All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2022 - MyronGainesX
01:38:43
Attorney & Former Fed EXPOSE New Court Docs In Trump FBI Search! Ft.@LegalMindset (*SHOCKING*)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are live.
What's up, guys?
Welcome to Fed.
I'm here with Andrew Esquire, aka Legal Mindset, man.
We got a lot to talk about.
Trump search warrant.
Let's get into it, baby.
I'm a special agent with Homelands investigations, okay, guys?
HSI.
The cases that I did mostly were human smuggling and drug trafficking.
No one else has these documents, by the way.
Here's what Feder covers.
Dr. Lafredo confirmed lacerations due to stepping on glass.
Murder investigation.
And he's positioning on February 13, 2019.
We were facing two parents faults to meditate.
Bracketeering and Rico conspiracy.
Young Slime Life, hereinafter referred to as YSL to the 6ix9ine.
And then this is Billy Seiko right here.
Now, when they first started, guys, 6ix9ine ran with, I'm a Fed.
I'm watching this music video.
You know, I'm bottoming my head like, hey, this shit lit.
But at the same time, I'm pausing.
Oh, wait, who this?
Right?
Oh, who's that in the back?
Firearms and violence.
This is the one that's going to fuck him up because this gun is not tracing.
Well, what happened at the gun range?
Here's your boy 42 Doug right here on the left.
Okay.
Sex trafficking and sex crisis.
They can effectively link him paying an underage girl.
I'm going to go.
The first bomb went off right here.
Suspect to set down a back path at the site of the second explosion inspired by Al Qaeda.
Two terrorists brothers, the Zohkar Sarnev and Tamerlan Sarnev.
When the cartel shit struck into the country.
As this guy got arrested for espionage, okay?
Trading secrets with the Russians for monetary compensation.
The largest corrupt police bust in New Orleans history.
So he was in this bad boy.
All right.
And we are live.
What's up, guys?
Welcome to Fed.
I'm here with Andrew Esquire in the fucking house, man.
Special guest.
Good to be back, Myron.
Every time we come, it's like with a massive fucking case, something huge to break down.
So I'm glad we're always like, you know, I'm thankful that you bring me back on to break down the massive cases because this is stuff I love because there's a lot of meat on this bone.
Well, I'm thankful that you were just available, dude, because to be honest, you know, we're on different time zones.
You're a busy guy.
I see you going hard in the paint with everything else.
And we want to bring you back out here to Miami, obviously, for the one million party and to do another podcast because, you know, we always love to get that legal mindset from someone that's unbiased and based.
Especially when, you know, let's be honest, a lot of lawyers are blue pills.
Fuck.
So they're ridiculous.
And first of all, and like I said, I've known you since before, you know, before all this.
So, you know, I'm ride or die with the FRF team, no matter how much shit they talk.
So it's always good to be hanging with you guys.
He was there with me, guys, and helped me write my resignation.
I really want to know the truth.
Unofficial.
Unofficial.
Yeah, exactly.
He actually, he read the letter they gave me and all this other shit saying like, we don't like this, blah, blah, blah.
He was there for all of that, man.
And I was like, I was like, you know what?
I'm like, you can tell the government to go eat it because this YouTube thing is going to be real.
Yeah.
And, you know, hundreds of subs later, hundreds of thousands of subs later, here's where we at.
Yeah, no, it's, it's crazy, dude, because you were there with me at one of those dark times, which is why I like, because guys, I, you know, I got to take some accountability.
I fucked up.
I was being, I got mad at Andrew over some stupid trivial shit.
And I reached back, you know, and it wasn't even that serious.
And I reached back out to him and I said, dude, that was not cool.
I'm, you know, I apologize.
I overreacted.
I should have done that shit.
And, you know, the good dude he is, he accepted the apology.
And we're here now.
And, and you got to remember.
And I noticed this too because like as we got bigger and bigger, I was like, man, there's a lot of frauds out here.
You don't see many real ones.
And Andrew is definitely a real one because when I was going through one of my darkest times, he was there when I went through the bullshit with them telling me, hey, you know, we don't like your YouTube, blah, blah, blah.
You know, Michael Andrew, what should we do?
You know, and we were going back and forth with them for a bit.
He was helping me draft my stuff.
And yeah, dude, I mean, Andrew was there, dude.
So like, you got to, you got to keep the people that were there with you from the beginning before you were somebody.
So I was like, you know what?
Fuck that shit.
I'm putting my ego to the side.
I made a mistake.
I'm going to acknowledge that mistake.
And Andrew, I want to tell you that I want to tell everybody here on air and then also let the people let you know as well, bro, that you're a great friend.
I appreciate you.
Yeah, man.
Yeah, man.
And I love it.
And I love to see the people that, the people that I know that are working hard.
You know, I see this all across YouTube.
They're doing, they're doing well.
Everybody's putting in the work, being consistent.
They are doing amazing.
I love that because a rising tide is bringing all the boats up and the truth is getting out there.
Whether it's the truth about, you know, feminine and masculine dynamics or whether it's the truth about what's going on in the law, what's going on in these cases, because there's levels to this, right?
And you know, you are probably the only guy who's giving the perspective behind the curtain from a federal agent perspective.
There's nobody out there else doing it.
Like, there's nobody who's doing it out there.
That's not on somebody's payroll.
Let me put it that way.
That's not somebody's payroll.
And between me and you, you know, you got a lawyer and then you got a former Fed in the house.
Like, you're not going to get this kind of content anywhere else on YouTube.
And then also, I want to let the guys know, just so you guys know, I've explained this a million times, but one more time, because, and Andrew's my witness, actually, because he actually was with me when I got to Rome.
What happened, guys, was the YouTube channel started to blow up.
Obviously, as you guys know, I have controversial takes.
They pretty much told me, listen, your outside employment authorization is suspended.
You can no longer do your outside employment activities, which for me in that case was YouTube and my fitness business.
So obviously, I had to make the decision.
And Andrew was one of the first people I called and I spoke to, and I read what we went over the letter with him and everything else like that.
