All Episodes
Previous Next
April 16, 2025 - Lionel Nation
32:51
LIONEL NATION LiveStream: Harvey Weinstein, Epstein Irrelevance, Helicopter Conspiracies
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your dirty man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
Sure.
There appears today to be kind of, lack of a better word, kind of a dearth, if you will, a little bit of a hiccup, or this doldrums when it comes to really serious news stories.
I wanted to pick up on a couple of things which I think are kind of interesting.
There was a...
A person who was removed, this foreign aid, a foreign architect, kind of a USAID Trump guy who was asked to leave.
This is sort of interesting because here's something you're not really hearing about.
Some of these USAID things were actually very good.
I don't know if anybody wants to think that because it's been kind of an all or nothing thing, but Peter Marocco, M-A-R-O-C-C-O, who was a Trump-appointed The official, or what have you, who led the dismantling of USAID, has abruptly left the State Department after less than three months.
That's interesting.
We don't really know why.
And when he was there, his tenure saw the cancellation of 83% of foreign aid initiatives, leading to, they say, some clashes and some head-bunning with Marco Rubio.
Does his departure signal turbulence?
Who knows?
What I want you to know about this, what's critical, is that some of these programs are pretty good.
Now, that doesn't mean they can't be replaced, reimagined, refunded, but not everything that we did under whatever particular mantle was bad, which is important to note.
Now, another thing, too, is Blue Origin's New Shepard I guess it's already landed and launched its first all-female crew.
Katy Perry, Lauren Sanchez, you know, at the A. Gail King.
I wonder if Gail's wig came off, if they had to accommodate that.
Marking, I love this, this is what they say, an historic milestone in space tourism.
Do you think?
11 minutes suborbital flight.
And they felt a little bit of weightlessness and a view of the Earth from space.
By the way, that should kill all of the, I think, the flat Earth folks, but in any event.
And while the mission was, you know, celebrated, I guess, for promoting diversity in space exploration, I guess it's so stupid.
Most people are questioning its significance amid global challenges.
It was a waste of time.
It was all about Lauren Sanchez and that weird, we've already talked about that, but that weird Kind of posh-y look at space travel versus the real importance and criticality of it.
Okay?
Now, here's one.
This is another story that was weird.
I don't know if you saw this.
MIT graduates James Sontoro and Karenna Graf who planned to get engaged this summer planned to get engaged.
I said it was interesting.
Not planned to get married, planned to get engaged.
I say planning to plan to get engaged.
I thought the engagement was the plan to get married.
But anyway, it's like assault is attempted battery, and attempted assault will be attempted attempted battery.
In any event, they were among six people killed in a plane crash in upstate New York.
Another private plane, another one.
And the couple, along with her family members, were en route to a birthday celebration and Passover holiday when their twin engine plane crashed.
And the tragedy, they say, has left their community.
But there were some pretty important tech people.
They were going to Passover.
I'm sure there's going to be some...
Somebody will make some Israel connection.
You know it.
And it's not anti-Semitism.
There's people who just love...
Israel's like deep state to them.
They don't mean anything bad by it.
They just love it.
And if there's any way to make...
Any connection with either Mossad or, oh man, they're there.
So watch for that.
That's going to happen.
This is the story, too, which I wanted to bring to your attention, which I think is really critical.
The attack on the governor's residence.
This lunatic, Cody Balmer.
Did you see this lunatic?
Did you see what happened to Josh Shapiro?
Shapiro!
Josh Shapiro, Israel Jewish!
You think I'm kidding?
People are seeing this.
Cody Balmer has been arrested and charged with attempted murder, terrorism, and arson after, I like to say allegedly, well, set fire to the governor's mansion in Harrisburg while the governor and his family were inside.
I think they were celebrating Passover.
They had some friends over.
And this crazy guy, I think his parents were trying to get him some kind of help or whatever, but this fellow harbored hatred towards Shapiro and intended to assault him, I think with a hammer or something, reminds you again of Nancy Pelosi and her husband.
Remember that?
The boyfriend?
I mean, the intruder?
And it's raised concerns about political violence and where this is going.
And how did he even get past this?
I mean, I guess you can breach this, but what?
Very, very, this is something.
And also, you're going to love this one.
Kind of as we had suggested, or I had suggested a while back.
Bill Maher, the praise of President Trump sparks outrage.
Now, understand something.
The left is no good.
Nobody cares about the left anymore.
Nobody cares.
So, if you, sparking outrage actually helps.
