to argue about what he's allowed to do.
Well, if he's trying to run for president, it's going to be pretty hard to do that if you can't leave your state.
So the whole thing is really crazy, but it's going to be the advantage to Trump.
Now, if Trump does move out of state and picks DeSantis, that's not going to happen until, you know, well into the next year, you know, near the end of the year, he would, he would have to move.
You know, at the national, whenever the national convention is held, that's when they, I guess Trump would have to announce that he's running.
I guess he would have to announce before the national convention, I suppose.
Um, so maybe what I said earlier wasn't correct, but the fact is, is that, is that there's, there's so many different things that could happen.
And the idea that they're going to try to hang, hang this case over Trump's head isn't going to work because it's not a legitimate investigation.
Like the boy who called Wolf.
You've heard that story.
You know, they've already did the Russia investigation, which is a complete sham, fake, fake dossiers and fake information.
About Trump and the Russians with a plot that makes no sense.
Anyway, the Russians aren't going to help you win an election.
Anyone who's worked on a campaign isn't sitting around thinking, well, if only Putin would help us, we'd get more votes.
That's not going to get you more votes.
It's stupid.
And Trump is planning on being a reelected president.
That's what he's planning on doing.
And, and right now the cards are falling in his direction.
And, and charging Trump is going to energize the Trump supporters.
And like I said, these charges aren't, you know, in the OJ Simpson trial, he was charged with a murder, right?
Okay.
This, and what is Trump going to be accused of?
Having some secret documents that weren't, that he was allowed to have when he was president, but now they say he, he didn't, he's not allowed to have them now.
Or something, and they're documents that we can't see, or if we can see them, we'll find out they're not important anyway.
Or there's something like stuff about the Russia hoax, which is simply incriminating information against the deep state.
So you're not going to get people's blood boiling against Trump over these documents outside of the core group that hates Trump.
Of course, they're still yelling about the emoluments clause, of course.
There will be some people that will be, but more people will be on the Trump side.
Think of all the people who have had a brush with the law where they felt they were treated unfairly in the courtroom.
Well, those people are going to sympathize with Trump.
Then you have all these groups that are yelling and screaming about minorities being, you know, abused by the law.
Well, maybe they'll appeal with Trump.
The reality is, is with law enforcement, His law enforcement is supposed to investigate legitimate crimes that they have evidence of.
This Trump case is not even a legitimate crime.
It sounds like a technicality at best.
And the evidence isn't clear because Trump is, it's not clear from the outside, it's clear to Trump's lawyers that they already declassified.
They filled out a paper in June that said there's nothing left here that's classified.
That was in the newspaper.
Trump's lawyers may have lied when they filled this out, right?
Well, maybe Trump's lawyers didn't lie.
Maybe this is evidence that it was already declassified.
If Trump's lawyers wrote that they didn't have any declassified information, that means the simple explanation would be that Trump's lawyers knew that the documents were declassified.
So that's why they told whoever, the National Archives people, that this stuff was already declassified.
What if they slow-walked the declassification process?
That's another thing Trump's going to go after these people on.
So this is going to go all over the place.
Trump is about back at the center of the news.
If he wasn't already the biggest news guy in the country, he's the biggest newsmaker, really, in this country since JFK, maybe.
Maybe bigger than JFK.
And you've got to go back to Teddy Roosevelt.
You know, people who dominated the mass media, I would say the three biggest people since the introduction of, since they say since the end of the 1800s, would be Teddy Roosevelt, who was the most famous person in the world in his lifetime, then JFK, and then now Trump.
Now, notice that what happened to some of these other people, we know that JFK was rubbed out.
In a deep state assassination, probably the same, essentially the ancestors of the current deep state, Teddy Roosevelt, who started out, you know, popular with the mass media, just like Trump and JFK started out, was very popular with the mass media.
Well, then Teddy Roosevelt took a turn at some point, the bankers didn't like him, and You know, he tried to get back into the presidency.
He foolishly didn't run for a term in 1908.
He could have ran again and been easily elected.
Then he decided to run against Taft.
Couldn't get him out.
Then he ran as a third party.
Couldn't get him out.
Then he was getting ready to run in 1920, and then he died in 1919.
And of course, Teddy Roosevelt was almost assassinated in 19...