And, you know, he was like, bro, there's no way around it.
We try to go back and forth with them.
They didn't want to concede.
They're like, no, you have to terminate all activity.
And at that point, we had people, you know, depending on the podcast, everything else like that.
So I said, you know what?
Fuck it.
And that's when I turned in my resignation.
I left under good terms, guys.
It was a risk.
It was a risk.
He took the risk.
He took a huge risk.
He's like, I'm giving up stability, right?
That government paycheck for this chance.
And guess what happened?
It fucking blew up.
It worked.
It ended up working out, man.
And, you know, I ended up becoming a millionaire in the process.
But like I said, there's not a day that goes by that I don't miss working for the government that I don't miss that job.
I'm still on good terms.
If I really wanted to go back and I had to shut everything down, I probably could.
But the thing is, is that, you know, it was a fantastic career.
I have nothing bad to say about the government.
I get it that they got to protect their interests.
I can't be on the internet saying the shit that I say.
I get it.
You don't, man.
No, they cannot have it.
I cannot have your takes.
But yeah, dude, like, yeah, guys, I resigned on my own accord.
Andrew is my witness.
He actually saw the legal paperwork.
He was there with me doing everything.
So yeah, guys, it definitely wasn't fired.
I was one of the best agents in the office, which is why I'm able to give you guys this information.
But anyway, Andrew, real quick, man, can you, you're a good friend of mine.
Obviously, I know who the hell you are.
Can you introduce yourself to the audience real fast?
Yeah, guys, I'm Andrew.
I'm over here in Seoul, South Korea.
I was in Miami, Florida.
I'm from Miami, Florida, born and raised in Miami, Florida, 305.
So I was there with Myron when he was in Miami.
Obviously, I'm over here in Korea because I'm trying to live an international lifestyle, set up my finances so Uncle Sam takes a lot less of my money and also just enjoy the benefits right now based on inflation of living abroad.
I just got a 30% raise.
Thanks to Biden.
Appreciate that, bro.
But if you want to find my content, Legal Mindset is my YouTube channel.
I just started a second one to talk about, just started like a week or two ago called Illegal Mindset, which is to talk about non-legal stuff.
But I got so those two channels, legal mindset, illegal mindset.
My Twitter is legal mindset, the legal mindset.
I also have locals, legalmindset.locals.com, where I have unscripted conversations, including about stuff like this, because the algorithm hates this.
They de-incentivize this and they punish us.
They put us down in the ranking for just talking about stuff like this.
We're talking about, for example, the Alex Jones trial, all that sort of stuff.
Can't do it on YouTube.
Oftentimes, I have to do that on locals because they're affiliated with Rumble.
They don't really give a fuck.
So they're much more free speech oriented.
So any of those three places, great place to find me.
Go check him out, guys.
That's a good friend of ours, man.
Anytime he's in the States, we try to get him on the pod.
Obviously, we did an awesome fire breakdown on the Amber Heard trial.
He's done a bunch of some of the best breakdowns on Amber Heard trial on the internet.
So that blew up, Myron.
That blew up.
That went huge international.
I now stream at a time when nobody else is streaming just because there's so many international people and they want the news when they can get it, which I usually stream over here 6 p.m.
Korea time, which is like 5 a.m. and but it's great for the UK, for Australia, for New Zealand.
And there's lots of people out there that want to know the truth.
And because of the Amber Heard trial, they've come to my channel and they're coming to channels like your channels looking for the truth because they realize the mainstream media is fucking lying to them.
They are lying to you over and over.
And about this topic we're going to talk about today.
They're going to be lying to you.
They're not going to be giving you the 100% facts.
Absolutely.
So I'll read these chats real fast.
Amaya Gains Five Buzz.
Good to have you back, Andrew.
Hashtag Hank Schrader, hashtag Saul Goodman.
Okay.
My companions, Drew, what do you think about Ultra Lib Eagle legal?
I call him legal schmeagl.
First of all, he's five foot two.
So, you know, I'm just going to leave that out there.
And he calls himself the, he calls himself the big bird.
If that's not compensating, I don't know what is.
But the point of this, he has the most, he has the most lib woke takes.
And he's one of the reasons why I got into YouTube as a lawyer because all he was doing was posting anti-Trump stuff just because that's popular, right?
Fuck Trump.
And I get it.
Like he was riding the trend.
I can't even knock somebody for riding the trend, but his legal, his law was horrible.
His legal takes were horrible.
And he doesn't understand the Constitution, which, by the way, is the only thing that our culture is based off is our Constitution.
Without that, we're just people living in a place, right?
Without the protections of our constitution, America is nothing.
Absolutely.
He don't love you.
Fellas, remember, to tell the ladies he don't love you.
Fantastic.
And then let's see here.
Read some of these, then we'll get into this bad boy.
That Leon Edwards Kale was insane.
I don't watch UFC, but I'm assuming something crazy happened.
All right, cool.
And then is MLD gone or will be back?
Will he be on the pod?
I don't know, man.
I hope he stays.
I was trying to get him in this week, but we had so many guests in the house.
We had RTTV.
We had, you know, obviously Richard Hart.
So it was tough, man.
But if he stays an extra day, dude, you guys know I love MLD.
Forbidden Alchemy, five bucks.
Myron, love the content on this channel.
Will you be doing anything on the Sun Jim Gang?
I don't know who that is, but I could do some research.
Yeah, I haven't even heard of those guys.
Probably some kind of criminal reaction.
But all right, cool.
So I guess, Andrew, do you want to get, do you kind of want to give a preamble or do you want to play like a little guys what happened with Trump to give them an overview or how do you do that?
Yeah, if you got a little clip, we can do that.
But I mean, guys, you know, I mean, everybody knows Trump's house in Mar-a-Lago was raided, right?
He lives there sometimes, works there sometimes.
I mean, obviously, this guy's all around the world, right?
He's flying around, he's doing business, but that would be considered his primary residence in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, West Palm Beach, and it was raided.
So if you want to go play the clip, we can go to the next one.