Because Bill Maher faced Considerable criticism, as you can imagine, from celebrities after he was praising President Trump following a White House dinner, and he described Trump as gracious and self-aware, leading backlash from, of course, complete losers like Keith Olbermann, John Cusack, who accused Bill Maher of enabling, get this, a PR stunt for the president.
Now, the thing is, nobody cares about this.
Keith Olbermann?
Even their What is your act?
John Cusack?
Okay.
Now, this incident, or this particular piece, highlights, I think, of course, the polarized reactions and blah, blah, blah, and how people are going crazy and all this stuff.
But Keith Olbermann?
Look, let me explain to you what's happening.
This is why it's important.
We're kind of at a part where there's no connection To anything that is really of interest.
Nobody is really feeling this.
And nobody, the left is dead.
Look at Coachella.
Or some people say Coachella.
Where they were really against oligarchy or oligarchy, depending upon who you are.
Now the left, as you know, was basically set up and double teamed and double crossed by Bernie Sanders before.
Remember when they were When Bernie was doing his routine, in fact, we were at something one time in Brooklyn at the time that happened to be where Bernie was appearing.
I mean, it was really cold that day.
There were all these young people.
They really loved him.
Basically, they made him a deal.
They bought him a house or scared him or his wife.
Remember, his wife was risking some kind of prosecution or what have you.
So what they did was they went and they They basically showed the world, this guy is nothing.
This guy is absolutely nothing.
He's a phony, he's a fraud, and he's talking about stuff which, again, doesn't have any substance.
One of the things President Trump was lucky about is that when he said he was going to do something, he told you how he was going to do it.
He didn't just speak about, you know, vague ideas of making America a great house.
I don't know.
Make it great.
What do you mean in particular?
I don't know.
It's great.
Who knows what great it is.
That's kind of what they're doing.
Oligarchy.
And it's great because, remember, the radical left, all they do is they just hate Trump.
There's nothing there.
Let me say this again.
I'm not saying it just because I'm being mean.
I'm not saying it just because I just want to be nasty.
It's the truth.
There's nothing there.
There's no...
They don't have a message.
Who is their...
By the way, Mrs. L and I were talking about this, and I tend to agree with her.
She's the smartest person I know.
And she said, you know, it may not be...
I would pick, if I were the Democrats, I would pick, without a doubt, Gavin Newsom.
Only because he just...
It'll be a while for whatever baggage he has, but he's politically savvy enough to know how to speak the truth.
AOC can't do it.
She can't, you know.
She can't.
I mean, people are talking about stuff.
Stephen A. Smith and people are just sticking their toe in the water, so to speak, and they're finding themselves pretending to be a part of the political discussion.
Pretending to be.
They really don't know.
They really don't have anything in particular to say about it.
But the left, if AOC thinks she's going to do this, she has had so many years to sit there and be coached.
See, all she had to do was sit there and say, okay, we're going to have some people, we're going to go through this, so that you at any time can get up and say things that only a congressperson can say.
Because of what you've known, you really know the lingo.
She's never learned it.
Same thing with Kemala.
She never learned it.
She never bothered to have lessons.
Somebody coming in on the weekends and say, we're going to go through this.
And this subject is economics.
And you say them with such regularity and you get to change some words or you become at least ostensibly fluent and fluid in different senses as to what's going on.
You're able to speak on a variety of topics from a variety of points of view and a variety of levels.
And it's something that is just magnificently easy, easy to do.
But they don't do it because they think that TDS alone will take them through to the next level.
And they, of course, are drastically, drastically, drastically mistaken for what they're doing.
Now, here's another case, too.
I want you to be aware of this.
We'll talk maybe about this later.
This is Harvey Weinstein.
What amazes me about the Harvey Weinstein case is why did they abandon him?
Why did they abandon him?
He is to stand trial this week in a redo of his Me Too cases.
And this is something which is weird.
Really, really interesting.
I don't know if you're into this at all or if you find it interesting, but I would really tell you why it's interesting.
I told you this before, and I'm going to say it again.
One of the things that is a sign of wisdom that people theoretically have been able to show That older folks are able to do it better than others is this ability to tell what is the difference between this case and this case.
This is the most important thing in the world.
Why is this case, why is this happening?
What is different about The Diddy case.
Why is this in federal court?
Don't be surprised if Pam Bondi and these folks don't punt or work out some kind of plea agreement because nobody really feels it for Diddy.
Politically, that's really not a great, great case.
But, irrespective of all that, you've got to ask yourself the question, how is it that this matters?
What's the difference?
And why would you be doing this?
