All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
01:03:59
Trump Lays Down the Law on Ukraine & Russia: Take the Deal or We Walk
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
with a song.
Mooji Get across
better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all!
*music* *music* *music* *music* *music* *music*
*music*
Welcome to the lineup.
Welcome, Bongino Army.
Of course, Vince viewers, we appreciate live every day here on Rumble.
We appreciate that you could choose to tune in anywhere, but you don't, because most places are crap.
After us is Tim Pool, and you're going to have Russell Brand, Jeremy at the quartering.
You don't need to change your digital channel.
You're going to hear a lot of rain going on today, because there's a serious storm.
The office across the street from us is now officially destroyed.
And you're also going to hear some noises from my stomach.
Because I am not well.
That's not fair to do when I don't have my headphones on so I can't hear what's happening with the soundboard.
I just heard everybody start laughing here.
But I'm here.
I am here.
But I can't tell you that I feel 100% at all.
So we have a lot to get to today.
The new deal, the talks, the multi-point deal from President Trump and Ukraine.
The peace plan.
It needs to be explained.
It seems to be pretty convoluted out there.
It's actually a pretty damn good thing.
If you break it down, we're going to get into that.
It also removes the United States from having to play matchmaker.
Settle down, you two.
We're going to talk about, I don't know if you know this, Britain.
They're trying to solve climate change, and they're blotting out the sun.
Yeah, I know you're thinking, didn't Mr. Burns try that?
Yes, the Brits are just that stupid.
And my lawyer is here with a Supreme Court case on the right to carry.
It's going to be hardly legal with Bill Richmond.
So my question to you first is, what do you think?
Of Donald Trump's peace plan.
Do you know about it?
The Ukraine-Russia peace plan?
What should we do if they refuse?
I know the answer is nuke them.
It's live, 11 a.m. Eastern.
Let's get to the show.
get to the show.
Click Rumble Premium and join now for $99 annually or $9.99 a month to get the entirely ad-free experience and an ever-expanding roster of content, creators, and free speech.
back.
I have to sip slowly as to not upset the internals.
Sorry. You got there, Pepto-Bismol?
I did.
I got a lot of Pepto-Bismol going.
Glad to be with you.
Of course, it's 11 a.m. Eastern on a weekday, so we are here.
We're... Oh.
I thought something broke.
I'm seriously, my lips are like sandpaper.
Captain Morgan, CEO number two, how are you?
Better than you.
Sorry, buddy.
Yeah, it's okay.
I think it's just a 24-hour bug or food poisoning.
It's the Fu Manchu.
It's made you sick.
Yeah, I don't know.
Are you supposed to cook pork?
I did it like sashimi.
You can do that.
Friday, Saturday, June 20th and 21st, he's going to be at the Helium Comedy Club in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Mr. Josh Feierstein, how are you, sir?
I'm all right.
I'm all right.
Good? Yeah, well.
Is there another Indianapolis that you had to say, Indiana?
Maybe. Maybe there's one in India.
Maybe there's an Indianapolis.
They have like 95 languages.
I'm sure there's something that sounds like Indianapolis.
I feel like it's picking on you right now, but you're like John Wick at the end of the last movie.
He's kind of defeated and dead.
He's like, whatever.
Plus, you killed my puppy, which I was like, why would you do that, Gerald?
I didn't.
You did.
He did.
You're back, I guess.
All right.
You know who else isn't doing well?
Remember this...
Remember this broad Nina Jankiewicz?
I know you're saying, hey, who's that?
The name sounds familiar, and I'm quite certain I don't like her.
Well, good.
She was the head for like two weeks of Biden's disinformation governance board.
Remember that?
The Ministry of Misinformation is what it was coined because it was that silly.
Well, remember, she left.
And when that was happening, we were saying this is a totalitarian, this is a fascist, this is a Marxist who wants to silence voices of dissent.
And of course, we were accused of being conspiracy theorists.
Well, now that she is unfettered, she's unchanged, she is not a part of the American government, she's decided to go on her tour.
And she's now, I don't know, the clip in front of the EU with, I guess, an ominous warning.
You're not going to like it.
Before I describe the details of Russia's recent online influence campaigns, Oh, that's treason!
undoubtedly preparing a pressure campaign to force EU institutions to roll back regulation like the DSA, to end support for Ukraine, to stop holding Russia to account.
Do not capitulate.
Hold the line.
Doing so is the clearest signal the European Union could send to Russia and other adversaries that it will not stop fighting to preserve democracy at home and around the world.
So, everything about this is treasonous, and you know what the punishment is for treason.
Here's the point I want to at least draw your attention to.
She was installed into government by Joe Biden.
And this lady is advocating a foreign collective of nations, the EU, to act as enemies of the United States.
The country she was appointed to serve.
At what point does it count as treason?
Can you guys let me know?
And really her problem is freedom of speech.
So it's anti-First Amendment.
It's anti-United States by her own words.
And she's asking for foreign nations to act against the United States.
I don't know if there's a rope long enough.
Figuratively... Maybe not.
And by the way, what bothered me most about that clip, who has frosted tips in 2025?
I'm just writing.
Every morning there's a halo hanging from the corner.
I might go for my bed.
Thanks, another online podcast.
You're not in Radiohead, guy.
Was that Dane Cook?
The fall from grace.
Give him the shocker, Dane.
There are plenty of arrogant comedians with frosted tips these days, too.
Yes, yes, there are.
I was going to do a Dane Cook impression, but I don't have the energy.
Maybe later.
You can do a good one.
No, I don't want to do it.
Not right now.
No, because it requires too much velocity from my gut.
Right now, all of my sound, all of my breathing is in my chest, and everything below it is like this.
Well, he did have that prolific bit about an itchy asshole.
He did.
You could do that.
He also had that prolific bit about misinformation.
Look, I know that what happens is when I go on, so I take the misinformation, I take it, I put it in my mouth!
Ooh! Ooh!
I hate misinformation!
When you replay this, that's where you crapped your pants.
When the headphone came off.
All right.
Speaking. Did he waddle out of the room?
Excuse me.
Speaking of crapping the bed, the UK government has now just decided to implement, here's how you know it's a religion, okay?
And a dumb one.
You know, like Scientology.
Yeah. Or, I don't know, most of the Eastern religions.
It's completely nonsensical, and it's ever-changing, where there seems to be no type of moral or even logical through-line.