Yeah, this is when the news originally broke on the 8th, guys.
So I purposely picked something from August 8th so that you guys kind of know what happened when it, what actually was broadcast as soon as it happened.
So I'll play this clip real fast for y'all.
Has executed an unprecedented search warrant at President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
I'm Cynthia Sega.
And I'm Chris Lawrence.
The circumstances surrounding this search aren't entirely clear, but we know the Justice Department has an active investigation into the former president.
Let's bring in Matt Howerton for some perspective on the legal action in Florida.
Matt?
Yeah, Chris, Izzy, this has never happened before in the history of our country.
And tonight it's stirring strong reaction from both sides of the aisle nationwide.
Word of the raid came late this evening from the former president himself.
He told this in a statement saying Mar-a-Lago was, quote, currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.
He also said they even broke into my safe.
Now, this is video taken outside Mar-a-Lago.
The FBI and the Justice Department haven't said anything yet.
That's the crazy part here.
I'll tell you this.
It's kind of crazy to me how Secret Service agents are doing the perimeter.
Well, I think they were handed over the documents.
They had the dots and they called to verify them and they stepped aside.
But I mean, that was an interesting potential confrontation there, right?
Yeah.
FBI versus the Secret Service.
It's like, yo, we're going to have a little bit of a Nex can standoff here.
And I'll tell you this, dude.
Like, from an agent perspective, right?
So people, I don't know if I've shared this before, but I'll share this with y'all real quick.
Go down memory lane to 2017.
I've done Secret Service protection details before, guys.
Before, guys, I protected the president of Congo.
I'll never forget.
I think it was for UNGA 2017 or 2018.
And, you know, basically, the Secret Service works under the Department of Homeland Security, aka DHS.
Secret Service guys is heavily understaffed.
Most of their agents are kind of stuck to presidential details because keep in mind, a lot of the presidents that are still alive have presidential details still attached to them.
Okay.
The Clintons, obviously Obama, et cetera, the Bushes, et cetera, all those guys.
So a lot of the Secret Service's manpower goes to protection.
Then on top of that, they also have investigators that do financial crimes and counterfeit money, which is why the Secret Service was established in the first place, which is their main agency for counterfeit currency.
So, which, by the way, by the way, Myron, that's a huge similarity with the FBI and the Secret Service, right?
Because like, mind you, originally, the FBI was really just chartered to take down the mob, right?
And once they've done that, they could have been, the FBI could have been disbanded by executive order.
They could have been pinstroke, FBI gone.
So the roles of both the FBI and Secret Service have transformed wildly from what their original intent of this is.
Yes.
Yes, ridiculously.
And I'm looking at it from an agent perspective, like this must have been crazy.
Like the director of the FBI probably had to message the, you know, the marshal, right?
The top marshal for the U.S. Marshal Service to tell them, listen, just so y'all know, we got this going on.
Here's a search warrant.
They probably told them the day of or a few hours before, right?
To, you know, for operational security reasons.
And then the agent showed up and they probably told specific Secret Service agents, yo, in the detail, you guys got a, you know, we have a search warrant.
We're coming, blah, blah, blah.
But I can only imagine the scramble from the Secret Service side to accommodate a federal search warrant on a former president of the United States.
Like, this is like crazy to me how they were even able to pull this off.
So, um, but yeah, the fact that they have secret service agents standing guard on Mar-a-Lago while the FBI does a search is crazy because you could, you, these are agents right here.
These are, these are agents I could tell from the way they're dressed and their badges.
Um, this female agent here, this guy right here, these are 1811s, and they're here in obviously the full tech gear, which is crazy stuff, man.
CBC confirming through sources that agents had been there since 10 a.m. Eastern time, targeting Trump's private residents in relation to multiple boxes he allegedly took with him while leaving the White House that contained possibly classified material meant for the National Archives.
Secret Service validated the warrant and got a heads up before the FBI arrived.
Trump's legal team has been cooperating with the archives to return some of those classified materials.
But this search, because we're seeing it, may suggest that some materials were not all returned.
Dr. Alex Del Carmen trains FBI agents.
He doesn't work directly for the Bureau, but told us that this search indicates that federal charges are being contemplated here against whom is not known.
And we're going to talk about it.
Yeah, we got the charges now.
So we're going to charge them for y'all.
And we're going to break it down.
You got a lawyer in the house.
We're going to break these things down for y'all because these are some fairly serious charges.
Very broad, but one of them is very serious.
FBI wouldn't ask a federal judge to sign off on a warrant just for political attention.
You know, FBI agents raiding the home of a former president is simply something that you watch in movies, but not in real life.
When an investigation gets to this level where the FBI agents have to then obtain a court warrant in order to be able to, or court approve the warrant, to be able to search somebody's home, it's typically because they have direct knowledge that they're looking for something specifically that may rise to the level of a crime.
And Mr. Trump was not there as it happened.
He was in New York.
The question now, will this have an angry tweet when it happened as well?
So any impact on his decision to run for president in 2024?
He was here in Dallas over the weekend, the keynote speaker of CPAC, and now under a lot of pressure following.
And yes, you cannot run for office if you are under indictment anywhere in the United States.
So see, but there's a, there's a potential, and that's that's something we'll get into when we get into the statute because there's a potential conflict there, right?
Yeah.
Because the Constitution, right, if you look at the Constitution, the Constitution tells us the criteria for the presidency.
The Constitution does not list all of these other fucking statutes, all this other bullshit, right, that we have listed to any of the other statutes because there's many that say if you're convicted of this, you are no longer liable.
You can no longer run for public office.
Many criminal statutes say that, including one of the ones that Trump is charged with.
But the question is, the Constitution sets the requirements for president.
Can Congress pass a statute?
Because all laws are passed by Congress, right?
So can Congress pass a statute that changes the Constitution without passing it as a constitutional amendment?
I don't think they can.
That's where you have a conflict, and that would have to go to the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve.
I guarantee you that goes there like that to resolve because liberals, and especially the left who hates Trump, everybody who hates Trump is going to say this statute bars him from running.