And one of the biggest problems, That I have, and I mean this is one of the biggest problems ever.
In the case of Harvey Weinstein, I want you to think about this, is that whenever you have similar fact evidence, this may seem like a kind of a boring topic, but it is not.
One of the things which I have railed against is a notion of similar fact evidence where you are able to show that even though we may not have something on Harvey Weinstein in this case, he did some things before which we're going to be introducing to the jury.
Not as evidence of his propensity for guilt or his predilection or predisposition for criminality, but we're going to show that his behavior then, where we knew he was involved in this, comported with, jibed with, was similar to his behavior here.
And what it ends up being is the jury saying, well, shit, if he didn't...
Do it this time.
Maybe he did because...
Well, at least he did it before.
And this is when you blend past crimes and current crimes.
I believe you should look at current crimes only.
But when you say Harvey Weinstein, he was part of the Me Too movie.
Remember this, where Hollywood just abandoned him.
And people like Meryl Streep and...
What is her name?
Lawrence.
All those...
Meryl Streep and...
Is it Lawrence?
No.
Who was the other actress?
There were so many actresses that basically played with him and were remunerated.
Jennifer Lawrence.
A lot of them.
And all of a sudden, Gwyneth Paltrow, all these people.
So I think about Harvey Weinstein, he produced, so to speak.
And by the way, he was, remember, completely abandoned by the left, abandoned by the Clinton, abandoned by everybody.
But as he prepares for his trial, the momentum of that seems to be looking at a kind of a test.
His 2020 conviction was overturned and a retrial is now on the horizon.
Many people are questioning not only the strength of the prosecution's case, but also the very state of this movement.
Because Me Too is nothing compared to what's happening to children.
The Me Too movement then is, I mean, there is such debauchery.
There is such absolute debauchery and predation in the world of Hollywood.
Nothing compares to it.
Now his, our trial rhymes with grape.
And his conviction, rather, in New York was thrown out by the state's highest court.
And they cited the trial judge's decision.
To allow testimony from women whose accusations were not part of the charges, which I absolutely agree with.
Now, the court ruled that this prejudiced the jury, yeah, and denied Weinstein a fair trial.
So while this does not exonerate him, it does reset the legal process and raises very serious questions about how courts should handle emotionally charged cases and...
When you have prior similar fact evidence and the like, this is what's really important.
Especially those people involving sexual assault and public figures.
So the retrial, if it proceeds, will not be a simple redo.
Much has changed since 2020.
See, the cultural and the political climate has shifted drastically.
You know, the outrage that people felt that was once galvanized by this...
Kind of this global movement now faces serious obliteration, if not fragmentation, if not non-existence.
And people are tired of it.
There's backlash.
And the high-profile nature of Weinstein's fall from power is becoming boring.
We just don't care anymore.
He looks like this old man that's saying, what is the point of this?
And this was a man who at one point was the symbol of systemic abuse and And he was just the worst.
But this retrial, especially when you see this guy, might make people say, is it really worth it?
It shows how fractured, how inconsistent, and how disjointed the whole Me Too thing is, even if it exists today.
And there is activists, there's legal analysts, and a lot of people who are looking at this and expressing very, very serious concerns, specifically about prior acts and the like.
Some people look at this retrial as a possibility to maybe redo this Me Too.
This Me Too case is complete and utter nonsense because there are so many women who themselves benefited tremendously.
They're not saying a word from this.
Remember, Me Too is one thing if you didn't get the stardom.
Me Too doesn't exist if you got the Academy Award, if you got the problem.
If you were the victim of Harvey Weinstein, but you're one of the big, Big, big actresses who might not want to bring up the fact that he did act this way towards you, thus giving the impression that maybe you didn't really win these awards because of your talent, but because of your other talents.
Think about this.
That also plays into it.
And other people are going to be worrying about the folks, these skeptics and conspiracy theorists and all these other folks that are setting and chilling, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Look.
At the heart of all of this is this intention that still exists between public accountability and the legal procedure and how we're going to work this out.
And how most people really don't know that much about it.
So it's our duty, I think, as lawyers to teach people and to show people.
See, the inclusion of testimony from other women in other trials, this was intended to show a pattern of behavior.
But in the eyes of a lot of people, this basically crossed the line.
Let me give you an example of something.
Let me see if I can give you an example.
Let's assume that Hillbilly, before, was involved in cases where he went to a bodega or a 7-Eleven or a convenience store.
He wore a particular type of hood, a balaclava, he used a particular type of weapon, he said a particular thing, and he followed this pattern time after time after time after time.