That's what neo-environmentalism is.
That's what climate alarmism is.
And the UK is right at the forefront with the dumbest idea yet to fix climate change.
It's time for Climate Claims.
It's a good stinger.
So, there have been a lot of stupid plans, right?
You guys are going to be like, okay, well, what could top carbon offsets or the Segway?
That was a climate thing?
Yeah, they were like, ah, it's going to be the transportation of the future.
Or tucking your pant leg into your sock so you can ride your fixed bicycle to work.
All really dumb, dumb plans.
Or eating plant-based meat alternatives, eating bugs.
There have been a lot of stupid plans.
The Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, where you expect China and India to get on board.
The point is, none of it makes sense, even if you accept the premise.
But now the UK said hold their bidder because they're going to try and block out the sun.
According to the Telegraph.
Sorry, I thought there was a question.
That's okay.
According to the Telegraph.
No, I just want to let that ride.
Admonish. They have experiments to dim the sun, and that's going to be greenlit in the next few weeks, and that includes injecting aerosol into clouds to make them more reflective.
Are you taking the f***ing piss?
I'm not.
So the plan for the UK, and we'll get to why this won't work, is, hey, we need to fix climate change.
We're going to block sunlight, and it was initiated by their newest member of parliament.
There you go.
Before mentioned.
Now... I get it.
Here's the problem.
It would be a stupid thing, let's say, even if they did it in, I don't know, Barbados or Bermuda.
It still wouldn't work.
But it makes even less sense when you take into account that the UK is the fifth cloudiest country in the world.
What's our biggest problem?
I believe there's too much sunlight.
Let's get rid of this.
This is just a pure news.
The UK getting rid of the sun.
It's like Africa importing more AIDS.
Want to get AIDS?
I guess we all have to say goodbye to those golden god sun-kissed Brits.
I feel a little pasty.
Does vitamin D help teeth?
Yes, I need SPF 4000.
Yes, that's right.
Yes, I need SPF...
Sun is bad on syphilis.
And here's the other crazy thing.
Again, all references available so you can do this research yourself.
The UK.
Okay, they want to block out the sun to solve climate change.
But how do you juxtapose that with the fact that they are increasingly relying on solar power, again, in the name of environmentalism?
From 2010 to 2024, they've had an 18,000% increase in solar power capacity in the UK.
We need to power our cities with the sun after we block it.
They don't have any guns to shoot themselves in the foot.
They run out of feet.
What are you talking about?
Last summer, the UK government pledged to quadruple solar investment.
Did no one have a meeting?
Oh wait, were you doing the whole harness the sun thing?
I wasn't going to do the whole block it.
I propose we block the sun.
You'd think the other person would be like, wait, what?
Well, what about my $8.7 billion?
Increasing the sun capacity.
Lord solar power.
I thought we were all pro-solar.
We're anti-solar?
Well, shit.
It was their ex-girlfriend who proposed it.
They're going to have shutters on the country that are powered by the sun to block the sun.
We're going to block it with solar panels.
It makes sense, Stephen, I promise.
It's a disgruntled employee.
I'll show you!
They're going to put a UV screen like you have on your door.
It's all made of unrecyclable plastic.
Yes. And it gets worse.
Okay. Great Britain brexiting themselves from the sun.
Fantastic. The sun has lived high on the hog for far too long.
It's time to take it down a peg.
Speaking of which, I'd rather enjoy that.
Oh, wow.
Right now it'd be practical.
It'd be practical.
So an 18,000% increase in solar power capacity.
An $8.7 billion pledge to increase against solar capacity over the next five years.
And just three weeks ago, a $260 million investment in solar power for schools and hospitals.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
We're going to block out...
Has anyone taken into consideration the patients with cancer?
It's like investing in lung cancer research and cigarettes.
Yes! I'll win either way!
By the way, there are also...
In case you've forgotten, the UK, they were caught faking climate data to show temperature increases.
Okay? Faking it.
And keep in mind, by the way, I will say this, at least now they're acknowledging what a lot of climate skeptics, they've called us climate skeptics, have known for a long time that humans, man-made carbon emissions in this, on our planet, it ranges anywhere,
the total contribution to carbon, anywhere from 1% to 9%.
The other 91% comes from natural processes, like...
The ocean, the sun, the interaction between them.
We've been talking about this for a long time.
So now they seem to be on board with, oh, driving a Prius doesn't help, so let's block out the sun.
Maybe they can launch all the Priuses towards the sun.
Yes. As if Brits needed any help looking like trolls.
It's just...
It's going to make it work.
So, hold on, let's do the math on this.
The UK is trying to stop climate change by blocking out the sun, but the country is...
Spending billions to invest in solar.
They're retarded, right?
They're just...
It's a nation of...
Yes. They're all inbred?
Yep. For too long.
For far too long.
Yeah. That's pretty much it.
This is the stupidest idea.
By the way, you know how they figured out that the clouds would be more reflective if they just put these little parts?
Shipping. Pollution from ships.
Yes. Yeah.
It's a good idea.
Let's harness that pollution and do some more.
I say, we've been going about this all wrong.
We've been trying to decrease pollution.
It precisely is the opposite.
Everyone, stop throwing your shit out the window.
What we should do is pollute the clouds and then it will rain acid on our faces.
Trim Vegas looks better.
Oh, Britain.
Do you have any idea how confused people will be 300 years when they look upon the rubble of that civilization and try and carbon date the bodies?
No way.
It's melted with acid rain, just pigmentless.
How did they do this?
Well, solar and blocking the sun.
Yes, yes.
Well, you know what?
Looking back, looking back, I do understand your point.
We probably should have picked a lane.
By the way, download, if you're watching on Rubble, download the app.
Follow us.
That's the best way to stay in touch.
You will be notified when we are live.
You don't have to worry about algorithms like you do with YouTube.
Download the app.
Follow us.
You can watch live anywhere, and you can watch this lineup.
It just continues from show to show.
Let's go on to the next.
This is really just a show in idiocy, which I'm glad we get to do today because, you know, I'm not at 100%.
It fits.
Do you remember this broad Clarissa Ward?
No. Yes.
Thank you.
He's a good foil.
So if you fabricated...
Let me ask you this.
If you completely fabricated, let's say where you work, some kind of a report.
I don't know, maybe an Excel sheet.
Or you just made up something at work that misled all of the employees.