12 a month before the election, some guy in Milwaukee walked up to him and shot him point blank with a pistol and almost killed him.
So it's amazing how that happens to the good people who are really making changes, who have the power to make changes.
It's amazing how that happens.
Now, Trump, nowadays, you know, they take you out with the power of the media and the courts.
That's how they take you out.
And they just took out another guy in the Trump organization yesterday.
The guy worked for Trump since 1973.
And they got him on some, you know, technicalities, you know, saving money on his taxes.
And they convict him.
That's why they love they love the deep state loves the income tax laws.
They love the because, because Then they can accuse you of a crime if you don't report all your income.
How does the government even know how much money you made?
How would they even know that?
Well, they have to monitor your life, the government does.
Then they use the banking laws on bank fraud in combination with the income tax laws.
With a bank loan, you want to increase your income to get the best loan terms, but with income tax, you want to decrease your income so you pay less tax.
If you're involved in complex business, then there's a good chance that when the FBI investigates you, they can either find that you lied about your income to the IRS, or you lied about your income in a bank loan.
That's what they did to Paul Manafort, for example.
And in a bank loan, in bank fraud cases, they can charge you with bank fraud, even if you didn't even get the loan.
But Paul Manafort was charged With bank fraud cases on loans he never even got, he also was charged on bank fraud cases for loans that he had already paid back.
Because according to the government, it's irrelevant if you if you paid the loan back, it's also irrelevant if you got the loan.
Of course, it is relevant from a civil perspective, because from civil law perspective, there's no damages in those cases.
And normally a crime would have damages.
But of course, in bank fraud cases, you don't have to prove That there's any actual damages.
It's a technical, it's a technical regulatory crime.
And Paul Manafort, even though he had a good outcome, actually, in his trial, he was charged with 18 counts.
He was only convicted of eight counts.
I can't remember exactly which eight counts they were, but I know they included bank fraud and income tax.
So the deep state uses these, these central powers to control people.
That's why all these people who are running around trying to get elected, I'm going to change things in Washington and they go to Washington.
But how many of them really do change anything?
Well, as soon as you get investigated by the deep state, you're probably not going to be wanting to change much in Washington, right?
Because you're worried about your, your own, your own life.
That's what the deep state does.
They scare the crap out of you.
And there's a few people out there who change things like Ron Paul, Ram Paul, and now we have even Ron Johnson as a real crusader.
But no one compares to Trump.
What Trump is doing, Trump relishes the fighting, the deep state.
He set himself up before he got into politics as one of the top celebrities of the country.
And a billionaire, one of the top billionaires in the country.
So between those two things, he had an advantage over other politicians.
Well, we got to take a break.
Hold that thought.
We'll return and we'll take your calls after the break.
Thank you for being here, everyone.
This is fascinating.
We love it.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
We'll be right back after this message.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution
Radio. Revolution Radio.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSteps.com, the people's station.
Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read America Nuked on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Well, everybody, we're waiting on we're waiting on Jim to come back.
I guess he's got tied up.
Alright, hey hi Ralph.
How's it going?
What's going on?
Everybody calls coming in.
Yeah.
Ralph, I'm back.
Here we go.
Listen, we do have a caller, Bruce in Texas.
I'm going to bring him in.
But before we go there, I want to ask, we have of the 10 Republicans who voted for Trump's impeachment, eight have been taken out so far in primaries, the most prominent of whom is Of course, Liz Cheney, and this seems to have had some reverberations even within the Republican Party.
Tell me, what is your interpretation of the significance of these developments?
It just tells you that the Never Trumpers are not popular in the Republican Party.
The people, the party of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld is dead.
It's, it's things like the border.
I mean, Trump's biggest issue in his first election was the border.
Okay.
Bush was never, they didn't care about the border.
They wanted illegals to come in.
So the large corporations that have cheap labor, and then you have, then you throw in, see Trump has expanded his base.
Now you have the voter fraud issue.
That's another issue that, that the Bush people, Didn't talk about, of course, they didn't talk about it because of the Al Gore election, when, of course, they were accused of voter fraud.
But back then, it was okay to do that in the mainstream media.
And then, of course, the 2004, we had the recount in Ohio.
And again, they were accused of voter fraud.