And maybe he was convicted, maybe he wasn't, but we know it's him.
We know Hillbilly does it.
That's his MO.
That's what he does.
He shows up and he does these things and he acts like this.
Now, what's really interesting to note, which I find fascinating, is that when he does that, he basically sets up an MO, so to speak, a modus operandi.
And he shows a particular behavior pattern.
Which is most interesting.
Now, let's assume there is a new robbery.
And we don't know who this guy is.
But lo and behold, he has the same balaclava, the same gun, where it uses the same everything that Hillbilly used before.
Can I introduce those similar fact pieces, those instances?
Can I introduce those to say, this new guy?
This is hillbilly.
Why?
Because he's done this before.
And this is the way he does it.
So a jury might say, wait a minute.
I'm not so sure if he did it this time, but you know, if he's done it before, why not?
Why not find him guilty?
You see how that works?
And there's a reason why this is a problem.
And I'll tell you after this.
Let me ask you a question.
What happens when the trucks stop?
Think about this.
Trucks.
You know, the trucks that bring your food.
And then when one store closes because of a riot or ransomware hit or a hurricane or even manufactured weather.
Oh yeah!
We've talked about that.
What happens when all of a sudden, suddenly, the entire supply chain collapses like dominoes?
What happens then?
We've seen it happen and it doesn't take much.
And that's the thing you've got to think about.
A trucker strike, a cyber attack, some EMP, some Carrington class disaster, a city shut down by violence.
It only takes one spark for shelves to go empty fast.
And when that happens, and when that moment hits, you either have what you need or you don't.
And that's why I am telling you, I want you to go to preparewithlionel.com, our trusted friends at MyPatriotSupply.
Unbelievable deals right now.
You've got to see.
Deals on emergency food kits that could save your life and your sanity.
Over 2,000 calories per day.
For three months of food per person.
Shelf stable for 25 years.
In any kind of combinations you want.
And made to taste like actual meals.
Cardboard.
Not some military MRE.
These kits aren't just insurance.
They're peace of mind.
So go to preparewithlionel.com.
Secure your kit.
Secure your future.
Preparewithlionel.com.
Preparewithlionel.com.
Because when the world breaks down, to prepare, don't panic.
The hardest thing for people to grasp is that everybody deserves a fair trial.
Even if you're a terrible person.
I don't care if you're Hitler or Ted Bundy, you deserve a fair trial.
If you don't get a fair trial, we're basically hosing ourselves.
We're denying these rudiments of due process.
And that's very difficult for people to do because most people say, look, if somebody's guilty, that's the way it is and we don't really care and so what?
And that's a human way.
But that's not the way we do it here in this country.
You see, the problem with Harvey Weinstein is you've got to ask yourself this question.
Are we prejudicing the jury?
Have you ever sometimes, I mean now and then, you might argue with somebody who whenever they feel like they're losing the argument here, they'll bring up something that happened before.
Oh yeah?
What about at Christmas?
I say, what?
At Christmas, when your sister came in and said, we're not talking about that.
Yeah, we're talking about that now, because I'm losing this case, but I want to go back to that one.
It has nothing to do with this.
Same thing goes with, have you ever been convicted of a crime?
What?
Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Convicted of a crime, what difference does that make?
Well, have you?
There are very, very limited rules regarding that, because normally it's, convicted of a crime means you have to be convicted of a felony, or a crime involving false statement or dishonesty.
Crimin-falsey cases.
You ever been convicted of perjury?
That's it!
Does it matter whether you've been convicted of 75 felonies?
No!
What about this case?
What about this case?
And the thing about Weinstein, which is the problem, is you think anybody is looking for him?
No, because he's ugly, and he's fat, and he's gross, but if you're Luigi Mangioni, who is a cold-blooded killer, they love him because he somehow, oh, he'll never see the light of day.
This dumbass absolutely ruined his...
It would be so much fun to be in court and just talk about how stupid he was.
He'll go crazy.
He'll go crazy.
This is what John Douglas did years ago when they wanted to question Wayne Williams.
Remember that during the Atlanta cases?
You find out basically what is it that makes these people tick, so to speak.
What is it that makes them go crazy?
And in the Mangione case, he loves to think of himself as being a genius.
No, he wasn't.
He was stupid.
Because nobody really knows how to plan a crime because you've got to start with the case and work backwards.
And nobody ever does that.
They always, I don't know what they think or they don't think.
It's best not to stay, you know, to involve yourself with it.