Or if you made up something that was used to mislead millions of people.
No, you'd expect to face repercussions, like likely being fired.
Yes. You know, well, I don't know if you remember this.
When it happened, Clarissa Ward, right, she was out there.
She did this story where she found this Syrian rebel, right?
She found the Syrian rebel who was starving and in prison, and she was the only person who found this guy, and she had an exclusive scoop.
Now, as it was happening...
We were joking about how there's no way this was true.
Spoiler alert, we found out not long after that it was completely false.
But let's go back in time so you can see that we didn't buy it then.
So CNN released this really weird video.
A lot of people think this is fake.
And by that, I mean it's allegedly fake.
And by that, I mean it's clearly fake.
Clarissa Ward just happened to discover a prisoner of the Assad regime.
So watch this and tell me.
If it feels a little professional wrestling.
Is someone there?
But, pause.
They're already in the cell.
They're already in the...
Olly olly oxen free!
That is a perfectly trimmed beard right there.
It's not, I've been in here for three months without care.
Yeah. Just think about it.
By the way, when they're in there, there's a camera.
They already blew off the lock with gunfire.
And they're in there.
I don't think it actually happened.
They're in there with a boom mic, with a line producer, and he's just like, no, I'm just counting sheep.
I use the term counting loosely.
One thrust, two thrusts, three thrusts, sleep.
Body count.
Hey, I love these sheep with smiles on their faces.
Now. Why are you rushing?
I don't know.
The sheep call me a bad boy.
That's terrible.
So, one week after that broadcast, turned out the story was completely bullcrap.
Bullshit! Turned out.
Completely bullcrap.
And you would think, consequences?
Well, no, actually, now Clarissa Ward is back in action, this time reporting on the Pope's death at the Vatican.
She's gotten the rights to that where we can assume that she has the early scoop on who the Cardinals plan to elect Pope
That's all we have for that story, in case you were wondering.
I just want to remind you that everything is a lie on legacy media, and you should trust none of us.
When people now are like, oh, we need authorities and experts.
I get it.
Clickbait is a problem.
That's a worse problem.
CNN. It's a worse problem.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, because...
Once upon a time, you couldn't refute them with the truth.
So remember, when you think Clarissa Ward, think a compulsive liar who still has a job.
Which brings me to my question, what do you want to see Clarissa Ward cover next?
Her face.
But I think that wasn't even the first time that she'd been caught lying.
I believe when we covered the story the first time in December that we had talked about another story that she previously...
Lied about.
What was that, Gerald?
Israel. She was saying that they were shelling, and she got down in the ditch, and like, oh my gosh, they're firing.
And it was like miles away.
This lady is so forgettable, CNN forgot that they even hired her before.
They're like, ah, shit.
She pitched a new story about running around with Tom Hanks to find the antimatter in, you know, the Vatican.
Yes. With his crappy...
Ponytail or whatever it was.
This is...
By the way, she's posed.
Look at this.
This is Michelangelo.
I'm touching God!
Should I have my arm out or should I have it...
Put it out, put it out.
Stop smiling so much.
She's worse than the weatherman that goes out there and the hurricane is like, and the winds are blowing!
And there's two people walking calmly.
I know.
I barely made it out alive!
Meanwhile, the cameraman's in cargo shorts and a t-shirt.
He's eating the Slim Jim.
Clarissa lies about it all.
We have an admonish button here.
We make the references publicly available.
We were talking yesterday about transparency.
Like, we've gotten things wrong.
Like, I confused the Greenland shark and the Sixkill shark, and I rightfully was raked over the coals.
That is very different.
From staging, lying about, releasing, and defending a false story of a Syrian rebel as an exclusive scoop.
Do you guys see that one is actually, like, people get things wrong all the time.
That happens.
Every single one, if you're watching, you've gotten something wrong.
Of course it happens.
And the best you can do is try and apologize for it and try and do better the next time.
And have a winning record as it relates to being right.
These people have no sense, they have no sense of responsibility to the truth at all.
It doesn't even factor in.
All right, let's go on to President Trump and the Ukraine-Russia offer right now.
Let me just sort of explain this to you, because it's hard, and it's even hard for me, and of course, laying the brain here has done a great job.
It kind of started with the mineral rights deal yesterday as I was reading up on it, and I was delirious where I thought I was being chased by Canadian geese in my bed last night.
What? Yeah, well, I'm dehydrated.
To sort of put this in a nutshell, President Trump counted to three.
That's the deal that we're looking at right now.
He counted to three, and he's decided, all right, this is final offer for the Russia-Ukraine deal.
You guys need to start hashing it out, which brings us to Insane in the Ukraine.
Insane in the Ukraine.
*cough*
I always get Ukraine fatigue and then I see that stinger.
I'm like, okay, I could go one more.
Yeah, because we didn't make that.
Yeah, no.
That was him.
We didn't do that.
That was him.
So I know everyone is tired.
This whole situation, the negotiation, it's turned into a quagmire, right?
Russia, Ukraine.
It seems like we could be at the end of the road here because luckily we have sent the best man for the job on the ground in Kiev.
We spent nearly $200 billion to the defense of Ukraine.
There are lots of questions about where the money is going.
There's nothing to hide.
We're absolutely open.
Wouldn't it be possible by the United States of where those dollars are going?
We are kind of the living shield against Russia's invasion to the civilized world.
I want to get to Russia's intentions and the possibilities of the ceasefire.
Which prompted Putin to immediately launch all remaining missiles.
Yeah. Oh, shit!
Did Zelensky say that he's the shield protecting us from Russia?
Apparently. Apparently.
I hope Ben does a good job with it.
I just hope he's like, did you just say you're a shield?
That's retarded, sir.
You're a human shield.
You mean cannon fodder.
Let's just see what happens.
I'm curious to see what happens.
No one's a fan of this guy at this point, Zelensky.
It doesn't mean that you're a fan of Putin either.
But Wednesday.
We'll get into the points of the deal, go through it point by point.
Hopefully it helps you understand it a little bit better.
I actually think this is a pretty good kind of final offer, in my opinion.
Pretty reasonable.
Donald Trump, Zelensky, got into another blow-up this time over.
And the problem with Zelensky is this guy's never consistent.
He kind of does a handshake deal and then changes it.
This time there was another blow-up over Crimea.
Trump versus Zelensky, round two.