So voter fraud is something that they didn't want to talk about.
The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld people did not want to talk about it.
Well, now that's another issue.
There's a vast number of people out there who aren't into politics, but they're concerned about the border and they're concerned about voter fraud.
So Trump, this is a way to get independent voters to vote Republican, vote for Trump.
You start getting there by voting for Trump, but then they start voting for all the Republicans, except for the ones that Trump doesn't like.
Of the 10.
Bruce, Bruce, just mute.
Four of them lost in the primary.
Four of them lost in the primary.
Four of them didn't even run.
And then there's two that squeaked through.
And then they still have to win the general.
So I think the odds are that one of them might get beat in the general.
And you can bring the caller in.
That's great.
Why don't we do that?
I want to add, Rolf, it seems to me, you know, the border issue has caused millions of defections from the Hispanic vote.
That the Democrats didn't anticipate that this giving this red carpet treatment to all these people who haven't earned a thing, don't deserve to be here, or just given a freebie by the government.
Would generate resentment among Hispanics who came here for good reason, had legitimate reasons, have earned their way, and they now feel that Democrats have sold them out.
They are going to the Republican side in droves.
Which is another reason to believe that Democrats will not win the Senate, especially in Arizona.
Another issue that's like that is student loans.
Liz Warren wants everybody to pay off their student loans.
Well, people who already paid off their student loans are like, hey, I worked my ass off to pay back my student loans, and now you're just going to pay some lazy person's student loans off for doing nothing.
It's a crock.
And of course, guess what?
The bankers still get all their money.
Student loans are basically made by the bank and guaranteed by the government.
All it is is taxpayers bailing out the bankers.
That's what's happening behind the scenes.
So it's a load of crap, and people are sick of it.
I couldn't agree more.
We do have Bruce in Texas joining us.
Bruce, go ahead.
Join with Rolf and me.
Yes.
Sorry for the background noise.
I'm locked in my car now, so.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
Thanks for having Rolf on.
This is my favorite guest on your show.
Bring him on more often, especially as we get into November.
Well, we're often tied up organizing conferences and primaries and speeches and all that right here in Wisconsin, so he's been unavailable for the past several weeks, but we're now glad to have him back, Bruce.
Yes, he will be here more often.
Go ahead.
Yes, super.
He should be a political consultant for the Trump campaign.
He knows where to go.
I'm not blowing smoke either.
You have your facts down, that's for sure.
I'm not afraid to speak them.
Thank you very much.
Really quick, don't spend too much time on it because I have another topic.
Do you think the Texas Governor's race, have you been following that?
Do you think Beto has a chance?
No.
Beto O'Rourke is a fake Hispanic.
He changes his name to Beto.
He's a kind of a joke.
I mean, even that's actually an insult to people who are a joke.
I heard him on the, you know, I heard, I was listening to a Chicago station a few months ago, and they were doing some sort of a march for, for voting rights.
And it was on the radio every half an hour, an update, and Beto O'Rourke is in Illinois marching around.
And then they made it to the steps of the, some government building.
And then at the very end, they told us there were only 30 people in their march.
You know, Beto O'Rourke is a national celebrity with massive news coverage, and he can only get 30 people to show up.
I mean, we get 100 people to show up in our events and here in Dane County, and we don't even have an advertising budget or news coverage, by the way.
So this guy's a complete joke.
And what is he really running on?
I mean, he doesn't have a chance.
We also, we talked about the Hispanic vote, which is switching to Republican.
Remember, there was a woman on the border district who just won.
She just won, a Hispanic woman who was born, I think, in Mexico.
Okay?
And that's just an example of the fact that Hispanics are sick of this open borders.
They're like, just like anyone else, if you have rules to follow, follow the rules, come over here legally.
And then join the United States.
But don't just break the law.
You know, don't cross the border carrying, you know, they could they could be doing drug, drug fentanyl or whatever.
They could be they could be taking the other getting tested for COVID.
When they cross the border, everyone else has to get tested for COVID wear a mask to the illegal aliens.
Do they get their vaccination card?
Do they have that?
I mean, they don't follow any of the rules, and the Democrats want everyone to follow all these rules.
But again, they want the illegals.
They don't have to follow any rules.
So people are upset about it.