Look what it says.
Anybody who knows the Constitution and knows constitutional law, which most people on the left don't know nowadays, in fact, they hate Constitution.
They hate constitutional law.
They would say, no, Congress cannot change the Constitution absent a constitutional amendment, which they will never get passed because they don't have that majority in both houses.
Yep.
Both houses and the president.
And these are the conversations that these people are, you know, a lot of the times don't want to have.
You know what I mean?
And that's a fantastic point you brought up.
So what I could do is I could pull up the statutes right.
Actually, I'll read some of these chats real quick.
Myron, I love the content on this channel.
Will you be doing anything on the number four?
My bad.
Let's see here.
And guys, from this point forward, I'm going to read 20 and up just so I make sure that we make sure that we get y'all the sauce that y'all need.
Billy Bob goes, Can you two please plan today that we will do this 9-11 breakdown?
You both give amazing detailed breakdowns.
You know what?
Andrew, you know what?
We'll do that offline.
We'll do 9-11.
Because we've actually talked about this.
Like Myron and I have talked about this, but that would be a long one because that's a lot.
There's a lot of stuff with that.
It'd probably be like, honestly, that's like a fucking mini series.
It is.
That might be a couple episodes because not only do we have to, because we're going to have to break down the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which I broke down, right?
We're going to have to summarize that because that was a large inspiration for why Osama bin Laden even attacked the World Trade Center in the beginning, guys.
Now we're going to have to talk about the USS Coal bombing.
We've got to talk about the bombing in Kenya.
All the attacks that led up to 9-11, it's a very complicated situation.
And then, obviously, the war in Iraq and then them going ahead and finding him eventually in 20 years.
And the Bin Laden family themselves and all their political connections and economic connections.
I mean, like, there's a lot involved in that.
People don't even know that Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.
It's amazing to me how people don't know.
Like, guys, Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian, very rich, engineer, educated, a lot of money.
That's why he was able to fund what he was doing.
He was a multimillionaire.
Like, he wasn't just some nigga running around in the caves like, oh, yeah, I hate America.
Durka Durka Muhammad Jihad.
No, he wasn't.
Like, he had a lot of money to do what he was doing, guys.
You know?
He wasn't Afghani.
He was Saudi.
So, yeah, that's a whole other thing.
But that's why, like, when we do the 9-11, we're going to have to break down so many different stereotypes for y'all.
Until the 1980s goes, Myron, what do you think about I am a real American?
Fight for the rights.
Every man, when it comes to crashing down, it hurts inside.
You got to take a stand.
It don't help to hide.
Hey, yeah, I am a real American, my friends.
I picked that song for a reason.
So, okay, so I'll go ahead.
Yo, you got a hundred right here on a topic that I can talk about real quick.
Just say knock it out.
Oh, yeah, sure.
Go ahead.
MMP, who says, can you fill Myron in on a future collab about Ezra Miller?
Because I know you've been following that, and it would benefit Myron's platform as well.
Props on the work and hope to see us in the future.
Good destiny on 9-11 too.
Hey, so Ezra Miller, if you haven't followed that, this is an insane case, Myron.
It's been in multiple, multiple jurisdictions.
It could be a federal case because he's literally going, you know, Ezra Miller, guy who plays the Flash, right?
He declares himself as transgender.
I would love to show you, I've played it on my channel, the video of him getting arrested.
And he tries to say, I'm transgender, non-binary, and therefore male cops can't touch me.
I need a female cop, like, or a non-binary cop to pat me down.
And trying to say he's allergic to handcuffs.
I mean, all sorts of stuff.
Clown world.
Clown world stuff.
And so he's using that as a shield, right?
You know, to protect him when he can.
But he's also grooming children.
And he's already got restraining orders in two different jurisdictions based on families of transgender children that he's slept in the same bed with.
He's kind of showed up at their house with guns and a flak vest and intimidated the parents.
And it's getting even more complicated because some of the kids who are trans who kind of, you know, rebelling against their parents, they're like, oh, no, it was okay what we did together.
So it's a really complicated one.
And now Sony is having to do this distancing with him, right?
Because now you have the Flash movie out there.
You've got Flash merch that they've already invested in.
And they're having to have him apologize.
He just issued an apology, kind of admitting that he did these things in a way.
So it's a very interesting case.
As the criminal stuff comes forward, I think we could definitely cover it on FEDA.
As the criminal stuff goes forward.
We definitely we definitely can.
And guys, a lot of you guys that like are like, oh, the 9-11 was inside job.
The reason why, you know, I'm all for the conspiracy theories, guys.
But the reason why I heavily doubt it is because all the conspiracy theories, all they do is they don't really challenge the facts.
All they do is say, well, what about this?
And what about it, etc.?
They don't really debunk the fact that like Osama was sitting there taking like, you know, taking credit for the 9-11 attacks and bombings of the USS Cole.
Like they had a deep hatred for the United States.
There were 19 guys that were caught, you know, that fraudulently procured visas to come into the United States.
So there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that these guys were behind the attack versus a lot of these conspiracy guys.
Right.
Are just talking about, oh, well, it was inside demolition and all this other stuff.
But they're not necessarily disproving that it was a terrorist attack either.
So, I mean, again, I'm all for conspiracy theories.
I will go ahead and watch this Pearl Harbor thing because a bunch of people have been telling me to watch this documentary, the new Pearl Harbor.
So I remember watching Loose Change back in the day.
I remember that shit.
Oh, that was a good one.
I mean, that was like well put together, you know.
Yeah, it was well put together.
Good arguments in there.
But it still didn't dispute the fact that like, yo, these dudes wanted to kill us.
Right.
And they brought it up.
Right.
All right.
Yeah, you've got to, if you, if you're going to do it, if you're going to like, it's like, okay, I'm all about like listening to an argument, right?
Because I'll entertain an argument and like, let's raise doubt, right?
Here's reasonable doubt, right?
That's like building a case, right?
Is there, is there another theory?