President Trump accusing Ukrainian President Zelensky of, quote, inflammatory statements today in a lengthy social media post after Zelensky reiterated he would not concede any territory to Russia, including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014 during the Obama administration.
Ugh. Look.
Look. I don't like Putin.
I don't like what Russia is doing.
I don't like us sending money to Ukraine.
But I will tell you what I really, really, really, really don't like is Zelensky acting like he's in a position to be making demands on anything.
And then blaming us for not being able to secure your peace deal.
We will not give up any land.
Wanna bet?
Yeah. It's a good thing you don't want to give that back.
Russia didn't ask you.
No. They took it.
Yeah. Why do we live in this fantasy world where anything belongs to anybody?
It is yours if you can keep it.
I hate that that's the rule of the road, but it is.
Our Constitution is literally a piece of paper that is useless unless we can enforce it.
Yeah. Unless we can defend it.
That's it.
Yes, exactly.
Stop with the games.
They start with the premise of it is ours if the U.S. will pay for us to keep it.
Yes, you pay.
You pay.
By the way, we demand A, B, C, B. How about you demand nothing?
Shut up.
And take it.
And like it.
And say, thank you, sir.
Please. Thank you.
These are the words that we want to hear, Zelensky.
I get it.
Putin. Not a good guy.
Bad guy.
But you are just a prick.
You're just a prick.
So, President Trump wrote this on Truth Social.
He wrote...
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is boasting on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea.
There's nothing to talk about here.
This statement is very harmful to the peace negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama.
His middle name is Hussein.
It's Hussein.
A lot of people didn't know that.
They say, no, that's not his middle.
I say it is.
It is not even a point of discussion.
Nobody is asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, but if he wants Crimea, why didn't they fight for it 11 years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?
It's inflammatory statements like Zelensky's that makes it so difficult to settle this war he has nothing to boast about.
Nothing. I know some people think he has some things.
Nothing. I have nothing to do with Russia.
Because he knows what they're going to say.
But I have much to do with wanting to save, on average, 5,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week who are dying for no reason whatsoever.
I look forward to being able to help Ukraine and Russia get out of this complete and total mess that would have never started if I were president.
And we'll get to the deal.
Saying Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea does not make it true!
Kind of like how Josh refuses to legally recognize the restraining order filed against him by Hooters!
You can...
It's still there!
I just go there for the mashed potatoes!
It's still a thing!
Open the door!
What? What was that?
I didn't even hear what he said.
Was that me?
Open the door.
And so here's the thing, too.
I will say this.
I will say this.
In Putin's defense, I know right away people are going to go nuts.
I know.
Putin seems to be, like him or hate him, seems to be pretty clear about the terms.
He's been pretty consistent.
You may not like the terms as far as what he expects with the lines where they are right now, what territory he expects, what he's willing to compromise on.
He's been, for everyone saying, you can't trust this guy at all, he's been more consistent, not saying he has been entirely consistent, he's been more consistent on his terms in coming to the table than Zelensky.
You remember the last blow-up, right?
Zelensky was minutes away from a deal that day until he decided to be, again, I'm sorry for the language, a total prick!
So last night, President Trump did say that he thought he was close to a deal.
At this point, with at least Russia.
I will say that I think Russia is ready.
And a lot of people said Russia wanted to go for the whole thing.
And I think we have a deal with Russia.
We have to get a deal with Zelensky.
And I hope that Zelensky, I thought it might be easier to deal with Zelensky.
So far, it's been harder.
But that's okay.
It's all right.
But I think we have a deal with both.
Okay, now before you say, oh, he's only praising Russia because he's a shill for Putin.
He wrote this morning on Truth Social, he wrote, I am not happy with the Russian strikes on Kyiv.
Not necessary.
Very bad timing.
Vladimir, stop!
5,000 soldiers a week are dying.
Let's get the peace deal done.
So here's the thing.
He is being consistent in saying, you need to stop the dying, and you need to stop the dying.
You may not like where he lines up on territories, where he lines up on mineral rights, where he lines up on NATO.
He has been remarkably consistent.
Can we all agree in saying, you need to stop the death as best you can, and so do you.
Since last year, even before last year, since two years ago, he's been saying the same thing.
Right. That the dying needs to stop.
That's been his clear...
Right. Because it's obvious there's not a military solution for Ukraine.
Russia cannot take over Ukraine.
We've seen that.
Ukraine cannot get Russia to get out of their country.
We've seen that.
No, and it's like the only way Ukraine wins is if the U.S. lets our soldiers die.
Exactly. That's it.
And I actually disagree with one statement you just made.
Russia absolutely could take Ukraine if they didn't get any more aid from us.
They'd go alone.
Well, that's true.
Yeah. And that's the point.
That's also because that's important because that rug needs to be pulled if we want the dying to stop.
I've talked about how false empathy creates real victims.
This idea that, hey, Ukraine, they need more.
Isn't it?
It's terrible.
People are dying.
Okay, sure.
So we've given them basically a blank check.
Right? Has it stopped the dying?
Or has it led to more dying?
Let's be honest here.
Right? Everyone was playing on the string of empathy.
And sure, we saw what happened.
You felt horrible for the people in Ukraine.
The freedom fighters.
People who wanted to protect their country.
I get that.
I also understand why some Russian people would feel galvanized.
Doesn't mean that I agree with them, but all of our money.
In the first year you go, well, yeah, okay.
Yeah. Yeah, they invaded.
Yeah, hey, here's some missiles.
Here's some guns.
Here's some tanks.
Go kick some ass.
Go take your country back.
But that after three years.
Right. And multiple deal after multiple deal.
And offensives.
Turned down, you're like, well, hey.
Yeah. Now the United States, our funding, because it's more than all of these European nations combined, it is the foundation.
It's the premise for Ukraine to continue the dying, to continue the kidnapping of their own citizens, including, in some cases, people who really have no business being in the military, to throw them to the front lines of the meat grinder.
They can't do that without our constant funding.
So please tell me how that's compassionate.
You can comment below.
Honestly, the alternative, if it's the worst-case alternative, that it were to become a part of Russia, I still would say less death.
Now, I'm not saying that that's right, but what I am saying is you need to know that your dollars have funded a giant death machine.
That is inescapable.
So let me ask you this.
This is the final peace plan.
Is it actually only screwing the Ukraine as the leftists are writing out there right now?