And then they can also get government welfare.
That's a big difference.
And they say, well, the Founding Fathers had open borders.
Yeah, the Founding Fathers did, but we didn't have government welfare.
If you came to America in the 16, 17 or 1800s, you had to work, work over here.
And that's why people came here.
They came in for opportunity, opportunity for freedom, opportunity for work, opportunity to start a family and then prosper and move, move out to the West.
So things, things have changed, uh, especially since the days of Wyndon Johnson is when this really.
This is where it really got bad.
Another thing that happened bad after JFK was killed, the modern problems with immigration all started with Lyndon Johnson.
We have Brian from Missouri standing by, too.
I'm going to bring him in, Bruce, and I'll come back to you.
Brian, join the conversation.
The thing that concerns me about all this is the leadership of the Republican Party is totally Jewish, and the fact that They control the Dominion voting machines.
All this sounds wonderful, but when the Republicans take control, they'll get their orders from that certain tribe, and then we'll just have more of the same problems.
And I've got a really interesting story about Lyndon Johnson if you want to hear it.
You won't hear this one anywhere because it came from one of my customers.
So, anyway.
First of all, I think that's a crack.
First of all, Trump isn't Jewish, and he's the leader of the Republican Party.
If he's not the leader of the Republican Party, I don't know who is.
The RNC chairman?
That's not really the leader of the Republican Party.
The top Republicans in the country, first of all, it doesn't make any difference what your religion is anyway.
This is a free country with freedom of religion, so you can be any religion.
You can be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist.
As long as you have the right principles of freedom, that's what counts.
So I would argue that your whole premise is incorrect, and I'm just going to stick with Trump as my leader.
He's going to let people decide the people on the free people can decide their own religious beliefs.
I tend to I was raised as a Lutheran and I tend to believe in the principles that I learned as a child.
And that's those are those are the principles that I believe in.
But other people, other churches have their own take on all this stuff.
Well, Ralph, I have been concerned that Mitch McConnell doesn't seem to be, you know, wanting to create a national campaign on the issues like inflation, border crossing, rising crime that are so obviously in favor of the Republicans.
Is he reluctant somehow?
Is he apprehensive that if Trump gets back in control that his fate may be sealed?
Well, Mitch McConnell's getting very old.
And if the Republicans take the Senate back, then, you know, then Mitch McConnell may not be reelected.
Remember the Trump, the Trump senators, if they win, these are Dr. Oz, there's J.D.
Vance in Ohio, there's Hershel Walker, there's the guy, Adam Laxalt in Nevada, Blake Masters in Arizona, In Arizona, and there's also a they're still up in New Hampshire.
I think they're still in the primary stage.
These new senators are not for the most part are not pro Mitch McConnell.
So whether Mitch McConnell can hang on, by the way, his he's up for reelection.
He just got elected, I think, in in 2020.
So he's not going to be up for election.
So it just depends on how long is he going to stay in there?
He's getting very old.
Now, he did do a good job on a lot of things.
Everybody complains about Mitch McConnell, but you have to remember that he's the guy who got the three Supreme Court justices through for Trump.
He got 54 appellate judges through for Trump, and he got like another, I forget, 150 or so district judges in for Trump.
That's why the courts now Are often rule for on the, you know, on the conservative side, it used to be they always ruled against the conservatives or the Trump people or the Republicans or however you want to divide it.
It used to be every single time.
Well, now they just threw out the Roe versus Wade decision.
That's an incredible decision.
They ruled in favor of gun control.
They're ruling in favor of all kinds of things.
The Supreme Court decisions in the last term were one of the best in 100 years.
There was one case after another that was massively favoring, favoring, you know, basically Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, whatever.
And so Mitch McConnell isn't all bad.
Mitch McConnell, although it's not all good either, he's very slow to act, very cautious.
And it would be, he's going to be replaced if, if, if we, if the Republicans retake the Senate, then Okay.
Brian, you want to add some more thoughts?
Well, yeah, I just, it was on the internet that it listed the top leadership for the DNC and the RNC, and I saw Spielberg, of course, on the DNC leadership and then it Listed all the top leadership for the RNC and it said they were all Jewish.
Anytime I get that, there always seems to be problems.
So that was why I brought that up.
But I didn't write down the names.