But now you've got to, if you've got another theory, you've got to put it all together.
You've got to, now you've got to explain all of it, right?
Not just putting a whole, right?
Not just saying, what about one thing, right?
Okay, one thing, even if it is inconsistent, doesn't paint an alternative, comprehensive picture, right?
And everything's got to make sense there.
So, but it's good.
But I mean, I'm willing to listen to it because guess what?
I mean, the media is lying to us about something.
So yeah, we do need to keep an open mind.
I absolutely agree about that.
And then X goes, the US funded Osama in the beginning.
Yes, that is true, but that is because the United States hated Russia and Russia was invading Afghanistan and they were going to go ahead and fund them so that they could fight Russia.
So you know what I mean?
Like everything has context, guys.
Like I said, I'm down to look at that documentary, whatever.
But what I'm saying is that I haven't seen these conspiracy theories don't necessarily disprove the facts that we know as far as this being a terrorist attack.
That's all I'm saying.
All right, cool.
So back to Trump.
So which statute do you want to hit first, Andrew here?
Because these are statutes, by the way, guys, that they're using on Trump.
Let's start with 793.
So this is the one that when people are going through, and we'll get into the language here, but this is a new codes, right?
This is the one, the meme that was out there.
Like, you know, and there was the so that people know that we're not capping.
This is the search warrant application.
This is how we know, guys, that these are the charges that they're looking at.
Here we go.
18 USC 793, 18 USC 2071, and then 18 USC 1519.
This is the search warrant application, which we'll break this down in more detail for y'all.
I'm just showing you guys this so you know this is the actual search warrant, federal search warrant application.
These are the charges.
So we'll get into breaking it down.
Sorry, Andrew, which one do you want to do first, bro?
So yeah, let's start 793.
I'm trying to see which part we should read because I don't think he's charged with all of us.
I just want to get to the meat here.
Yeah, this one's very broad.
I'm familiar with the statute.
This is the SBO statute.
Yeah, if you wanted to speak about it a little bit more broadly, yeah.
Sure, I definitely can.
Long story short, guys, this is, and I know this because this is what they charge Robert Hanson with.
If you guys aren't forget, Robert Hanson, back in the early 2000s, he was arrested for espionage, selling secrets to the Russians.
He was giving a bunch of classified information.
So that falls into this area of law right here, which I think, honestly, this is what carries the most time for the charges that they're alleging against Trump, because this is basically like treason, guys.
And as you guys can see, it's extremely broad, right?
Just from the beginning, a few sentences here.
Not even sentences, it's a big ass run-on sentence.
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station,
the submarine base, fueling station, fort battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or single or signal station, building, office, research, laboratory, or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
Look at this.
Y'all see this?
Yeah.
And I think like, if this keeps going.
If you want to go down to like D and E, those are both the same.
The language is mostly the same.
But like, let's say, because, okay, whether D and E are based on whether or not he has lawful possession or not lawful possession, you could argue it was lawful because he was president.
This was stuff he had when he was president.
He had authority to have it then.
And if it's not top secret, then, and or whether if the clearance hasn't changed, right?
Or if it's been declassified, then he would still have permission.
So that would be lawful.
The next one is unlawful, right?
If he did not have lawful access to it.
But either way, they're worded the same.
And the point is, if you go towards if he transmits that, so if he, let's see, starting in the middle, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, causes to be communicated, delivers, transmitted, attempts to communicate, delivers, transmits, causes to be communicated, delivers, transmits to any person not entitled to receive it, right?
Or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to employment of the U.S., guilty, right?
So this is what they're going to try to get him on is that he either sent it to somebody who shouldn't have seen it or he just kept it and he wasn't entitled to keep it.
The argument is, is that the National Archives should have had it, right?
Simin shouldn't be something that he should have given back to the government.
Now, this is the issue is that, yes, maybe this is true.
This might be true.
It might be something that technically he should have.
But here's a spoiler alert.
And I've worked with governments, state governments, local governments, all sorts of governments.
Every government everywhere is in violation of this, of these types of statutes, of these records retention statutes.
They are so strict that I fucking guarantee you you printed out something at some point, took it home, and didn't turn it in.
Everybody is probably guilty of this, including, by the way, former presidents like President Bill Clinton, who famously, and I think we've got like an article up real quick.
He took audio tapes.
He took audio tapes.
So once again, are we going to charge everybody with this crime?
It's like perjury, right?
You don't charge everybody with perjury, even though you probably could.
Yep.
What's her name?
Amber Heard should be charged with perjury.
Everybody, everybody could be charged with perjury, but we don't do it.
You know why?
It starts when you do this shit.
It gets political.
And they've, like this, it's unprecedented because this is political.
This is inherently political.
And once, and by the way, once the liberals do it, once the left does it to the right, the right's going to do it to the left.
It doesn't stop, right?
Now that you've started this fucking crazy train of trying to go after former presidents, it doesn't stop.
Every president has done this.
Bill will do it.
Biden will do it, right?
When he's out of office after the next election, you know, it'll all come back, right?
It'll all come back full certainly.
Check this out, Andrew.
This is crazy right here.
So U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C., ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.
But Jackson's ruling, along with the Justice Department's arguments that precede it, made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago.
The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal versus official records is far-reaching and solely his as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from presidential records is made by the president during the president's term and in his sole discretion.
Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.
Since the president is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.
She added, and then here's a full ruling here, right?
The opinion.
And then right here, the judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure, and his only responsibility was to inform the archives as to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly seized after he leaves office.
The court concluded it was unreasonable to force NARA to go get the tapes.
Oh, shit.
See, and it's like, dude, where is the same energy for the Clintons?
You know, we could talk about Hillary all day.
This is Bill.
This is a former president.
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
So, I mean, once again, you know, he may be, this is the thing, you know, we have to admit, could he potentially be liable under this?
Yes, right?
It's potential, right?
But as Myron can tell you, and as anybody who's worked in the government knows, they write this shit very broadly so they can get people, right?
This is not written narrowly so they can't charge somebody.