This is from The Atlantic.
It says, his, Trump's proposal to end the war isn't a peace plan.
It's a reward for aggression.
Just that premise before we get to the points.
There's no reward for aggression from a third-party nation throughout human history.
You understand that.
You know what the reward is for aggression?
The spoils of war.
Right? That's the reward for aggression.
In other words, if the United States did not help intercede financially, Russia would already have their rewards.
So this is, if anything, this is a curtailed...
They're not getting as much as they would get if we didn't get involved.
Take everyone else out.
Ukraine, Russia?
Guess what?
They're Russia.
They are Russia.
That's what happens historically.
A reward for aggression would be a U.S.-sponsored coup, not like 2014, and then giving all of Ukraine to Russia.
That would be a reward for aggression.
Right. And I always go back to Barack Obama telling Mitt Romney, the 1980s called, I want their policy back.
When he said that Russia was a threat.
So they've completely flipped.
All right.
So let's go through these points, and we're actually going through the points of this final peace plan.
You can go and check the reference and read it yourself.
Point number one requires an immediate ceasefire.
So Putin reportedly told Steve Whitcoff that he was willing to freeze the invasion at the current lines.
So that would be, at this point in time, good for both.
Yes, because Putin hasn't agreed to a ceasefire yet.
Right. He hasn't really been willing to do that, so that's good.
Freeze it where it is right now and stop people dying.
Freeze the lines where they are right now.
Now, I would bet you Zelensky would be like, we want the lines to move back to right where it was before.
We lost all this.
You lost a lot of stuff, so you have to compromise.
We will not compromise.
Okay, no more money.
Oh! Point number two, that there need to be direct talks between Ukraine and Russia, meaning we're going to be out of this now.
This is not our job.
You guys have to start dealing with each other.
Grow up.
You two go into the room and settle it.
It's like two kids fighting all the time.
You're like, I've tried to intervene.
Yeah. You guys figure it out.
I would ask you this.
What's the alternative?
Keep doing what we're doing?
Right. And by the way, it's impossible to do with someone like Zelensky.
I will go to the table and negotiate.
All right, look, here's a very long table.
Putin had it imported.
He's like, no, no, no, no, I want to change the deal.
Okay, so you guys hash it out.
Take us out of it.
Point number three, of course, Ukraine would not be able to join NATO.
Which Russia has said for a very long...
That is their red line.
They've been concerned about it.
Whether you believe them or not, okay.
But they have said that's a non-negotiable.
So Ukraine, no NATO, but they can look for admission to the EU.
So in February 2025, the Russian foreign minister, Dmitry Peskov, said that Ukraine has the sovereign right to join the EU.
So they should be good with it.
That's from a Russian spokesperson, effectively, themselves.
And Trump...
This plan would, I guess, include some pretty robust security guarantees from EU nations as well, if this were to happen.
So, no NATO.
Yes, EU.
Okay. Verdict here.
This is probably the best compromise for Ukraine.
If Ukraine throws a fit, if Zelensky throws a fit, that means he wants NATO.
Which means he wants all of the things.
You guys understand that, right?
Yeah. Like, if you get to the point where it's like, we need to be able to join NATO, you understand that that is saying, we will make no concessions or compromises with Russia, who, by the way, have largely kicked our ass.
It's delusional.
Yeah, and it may be good for Ukraine to be a part of NATO, but it's not good for the rest of the world, certainly not good for Europe, to have Ukraine as NATO at that point, because if that's the case right now, then we are technically supposed to be at war with Russia.
Right. Yeah.
Point number four.
As far as the territory, this is a big one, right?
So Russia would sort of keep their de facto control of the gains that they've seen in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine would still have access to the Dnepro River and the Zaporizhia nuclear...
Sorry, the Dnepro River, the Zaporizhia power plant, the nuclear power plant, would actually be transferred to American control.
That's a big one.
That's a pretty big one.
As I understand it, too, I don't know, because last time we covered this, that's just outside the lines of Ukrainian control.
Yeah, so the lines wouldn't freeze exactly where they are right now.
They would move around just a little bit, but it is obviously not going back to pre-invasion.
Well, they'd move around, for example, if you give American control, that would mean that Russia would be giving that up.
Yeah, they'd have to push that back.
Yeah, exactly.
So there you go.
Alternative is, hey, Ukraine, take your chances with Russia having control of the nuclear plant.
There would be a formal recognition of Russian control over Crimea, which I bet you is going to be a sticking point, of course, with Zelensky.
Trump was, of course, strategically vague about this point when he talked about it last night in the Oval Office.
The deal that you have with Russia, does it include recognizing Russia's sovereignty over Crimea?
Well, everything is good.
I just want to see the war end.
I don't care.
If they're both happy, they both signed an agreement.
I have no favorites.
I don't want to have any favorites.
I want to have a deal done.
So that ends up being obviously better off.
It's better for Russia, but Ukraine has no hand to play here.
It's necessary for them.
What's the alternative?
People are looking at this in this very myopic way like, oh, okay, well, if we could just have Russia get out, they're the aggressor.
Fine. We asked them.
They said no.
What now?
Same thing on the Crimea.
It's been over a decade.
It's counterproductive.
It was eight years between Crimea being taken and Ukraine being invaded by Russia again.
Right. Yeah.
I mean, it was before your time.
Now you're here.
You took office.
Did you campaign on that?
Did you campaign on taking Crimea back?
Did you build up your military in an effort to do that?
Did you start kind of strengthening your alliances to prevent an invasion that would further?
I mean, what steps did they take, and why are we where we are today?
Do you know what the truth is?
Not a single other nation has effectively built up their military to the capacity that they need.
Only the United States, because it's all been predicated on the United States picking up the slack.
Screw you, rest of the world, militarily.
Start owning your own shit!
Alright. Point number five in this deal, completely unclear.
I'm sorry, I can make no sense of it.
So you can go and read it.
I'm going through this point by point.
We don't want to get admonished.
No, I don't want to get admonished.
I'm just letting you know.
Someone can comment and let me know what it is that it just seems very difficult to...
Yeah, I'm sure somebody really understands it.
Point number six in this deal, of course, Ukraine would sign the mineral rights deal with the United States.
That would be great for Ukraine because the United States would have a vested interest, sort of a de facto security interest.
In protecting these mineral rights with Ukraine.