It had the list of all the names and every one of them.
And that's how they work.
They always control both sides.
Otto Kahn, you know, in one of his interviews from way back in the 1920s said, we always control both sides.
And the fact that Trump, you know, was the one with the vaccines.
He's the one that helped move the embassy in Israel.
And he took out Salamone, that Iranian general, which benefited Israel.
I mean, he does a lot of things to benefit our friends over there, and I just don't like him.
So that's all I have to say.
Okay, well, okay, let me, okay, first of all, Trump is in some ways what's called a populist.
Okay, first of all, the powerful billionaires, and we know that there is, Jewish people do have a good, you know, on the average, they tend to be well educated, good work ethic, good communication skills.
And they do have a successful culture of advancement.
And there are a lot of Jewish People who are among the richest billionaires, a lot of them are not.
Like Elon Musk isn't Jewish, neither is Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, but there are some that are.
And the reality is these guys are all against Trump.
The wealthiest people, whether they're Jewish or not Jewish, all seem to be against Trump.
Trump, what Trump was doing with moving the embassy to Israel, he's not, he's not going to be making Mark Zuckerberg happy about that.
He doesn't, Mark Zuckerberg doesn't care about that.
What Trump is doing is appealing, it's really a populist move to Jewish voters.
Jewish voters usually vote Democrat.
Trump is trying, it's just another block of voters, like Hispanic voters.
Trump is trying to appeal to Jewish voters, the rank and file Jewish voters, to vote for him, to vote for Republicans.
That's all that is.
If you think the New World Order, Once the embassy moved to Jerusalem, then you're sadly, sadly mistaken.
So, and I'm not really, I'm not really comfortable talking about this anymore, because it's, to me, it's just kind of irrelevant.
The wealthiest people, whether they're Jewish or Arabs or Americans, whether they're white or black or whatever they are, you know, they mostly go by their interests over their finances.
And what I think they're trying to do is to destroy America.
We have to have all this green stuff here.
Meanwhile, China and India are polluting the rivers of the Yangtze River or the Ganges River.
Do you know how polluted these rivers are?
They're dumping massive amounts of garbage into the oceans.
The Yellow River, The Mekong River?
These are massively polluted rivers, and we're supposed to worry about things over here.
What I think they're trying to do is knock down the United States and open up global markets.
The people who are the wealthiest people in the world, their business share is not limited to the United States.
The United States is just one chunk of their business.
They do their business in Europe, Africa, Asia, and what they're trying to do is They even say this, they're allowing China and India to pollute because the United States polluted a lot during the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago, so it would only be fair to let India and China pollute a lot now.
That's their argument.
Have you heard that?
So that's my opinion.
As far as this gender bender stuff, I don't know.
You know, if I was a multi-billionaire, I don't understand why they would, they would push this.
I mean, I understand that if you're a transgender, it's probably very difficult.
It may be difficult for you.
I don't, I don't support being mean to, to a transgender person, but on the other hand, it's simply not fair in women's sports to allow them to compete in women's sports.
So, so, um, The way they push this, though, in the media is, of course, they want you to feel guilty if you don't want out-transgender in women's sports.
You're supposed to feel guilty, and you're supposed to feel guilty about a lot of other things.
You know, we're supposed to feel guilty about what the founding fathers or something.
Or, you know, because of racism or slavery.
You know, slavery was all over the world in the 1700s.
I'm supposed to feel guilty about that.
I'm not going to feel guilty about it.
But that's their tactic.
It's just another way to take down the principles of America.
And a better way to do it, instead of making America more like the rest of the world, why not promote the U.S.
Constitution in China and India and Russia and Europe and Africa?
Why don't we do that instead?
That's what we used to do at one time.
That's what used to be done.
But not anymore.
Next question.
Yeah, Bruce, did you have a further question, Bruce?
Yeah, sure.
It's more of a comment than anything.
This is probably more towards you, Mr. Fetzer.
Dave Gehary, when he took control of your book, did I add that correctly?
After he was sued?
Well, he was a publisher.
I mean, you know, it was always a Moondrock book after it was banned by Amazon.
And Mike Palachuk and I realized we need to have our own independent way of getting it out.
We founded Moonrock Books, but it was subsumed within Dave Gehary's structure of Wrongs Without Remedies so that he actually is the publisher.