This is written broadly so they can get people for taking documents.
And I think it's possible he could be charged with this because it's so fucking broad.
Should we be charging people with this?
No, absolutely not.
I don't think, especially former presidents, I think this is ridiculous.
Because mind you, by the way, this is important for everything we're going to talk about today.
While you're president, for everything you do, you have executive privilege, meaning it's something that you cannot be charged for a crime for because you are the president, unless you go through an impeachment process and all that good stuff, right?
That we all know about, you know, with blue with stains on the dress and all that good stuff.
But that's a constitutional process, right?
You cannot be charged with petty ass crimes like this because it's your job.
That's what you're supposed to be doing.
Like you are an officer of the United States.
This is ex post facto after the fact, trying to get him after he's left the office.
And it comes off.
The feeling of coming off is extraordinarily petty.
Yeah.
And here's a guy right here, Kevin Brock, former Assistant FBI Director for Intelligence, told Justin News the Bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the FBI manual for agents recommended.
Specificity is important in order to protect Fourth Amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed to find whatever they can.
He told Justin News.
Now, here's the thing.
I'm going to have to push back on him on this a little bit because I know this affidavit that the FBI probably filed, which, by the way, has not been shown, by the way, guys.
No one has an affidavit yet.
I know they crossed their T's and dotted their eyes.
However, what it comes down to is, does Trump have the ability to declassify the records, right?
Number one, and then make it personal, which would null and void all their efforts.
That's like what the linchpin is going to be here.
And then you got former presidents, right?
Right here.
On the classification issue, both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama signed executive orders, which remain in force to this day, declaring that presidents have sleeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures of all other, all other government officials do, which is true because when you deal with classified information as a regular government employee, and I can tell you guys this because I've dealt with classified information before, it's number one, it's a fucking pain in the ass.
It's not as sexy as people tell you guys.
You got to fucking store it a certain way.
It's got to be held.
You can only look at it in a skiff.
You can't have your phone in there.
It's a pain in the balls.
You can't use it in criminal cases.
It's not as sexy as they try to tell you guys on TV.
Okay.
That's number one.
And then number two, the president does not fall under regular government employee guidelines.
You know what I mean?
He just doesn't.
So, sorry, go ahead, Andrew.
Do you want to go back to the statutes?
No, I mean, we got that.
We got 793.
So we kind of got that one.
So we got to bounce.
I think we got to bounce over to the next one, which is 2071.
This one we can actually read because it's short.
It's only two paragraphs.
And I think this is the one that all the talking heads you watch, whatever fucking channel, whether it's CNN or Fox or anyone, right?
They're going to be talking about this one.
This is the one that's been chewed up.
You're going to hear about it all over the place.
ATN USC 2071, concealment, removal, mutilation.
Not talking about people.
We're talking about documents.
Yeah.
So you guys see here, the A portion of it is extremely broad.
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so with intent to do so takes and carries away any record preceding map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States or in any public office or with any judicial or public officer of the United States shall be fined under this title or in prison not more than three years or both.
And then, and then it goes into the B portion, which I think they're going after him for they didn't even cite the, because here's the application right here, guys, right?
Hold on, I think they just cited it.
It doesn't specify, bro.
Look at this, actually.
It didn't specify?
It didn't specify.
That's lazy as fuck.
See, that's lazy.
That's lazy as fuck.
That is lazy.
This is actually bad.
This is actually bad.
They should have specified the subsection they're charging you under.
Oh, man.
Like this, like, like, you know, you're going to go to a president.
This is just laziness here.
They're writing both.
I don't know what the AUSA was doing there.
They probably did that just so they wouldn't know exactly which one.
But the B version is whoever having the custody of any record, such record preceding map book, document, paper, or other thing willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both and shall and here's the big one.
Pay attention, guys.
Yeah, you know what?
Let me let me highlight that because that's the most important thing.
This is it.
And shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States right there.
That's why they hit him with this statue.
As used in the subsection, the term office does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the armed force of the United States.
That's not what they're talking about.
What they're talking about, what they want this to mean is that he can't run for president again.
And that's the bit, that's what they really want right now, right?
But when you look at the Constitution, and I got the Constitution pulled up, Article 3, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, here's what it says: no person except a natural born citizen or citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of president.
Neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the United States.
So it says you got to be a resident for 14 years, citizen, and you've got to be 35 years old.
So does this statute conflict with that?
Yeah, it does because it adds an extra requirement.
It says, okay, you can't be guilty of X, Y, crime.
So this is why the left would say it disqualifies him from running.
The right's going to say no, right?
And MAGA is going to say no, right?
This would go to the Supreme Court.
My read is current Supreme Court, they would not allow this, right?
Now, if Biden packs the court and he puts six new liberal justices on, then yeah, sure, they may say it bans him from running, right?
But right now, in the way the court is right now, they would not allow this shit to run.
Well, here's the other thing.
Check this out, Andrew.
I just read the second portion here, and I just got like a little eureka moment here.
It goes, as used in the subsection, the term office does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the armed forces of the United States.
Trump's lawyers might be able to argue.
He's commander in chief of the military.
That's a big brain move.
I like that.
They can literally, his legal team can argue.
He is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
He is the chief officer.
So what are y'all talking about?
Again, this is, and this is the search warrant application, guys.
Me and Andrew are not sitting here capping y'all.
Like, look, it's 18 USC 2071, and they did not put the actual statute, whether it's A or B. I'm going to assume that they wanted it to go under B, but they're not going to, you know, they're going to try to get what they can get, right?
Exactly.
They're going to put the entire statue hoping that one of the two falls.
But this is probably why they wanted to hit him with this statue so bad.
Because I'll be honest with you guys right now.
In my seven years as a federal agent, I've seen a bunch of charges that people throw at people to try to get them on anything.
I have never, ever seen this charge used on someone ever.
And this is generally.
Never.
Forget about this charge.
No charge has been product against a former president ever, ever, ever.
This is completely unprecedented in all time.
So you're telling me that none of the other presidents have concealed documents?