Now remember, this was a sticking point before where Zelensky was like, we will not do this.
We will always keep our minerals.
Really? Okay.
Hey, there are the Russians.
No more money.
Good luck.
They took your minerals, by the way.
Yes. We will always have our mineral.
Where'd they go now?
This was the thing that bothered me, I guess, the most about this, is that this obviously gave them security guarantees.
It gave them ties to the United States that they didn't have without giving them NATO coverage right now.
Of course, you could argue that if they'd been in NATO before that this wouldn't have happened in the first place, but yes, that's Fantasyland.
We're not there.
We are in a different place right now.
If you give it to them right now, it's a really big problem.
Right. They could have gotten something very, very close.
Well, yeah.
And let me bring you to the next point here.
And we were talking about this in run-through.
So point number seven in this deal is the lifting of sanctions and increased sort of economic cooperation between the United States and Russia.
That could be good for everybody.
Now, I understand you can't trust Russia any further than you can throw them.
But let me present to you a possible scenario, right?
You guys all know about the tariff war.
I know that they've moved on from it in the media.
Something about Nazis on CNN right now.
Okay, so the tariff wars, specifically China.
You don't trust Putin.
Okay, I don't, of course, I don't trust Putin either.
Do you believe that Putin is more untrustworthy than Xi Jinping?
Okay, what if we live in a world where as a result of this conflict, we said we know that you guys have been obviously seriously damaged by this war, and if you promise to play ball, we're actually not going to put these same kinds of tariffs on you so you can build up your manufacturing sector and cripple China for a lot of raw materials,
for parts.
I'm not saying that it's...
We don't want to superpower Russia, but that doesn't really just happen through manufacturing.
Would we not be better off potentially having the option to work with Russia?
We already know the devil that is China.
And, of course, China has been communist.
They have maintained remaining communists.
Their citizens are communists.
At least Russia has somewhat moved the other direction.
If you have to pick for, let's say, aluminum, automotive parts, raw materials, would you rather it...
Come from China?
Or is there an opportunity, perhaps, where Russia could become maybe a valuable trading partner and that would prevent them from running into the arms of communist China?
What do you got?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Keep the tariffs on China.
You know what?
We're going to make an exception for you, Russia, for the next, I don't know, X number of years and see how it works out.
What's the economic situation in Russia?
It's not great.
So it would be a fairly cheap place to manufacture.
It would certainly, yeah.
Similar to China, maybe more expensive than China, but still very cheap.
And if at the same time we said, by the way, EU, you're going to start buying, as we have already studied, you're going to start buying more energy from us and less from Russia where we could help transfer them from an energy-based economy, which of course kneecaps the rest of the world more significantly than them being largely a manufacturing or raw materials economy.
Russia makes a huge portion of their income from energy, largely from Europe, who also condemns them at the same time.
I know, you're saying, none of this makes sense.
Don't worry, it doesn't.
It's just a thought.
And so here's where we are.
Concessions need to be made by both sides.
And a lot of people talked about, this is one thing that's very telling to me.
And by the way, if you are not, we're going to have my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richmond, a barely legal on a Supreme Court case that relates to your constitutional right to carry.
So click that button.
You can join Rumble Premium.
$99 a year.
You get the wonderful co-promoter hand-etched mug.
Mug Club is Rumble Premium.
Rumble Premium is Mug Club.
You get the whole thing ad-free and an additional 100% more show.
If not, try it for $9 a month.
Otherwise, this all goes away.
Remember how everyone was talking about with Russia?
They were saying, well, they're just going to march on through Poland.
I never really bought that, and I always thought that, well, actually, you know what, at this point in time, if I happen to be Poland, I would be more concerned that Russia would maybe be a threat to us if they didn't get a deal done with Ukraine.
I would believe that they're more likely to stop at Ukraine, for example, if some concessions are made, as opposed to the alternative scenario is they steamroll through Ukraine, and uh-oh, here we are.
Well, the Polish president, their president, Duda, said, De facto, this piece should, in my personal opinion, come down to the fact that neither side will be able to say that it won this war, because each side, in some sense, will have to step down.
Ukraine will also have to step down, in some sense, because that's what will probably happen.
He's saying that will probably happen, meaning it absolutely will happen anyway.
So if Poland is saying, hey, this is something that needs to happen, hey, all of you folks out there who were supporting, you know, the Kinzingers, I don't know, Crenshaw, of course, everyone on the left who are supporting the never-ending funding for this war, based on the premise that they're going to march—think about Poland!
Think about Poland!
And now the Polish president is saying, yeah, this is a good—you probably should do this.
What's your argument now?
Aside from orange man bad, friends with Putin.
And Marco Rubio actually laid this out pretty brilliantly yesterday.
Well, I don't know, Bob, by the end of the week, I'm hopeful that we can get to something quickly.
And I remain hopeful that we can get something done because this is a terrible war and it needs to end.
Because it has no military solution.
There is no military solution to this war.
We have to be frank.
You know, Russia is not just going to roll over Ukraine and take the whole country.
And Ukraine is not going to push them all the way back to where they were before 2014.
So what I would say we're involved in is understanding what is the Russian position.
We have a better understanding of that now because we've actually spoken to them after three years of not speaking to them.
What is the Ukrainian position?
And figure out, are these guys even in the same neighborhood?
Because if they're in completely different zip codes, then we may have to conclude that they're so far apart that peace is impossible at this time.
If Ukraine is in neighborhood, it is Chelsea.
That is gay area of New York!
So at least with this...
Yes, I bet you are a neighborhood of San Francisco, the Bay Area.
So... At least with this, look, big part of this deal is...
All right, we've been trying to deal with it.
We've been trying to be the diplomat here.
Here are the terms.
We counted to three.
You guys hash it out.
You know how this ends if you don't.
And the ball is in.
Their court, the blood, is off our hands.
I think he's probably right on that point,
by the way.
And so I just wanted to come back to one of the points that you made and then just kind of button this whole thing up.
Switching them over to a manufacturing, probably not going to happen in any reasonable time frame, but here's the point that's broader, right?
Energy is their thing.
I got it.
When we went back up to Nina Jankiewicz earlier, and she said this is one of the strongest statements that you can say that Europe will stand up, they will hold the line.
No, the strongest statement that Europe can make about standing up and holding the line is stop funding Russia in this war.
To the tune of more money than you're funding Ukraine.