But going back to the notion of Harvey Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein and other people He was, when you heard him, basically so nasty, basically beg women, beg women.
This one woman in particular to do whatever.
It made him look predatory, but he was a very, very pathetic man.
And how he has not given up anybody, how he is alive, I thought for sure he'd say, oh, I know some stuff about the Clintons or whatever.
It never happened.
That's the thing I don't understand.
Forget Epstein.
Epstein was mild.
What he knew, what he knew, don't forget, who was the one he gave that Obama's daughter was an intern.
She didn't do anything.
She probably showed up and left and got credit or whatever the hell it was.
This guy could have buried, do you know what he knew?
He could have brought not only down the American political system, but the Academy Awards and how they're bought.
Oh, dear God.
It would be one of the most incredibly important and critical things ever for him to do that.
But he didn't do that.
And I dig it and I understand it.
But that is the guy.
Not Epstein.
Epstein is boring.
I'm telling you, Epstein is not what you think it was.
The real issue about Epstein is who did he work for and who killed him.
Those are the issues nobody's talking about.
Not who the clients were and all that stuff.
If you want to go for clients, he's got them.
Weinstein could cross-reference all kinds of debauchery and horrible behavior.
That's the beautiful thing.
So, the focus, I guess, of today's purpose is to sit there and say, let's dust off all of the nonsense.
The Lauren Sanchez case goes to show you that Elon Musk is still the serious person.
By the way, he's got some great discussions today regarding Grok and AI.
Substances, or subjects rather, most people do not grasp in the least.
They don't understand it.
I'm telling you, don't involve yourself because they think it's a robot or something.
They don't really understand where AI and AGI is going.
And I don't know if the president does.
I think he kind of sort of does.
Oh, one thing I heard, which is a very interesting thing.
This is an explanation of his maneuverings.
It was a very interesting point.
Some people have suggested in the past that Trump's M.O., so to speak, is to create chaos and then work backwards.
For example, some people, as was explained to me by somebody who knew him very well, or knows him well, sometimes when people are involved in some kind of activity, they will threaten to sue you.
If you don't do this, I'm going to sue you.
If we don't figure this out, if we don't rectify this, I'm going to sue you, blah, blah, blah, blah.
What Trump will do is sue you and then negotiate on how to drop the suit.
He brings about the thing that most people threaten.
He starts with that and then works backwards.
So when he says, you know, I think I might, he's going to do every kind of tariff, 500%, he can always lower them.
He can always go to China and have a 700% tariff and then work backwards.
When he says he's going to extend something for five years, ten years, three years, he can change his mind.
He starts off with the most brutal, the most over-the-top, and then works backwards.
So keep that in mind.
It's a very interesting strategy, if you think about it.
It's an interesting way of negotiating, so to speak.
Start off with the most...
I mean, thank God war is not like that.
We'll start bombing you, and then we'll work on not bombing you.
Well, it doesn't work that way.
Because when it comes down to it, nobody understands anything.
And by the way, if you want to hear something which is really interesting, listen to Victor Davis Hanson.
He's kind of running out of stuff to say, and he's kind of refashioning the same stuff.
I mean, bless his heart.
But it's like, I'm finding it more and more difficult to stay awake.
Have you noticed that?
Is it me?
I don't.
I'm very bad about this.
If somebody's boring, if somebody has a very slow monotone, and I can handle a lot of stuff.
I mean, you know, Ron Paul was not exactly a ball of fire, but his message was very important.
So not everybody was, you know, Rip Taylor when it came to explaining things.
But Victor Davis Hanson is like, wow.
Wow.
Whoa.
I don't know what happened.
It's like he's getting slower.
Sometimes he'll wear a hat.
I'm going to wear a hat.
I'm going to wear a fedora.
Couldn't hurt.
Okay, I'm going to wear a Valkyrie helmet.
I'm going to wear a gondoliers hat.
Okay, that's good.
Why?
I have no idea.
20 million, my friends.
Thank you.
We're going to be talking more about this later.
I want you to be paying attention.
And also, notice how the left has nothing to say.
Alright?
Thank you for your thoughts.
Thank you for your ideas.
And thank you for your comments.
Don't forget to follow Mrs. L at Lynn's Warriors.
Don't forget to follow me on the other channel at Lionel Legal.
And this being Lionel Nation.
We have more coming up.
See you at 7. Stay tuned.
Stay subscribed.
I got more stuff coming up.
I'm going to be talking more about the Harvey Weinstein case.
But until then, remember, the monkey's dead.
The show's over.
See you.
▲
Export Selection