Get the fuck out of here.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
You're saying this is the worst crime ever committed by any president.
Have you met half of the former presidents?
They were dirty as shit.
I mean, look at Nixon, right?
Nothing happened to that guy.
Yeah, Watergate.
Nothing happened to Nixon, right?
And so, I mean, once again, why is Trump so bad?
You know why he's so bad?
Because the media hates him and because there's a lot of people that do not want to see him run.
And for all the people out there, I saw someone go, oh, you guys are Trump bootlickers, whatever.
Here's my thing.
If you're going to come at Trump, you need to go at all the other presidents.
You need to go after all the other public officials the same way.
I'm a proponent of, if you're going to go after one person aggressively, you got to go after everybody.
That means you got to go after Hillary for having classified documents on her personal computer.
You got to go after Hunter Biden for the bullshit that he's doing.
He's out here doing crack with hookers.
No one says shit about that.
And it's been verified on his laptop.
My thing is justice, okay?
The lady justice, if you guys look at the FBI badge, it's the lady holding the scales.
Okay.
Right.
Right, right.
That blindfold, right?
And that's the legacy FBI badge.
Okay.
That badge, right?
That woman with the blindfold is supposed to signify justice is blind and equal.
Right.
So my thing is, y'all got to go after everybody.
You cannot go after just Trump.
Okay.
I'm putting my feelings aside on how I feel about Trump.
Yes, I'm not going to lie to you guys.
I'm going to be full disclosure.
I am a Trump supporter.
However, my thing is if you're going to go after him, you have to go after everybody else that does some bullshit.
And we know Hillary, Bill Clinton did the same fuck shit.
We know Barack Obama has a bunch of documents that he also had when he left office.
No one came after them.
Yeah.
And the thing is, is that what Myron's getting at, all that goes to due process, which is our constitution, right?
And without that, without due process under the law, without equality under law, where everybody is equal under the law, our whole system breaks down.
Then it's, then it's corrupt.
Then we're no better than Venezuela.
Then we're no better than the CCP.
Then we're no better than any other country with a sham legal system, a sham justice system.
If we're going to, if we're going to live in that world, that is a whole different world, right?
Then we're going down.
That's the end of America as a just society, period.
My thing is, justice has got to be equally distributed amongst all people that might be involved in some type of public corruption or whatever.
And that's what the FBI does.
The FBI is a lead agency of public corruption.
And I know this from working with the FBI closely for many years.
Number one, counterterrorism.
Number two, public corruption, baby.
Those are the two main missions.
Okay.
Bank robbery, violent crime, all the other stuff.
That comes down the road.
But their two main missions, counterterrorism, national security, public corruption.
Bam.
So anyway, going back to what I was saying.
So, okay, you want to hit the next statue, 159.
Listen to the next one.
The last one is 1519.
This is pretty much obstruction.
They call it obstruction.
But I mean, have you ever seen this one used before, Myron, 1519, just in general?
No, man.
No.
So normally I'll tell you guys what the feds will normally charge you with when it comes to like, you know, falsification of records or any of the other stuff.
Typically is going to be 1,001, you know, false statements.
That's the simplest charge.
That's what they always get people on.
When they don't got you on anything, they're going to hit you with 1,001, which is false statements, which is a very broad way to get someone.
Like if you guys look anytime you do assign federal documents, they tell you under penalty of perjury law, 18 USC 1001, you know, is everything true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Bam, you certify it, bam.
That's how they get you, right?
So this is a very unique charge.
Yeah, we'll read this one, but I think the reason why they're going on this versus 1001 is because this relates to documents 1001.
I mean, I don't know if they actually have a statement where he lied.
That's the thing.
I don't think they've got Trump on any of his statements.
I think the only thing they've got is the documents in this potential possession of the documents, which if you want to read through this, Myronius, I can read it real quick.
But no, I've never, but yeah, I've never seen this.
1001 is typically like they, this is what they got Martha Stewart on because it doesn't even have to be like me.
All right, P. Martha, baby.
All right, P. Martha.
She's a convicted felon and Snoop Dogg isn't.
But you know, what was I going to say?
But even if you sign it, right?
Like, let's say he like, you know, stupidly signed something without reading it and it wasn't true.
They can get him on 1001 for that as well.
Okay.
So whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record document or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or improper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under the Title 11 or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case shall be fined under this title and prison not more than 20 years or both.
So this one's also an extremely broad statute as well.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And once again, they write them intentionally abroad so they can charge him.
So looking at all three charges, is there potential for Trump to be found liable on him?
I would say, and guys, once again, this is not pro-Trump here.
It's saying that actually, yeah, it's potential, right?
I think they had a way to prove this.
Should they be bringing it?
No.
Is it bullshit?
Yes.
Right.
Is every president probably guilty of this?
Yes.
Many politicians guilty of this?
Yes.
But are these broad ass statutes?
Absolutely.
And they're written that way intentionally to get here, to get to be able to investigate, to be able to get the subpoena.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
And do you want to break down the search warrant application?
Because that gives a little bit of search as well.
Sure, we can break down that search warrant recently.
I could pull it up right now.
So this was actually recently released, guys.
This search warrant application.
So let me pull this up for y'all.
So just to break this down for you guys now, and we could go from the beginning here.
So do you guys, you want to give them a quick little background on what a search warrant is?
And then I can.
Yeah.
So a search warrant is essentially you have you have a right, right?
All citizens, right?
And remember, Trump is now not president, right?
So he has no magical powers anymore.
His magical executive powers went away as soon as he stepped out of office.
As soon as he handed that baton over to Joe Biden, not literally, because Joe would probably trip trying to catch it.
But, you know, as soon as that was passed over, as soon as he was sworn in, his magical executive powers go away.
He is just a regular citizen that is protected by the Secret Service because he's the former president.
But in terms of legal rights, he's no better than you or me, but he still has a right against search and seizure.
And they have to go get a search warrant to go and violate that right because they're going to go in his home.
They're going to tear through it.