I always believed it was a book of Moonrock Books and that Dave Gehary was the owner, but they insisted in court I had the common-law copyright because he'd never formally copywritten it with the Library of Congress.
Okay, but maybe he was maimed upon or something or cut a deal?
The point I'm getting at, because I've seen that happen before, there was a fella by the name of Delaney, and he took in some other guy who was actually being attacked before Andrew Anglin over there.
His name was Fuquera?
Zera?
Spanish last name, but he had a website that was exposing certain things going on in our society.
Anyhow, he took them under his wing.
He took them under his, uh, website and then he, uh, kicked them out to control of it legally and then kicked them out.
And I confronted him on the internet and he said, well, I got a family to feed.
In other words, that's a confession that he, uh, he sold out.
He was given money to do this.
Now the point I'm getting at is Alex Jones.
Now, you know, say what you will, you know, I've backed Alex Jones, but I've always kind of had a suspicious eye towards him.
Okay.
Just right after Liz Cheney gets crushed, he comes out and he's back in DeSantis.
Now DeSantis, yeah, he's great on social issues, but he's not challenging the deep state power apparatus.
He's not being targeted by the DOJ and he never will.
On a Florida, you got all these challengers at Trumpet City.
I mean, we got Rubio, and then they tried to push Jeb, and now DeSantis, and I don't think I need to go into the money there and politics and on the East Coast of Florida and who runs it.
Okay, let me just comment a bit about the Alex Jones trial.
I sought to interview in all three.
They're going to have three in a row here that I was opposed by both sides.
I was pointing out there's never been a judicial determination that anybody died at Sandy Hook.
I wanted to intervene.
To emphasize that to the court and demand that this issue be dealt with because they were simply taking for granted it as a fact.
I was opposed by both sides.
I volunteered to be an expert witness on behalf of Alex Jones.
There was no interest in having me there.
When the trial was an absurdity, Robert Barnes was there.
He said there were three cameras there.
It seemed very odd to him.
He thought it was a made-for-TV movie.
Once Jones capitulated, you nevertheless had to have the plaintiffs prove their case.
They simply finessed that.
They never proved their case, nor could they have.
I may have mentioned before that when Wayne Carver said the parents weren't allowed to see their children, Neil Hesselin, who was winging the suit against Alex Jones, insists he held his dying son Jesse in his arms.
Well, that's preposterous!
Either Carver was lying or Hesselin is lying, or what in fact is the case, they're both lying because it was a fabricated job.
But there was no effort whatsoever to put up a defense for Alex Jones.
And now absurdity of absurdities.
He's not only apologizing in a feature, some of these fake Sandy Hook parents on his, you know, InfoWars.
I mean, it's just insulting beyond belief.
But it means, in essence, I am the last man standing on Sandy Hook.
Wolfgang's been doing a hell of a job, but he's been very severely dealt with.
You can say all these judgments against me, where I'm 1.1 million hawk over this.
Uh, severe penalty enough, but I'm going to the court and asking them to reverse it.
And when they all these attempts to trash those of us who've been pointing out that this was a hoax, never talk about the evidence we have.
And in this latest.
Which you can find on my blog at, again, I emphasize, JamesHFetzer.org.
He doesn't mention that I have a petition before the Supreme Court.
Anyone can track it down.
If you go there, if you go to my blog, JamesHFetzer.org, and look for this case about a conspiracy theory biting the dust in court, I have a link to the petition.
and you can find it there.
Rolf? - Yeah, I just wanted to comment.
I agree.
What's that?
I think you got the railroad.
I think the argument about you're going to give legal fees for pro bono work, that sounds really, really kooky.
But as far as DeSantis, I just want to comment on DeSantis.
I like DeSantis a lot, but he's not as good as Trump.
And if Alex Jones said something to get people riled up, I don't think that means anything.
I wouldn't worry about it.
They're both good.
And if Trump disappeared, trust me, they'd be after DeSantis.
Well, you did a great job.
You did a great job.
I can't thank you enough for being here.
Bruce and Brian, thank you both for your calls.
Everyone had a wonderful weekend.
Spend as much time as you can with people you love, because we do not know how much time we have left.
▲
Export Selection