That would be the strongest stance they could take.
Russia's always going to be an energy guy.
That's fine.
We don't want to push them in the arms of China.
That's also fine.
Are they better off when they're participating in the world economy?
Yes. Those things are good.
Do we want Russia to be a superpower?
No. Not at all.
I'm sorry.
Their citizens had a shot at freedom.
They had a shot at having something better, and they immediately ran back into the arms of...
Communism. It's like a prisoner who's been there for 50 years, gets released, and immediately commits a crime to go back into the prison.
They didn't run into the arms of communism.
They ran back into the arms of a de facto dictator.
They ran back into the state taking care of them.
It was very clear they didn't know what to do with the free market, and they were like, this is too crazy and too uncertain for us.
I don't think that's ever going to happen there.
But we have to live in a reality.
Everybody right now that's out there saying that we should be pushing harder on Ukraine hasn't put a plan in place.
No amount of money does this, by the way.
Right. You can give them a trillion dollars tomorrow.
This does not change the reality on the ground unless you provide them with people to actually fly the planes, because I don't think they have nearly enough pilots to actually do what they need to do, unless you provide them with soldiers on the ground to be able to push people back, unless you provide them with ongoing security guarantees for the rest of time.
Right. That's the only thing that does this, and the world is not willing to do that.
Well, it's kind of what we did in the Cold War, where we sort of moved some of our dependence, at least our trading, to China.
Let's move it back.
Crisscross. At this point, it's like, okay, China, you don't get to be someone we rely on on account of the fact that you guys are communist dicks who killed like 10 million and tens of millions of people and you guys still support and have statues of the guy who did it.
So, we got our eye on them, but we're going to take our chances with Russia right now a little bit because they have an incentive.
If we have to pick from your commie crap...
Or these semi-commy crap artists who may have a chance at straightening up and flying right?
All right, let's give them the old college try.
It's just a thought.
I'm not saying we should trust them.
I'm saying there could be some good to come out of this, and we do need to be aware of the most significant threat, of course, which is not just to the United States, to the entire world, is China.
And by the way, you know who would agree with that statement if they were honest?
The left.
Yeah. Because they believe the greatest threat is climate change, right?
We believe the greatest threat is fascism, is the destruction of freedom.
For example, falling birth rates, the anti-humanist agenda.
Of course, you would say, oh, okay, biggest power there is China.
But the left would also say, wait a second, we're most afraid the biggest threat is climate change and the biggest emitter who doesn't give a shit as to your international agreements and will continue to create coal plants and will continue to have unsafe, unclean mining extraction processes,
refining processes.
China, we should all be on the same page.
You should believe they're the biggest threat because you think that climate change is the biggest existential threat to the world?
We think that, well, you know, communism is.
Hey, let's find some common ground.
Maybe there's some concessions to be made.
Let me tell you where you don't have to make any concessions is during your mortgage refinance.
*phone rings*
Hello, Chase Vanguard.
Too big to fail.
How can I help you?
Oh, yeah, sure.
We can help you refinance your house.
How's, uh, 28% sound?
Oh, well, maybe your kids shouldn't have gotten so sick.
Maybe you go tell them to eat one of those blue popsicles or something.
Okay, well, best I can do is 27.5%.
And to be honest, you sound like a very selfish person.
Is that really how you want your family to remember you?
Oh. It's just you and the kid, huh?
Well, my heart goes out to you and...
Yeah, that's very sad.
So I think I'd be willing to give you 29%.
That's too big to fail.
All right, sounds great.
Yeah, yeah, sounds great.
And hey, maybe your son and you can learn a lesson from all this.
Yeah. Yeah, all right.
Well, payments due at the end of the month, or you, sir, will be setting a table for one.
All right.
Okay. Don't get scammed on your next loan.
Let American Financing help you regain control of your finances.
Go to AmericanFinancing.net slash Crowder or call 1-800-974-6500.
NMLS 1-82334.
Gotta say that.
I wonder if they could help us finance Crimea.
I don't think it's up for sale.
Those interest rates spare nobody.
What do you call Ukrainian financing or Russian financing?
I just take it.
Hey! It's time for my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richmond.
He's here to talk about a Supreme Court case relating to concealed carry.
Let's get to Hardly Legal.
Mr. Kim Jong-Bill on Instagram, and it's Hardly Legal, is the show on YouTube, and that's where you guys take legal questions, right?
Give advice?
We do, yeah.
Real Americans, Real Legal Issues call in anonymously.
We give them a little advice, and we laugh along the way.
We've got headliner comedians in third chair.
Oh, very nice.
And do you ever deliberately give bad legal advice?
No, never deliberately.
So just me.
Yeah. So this is an interesting case that you brought to our attention.
The Supreme Court rejected there was an appeal from Minnesota, right?
And I have a clip here.
They wanted to reinstate a ban on gun carry permits for 18 to 20 year olds?
Correct. That's what it was.
OK, let me show the clip and then have you explain it, because this is a pretty big deal.
The Supreme Court has decided it will not review an appeals court's ruling that blocks a gun ban in Minnesota.
That means Minnesota's gun ban for adults under 21 years old will not be enforced.
Hmm. Okay,
so explain to us the ins and outs here.
What was the complaint coming from Minnesota?
What's the legal term?
Yeah, so really the challenge was a number of organizations that have 18 to 20-year-olds that want to be able to carry handguns in public.
Sure. And the law since 2003 in Minnesota, and every state's a little bit different, said that you could not.
So even though you could legally possess one, you could not be carrying it in public.
And so finally they had a couple of individuals, I think it was three gentlemen and one lady, who were all between the ages of 18 to 20 at the time.
They were denied the application to be able to get that carry license.
So with the Supreme Court, with their decision, does this mean that...
Automatically, now in Minnesota, they can get their carry permit?
So what that means is the appellate court ruled in favor of the kids and said, you are not actually kids.
You are adults in the historical context.
And then the other side, the state, appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And the U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari, which means they said, nope, looks good to us.
Yep. Go forth.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Carry on.
Bill. The Supreme Court just gave them the big middle fingers.
It just feels better.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's two middle fingers.
Thank you.
Yeah, they did.
It was even worse.
They went...
They even did the Ross.
It's weird.
Gorsuch was doing mechanical sounds.
It feels better that way.
But here's the funny...
I will say this as a layman.
Poor choice of words.
When they write these complaints and they petition it, they use...
I'm kind of surprised you would think there'd be some accountability or some kind of process.
When you're bringing this to court, like, hey, yeah, but that's a lie.
So the debunk stat, we've gone through this so many times, but it was included in their petition that firearms are the leading cause of death among children and teens.
And Governor Whitmer just talked about this again.
It's not even close.
That number that you see, it includes youth all the way up to age 24. And like 85% of the kids who were killed by guns were like 15 to 19 years old and they were gang members.
If you take that out and you actually include children, what people view as children, Guns aren't even top five.
It's not even close.
So they included that to justify, ah, we can't let 20-year-olds carry guns, which also makes no sense because they're not toddlers.
Right. So there's so many rights that are allowed to be had.
The argument of the state of Minnesota was very interesting because it was almost the opposite of what you would normally...
Right. Well,
there's some use for that, I guess.
Yeah! Kind of a hard thing, but can we start with driving?
Did they look at cars and say, well, 18 to 24 year olds, you're probably more likely to get into an accident.
They're newer drivers, so therefore you shouldn't be able to drive.
Here's the thing.
The car argument is even harder to make because you don't have a constitutional right.
You don't have a bill of right or an amendment directly related to the right to bear arms.
I know a guy who had a glass eye.
He passed his driving test by memorizing the letters.
Well, that's cheating.
Yeah! And also, good on him.
Yeah! Wait, isn't that just how a Tesla drives?
It just memorizes the roads and it's like, I got this left, right, oh, fuck!
I failed my eye exam in the state of Texas just handing me a license.
I'm not gonna lie, I never actually did take a driving test because I came from Quebec and it was a learner's permit and they didn't understand it.
They're like, whatever, here's your license.
I had to go through it for my motorcycle, my Class C license, but not even a fender bender.
There you go.
I've driven, I don't know how many, probably millions of miles at this point.
Here's the funny thing, too, though.
You mentioned that demographic.
And I want you to, you know, direct this to whatever you think is most pertinent.
We've talked about this before.
Concealed carry permit holders, they are the most law-abiding demographic that you can, if you were to take them, isolate them.
Group of Americans.
They literally have lower crime rates than police officers, off-duty police officers.
It's not even close.
We actually have right here the firearm violation rate.
For concealed carry holders, it's 1.4 per 100,000.
And with police officers, it's 16.5 per 100,000.
The overall crime rates.
Dude, this one is fascinating.
And we make all references publicly available.
So overall crime rates of these demographics.
You have concealed carry holders.
What's the overall crime rate?
The overall crime rate is about 10.8, call it 11, per 100,000.
Compare that to the general population.
So people out there are told to be afraid of their concealed carry.
They can take it out at any time and just become Yosemite Sam.
The general public is 3,800 per 100,000.
10.8 to 3,800 crimes.
Wow. Think about that.
How did they deal with that question, Bill?
Because their whole argument was based on this group being more likely to, more dangerous, I guess.
The Court of Appeals just said, these stats don't make any sense.
I don't know what to do with that.
I mean, literally, it's one of those super professional statements that's like, this is what the other side says.
We find no merit in it.
And then, you know, because it didn't actually add up.
And here's the thing is...
There are already restrictions related to the permitting process, right?
So you have to go through the background check.
You have to do a safety training.
And those things are still upheld.
So it's not like all of a sudden we went from, okay, now 18 to 20-year-olds are given a gun and a Red Bull and sent off into the street, right?
You know?
I mean, that's just not...
But if you read some of the articles, that's what you would think.
It's just the new Red Bull.
Some guy cliff diving, shooting a mag, shooting a desert eagle.
Here's a gold one in one hand, a silver in another, and here's some tracer rounds while you're at it.
No, I mean, it's not like that at all.
And that was actually cited by the Eighth Circuit.
They're like, well, you guys already have a lot of these restrictions that you passed those saying that they were really necessary to monitor everyone 18 or above, right?
Right. If you already got those in place, why do you have to do a blanket over this age group anyways?
Can I ask you, because this is something that's been a point of discussion for a long time in the firearm community, is this a signal at all, or what are the chances of there being a national sort of constitutional carry?
Do you think the Supreme Court would ever recognize that?
Do you think we're heading toward that?
I think that's the exact right question to be asked right now, because there are multiple circuits that all are in different stages of dealing with this issue.
So, for example, Colorado had an age ban.
It was upheld.
The 11th Circuit had one.
It was struck down.
The 4th Circuit just had new oral arguments on it.
This one was out of the 10th Circuit.
And then you had the 5th Circuit that covers Texas and Louisiana.
They ruled against age restrictions.
So we're looking at a circuit split, which is almost one of the perfect opportunities for the Supreme Court to come in and go, you guys say this, you guys say that, these guys win.
Mic drop.
Do you think that maybe some of this is not?
Because the Second Amendment, you know, is pretty clear.
So either, okay, you have the right to own a firearm, then some people argue about carrying, or not.
Do you think some of the waters here are muddied because we're not super clear as to what defines an adult?
In other words, 18 but 21 to drink.
Do you think this might actually be a de facto way of settling that issue where it's like, okay, either you're an adult or you're not, so you get to enjoy your Second Amendment rights or you don't?
Correct. That was a big part of the argument.
What is an adult?
And some of it was a little confusing because there were restrictions in the past for 18- to 20-year-olds voting, and then there was a time when they were not, and then there was restrictions on certain land ownership versus non-land ownership over time, and these were the statutes that were talked about over time.
But eventually what they came down to is they said, look, this was meant to allow adults to have the right to bear arms with the minimal amount of restrictions set out in the Constitution and the other case law that's And they said there's no specific reason why we treat these folks as adults now.
And as the founders had said, adults should be able to carry handguns in public.
Right. There you go.
So, you know what?
I guess Johnny Cash was wrong.
Do take your guns to town.
The show is Hardly Legal with Bill Richman on YouTube.
Are you on Rumble, too?
Yeah, Rumble, iTunes, Spotify.
And we're going to take some more of your legal questions today if you're not a Rumble Premium member because it's Chat Thursday and you always have a lot of legal questions because you don't want to pay the retainer.
He's pretty expensive.
Notice my cheap clothes that I wear all the time.
For those of you who are not members, we're going to be sending you to Tim Pool right now.
He has a lot to talk about.
▲
Export Selection