They're going to be in Melania's panty drawer, which, by the way, they actually did that.
They went through her like lingerie, you know, cracking open his safe, going through everything.
Yep.
Plenty of documents there.
And they did not, and they did not turn off those cameras.
Trump's people were smart because they didn't turn off all the cameras.
So they had some of their security cameras rolling throughout the process.
But they needed to apply for a search warrant to go do this.
So this is the filing to apply for that search warrant.
So, okay.
So, and this is obviously, guys, second notice of filing of redacted documents.
So, what happened is, just so you guys know, and I can show you guys this real quick so you guys know what's kind of going on with this case.
Here's the PACER caseload on this thing.
As you guys can see, ridiculous for a search warrant to have this many entries, right?
This is the actual case number for the search warrant, right?
And again, I showed you guys before how to find cases on PACER.
Here's a case number, right?
This is the month, right?
And then the fiscal year.
And then MJ means magistrate judge.
And then this is the actual case number, right?
So you come down here and you look at all these interveners right here.
Cable News Network, NBC Universal, McClatchy Company, LLC, EW Scripts, Palm Beach.
Everybody wants a piece of this.
Look at this, guys.
I've never in my life seen this many interested parties on a case.
It's ridiculous, right?
Excuse me, for a search warrant, for a search warrant alone.
So you come in here, look at all these docket entries of people trying to get this thing unsealed, unredacted, trying to look at it, et cetera.
Ridiculous.
Okay.
And we got, I pulled out some of the most important documents here for y'all.
So you guys don't have to.
And yo, like the fucking video number one.
And then number two, go ahead and subscribe to Legal Mindset.
I don't even care if you subscribe to my channel.
Subscribe to Legal Mindset.
Andrew's a good friend of mine.
He's a lawyer.
He knows what the hell he's talking about.
And having a conversation with him always makes the show way better.
So here's the actual application, guys, right?
Right.
So let's talk about one thing real quick, Barbara.
So on the top of it, on the top, it says sealed search warrant.
We got to talk about sealed versus unsealed, right?
Oh, yeah, go ahead.
Sealed means that it is a lot of the details, the actual meat, right, is left under the protection of the court.
It is not public.
To start out with, we got to be very fucking clear here.
It is a presumption, right?
There's a presumption that all documents are accessible to the public.
That's sort of part of our First Amendment rights, you know, is to have access to this.
It's sort of like a freedom of the press.
You know, it's transparency.
We should have access to court documents.
Court documents should be viewable for all.
There have to be very specific reasons to seal a document away from the public's eyes.
There has to be very specific reasons.
And even then, it's usually not sealed forever.
It might be sealed before they go and do the search because they don't want, let's say, somebody to destroy evidence, right?
But afterwards, it will be unsealed because that risk, whatever that risk was, has now gone away because you've gone and done the search.
So there's no reason to hide that, right?
Now, Myron, how many in your days of being a federal agent, how many things have you seen sealed?
How many sealed cases have you seen?
So I'll be honest with you.
I've written hundreds of search warrants.
As soon as you execute it, that bitch gets unsealed.
It's actually, you need to be able to justify and rationalize, you know, to a significant degree to keep the entire search warrant sealed, especially the affidavit.
The fact that the FBI has been able to push this back to this to this amount of time, Department of Justice tells me, which is more telling to me that they have an informant in this situation.
I mean, I called it from the beginning that the fact that they were able to get a search warrant in the first place for his home tells me that they had an informant because to so there's different thresholds when you do search warrants, right?
There's like, let's say you're going to search someone's phone, right?
Well, let's go at the lowest level.
Let's say you're trying to come into the United States.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy because of customs law.
They can search you at the border.
No warrant, right?
Then now, let's say your phone, right?
They have some, you know, probable cause that say you're involved in criminal activity.
Let's say they think that you have child pornography on your phone.
They're able to write a search warrant, go through your phone, get that information, right?
So your phone.
Then your computer.
Then the highest level of it, guys, is your home.
So your home is pretty much at the top of the search warrant pinnacle.
And you need quite a bit of probable cost to search someone's home.
And nine times out of 10, if you get a search warrant to search someone's home, whether it's a dope trap house or it's someone's house where you think documents are going to be there, you think that criminal activity is going on at that house, you have an informant in there to give you real-time information that the fruits of the crime are going to be located on that premises.
And that nine out of 10 times is accomplished through an informant that was there recently.
The reason why the FBI is fighting tooth and nail to not put out this affidavit or to redact the fuck out of it, which we're going to talk about that here in a second, is because more than likely they have an informant that is close to Trump that was able to give detailed information as to where the documents were.
The FBI went ahead and took a bunch of documents and also searched areas and took things that common knowledge would not allow you to, they would have known that had they not had some kind of someone in the inside to tell them.
So them disclosing the affidavit would give up the source, which is why they're fighting tooth and nail to not disclose it.
However, and we'll get to that at that point, they've already lost that battle to an extent.
And we'll get to that.
Yes, yes.
So, okay, so I'm very familiar with this.
Every search one that comes through in the Southern District of Florida, guys, and I know this because I've written a bunch of them here in Florida too, baby, and Miami, especially.
This is where the U.S. Attorney's Office is 99 Northeast 40th Street, down the street from where I live right now.
Right, right.
I've been to this AUSA's office a million times.
So ain't nobody else on YouTube going to be able to break this down.
So like the goddamn video.
They use this criminal cover sheet, guys, on all their cases, whether it's a criminal complaint, search warrant, et cetera, any type of matter.
They use a criminal complaint cover sheet.
Also, I want to bring to your guys' attention, they have the AUSA blacked out, okay?
And their telephone and their email.
This is for obvious reasons.
They probably don't want the AUSA to get harassed.
Juan Antonio is the United States attorney, guys, which means he's the chief law enforcement official in the Southern District of Florida, a presidentially appointed position, I may add.
Okay.
So you come down here, and this is the actual application.
Now, this is very telling as well.
So let's break this bad boy down from line to line.
So you got the, and this is what a federal search warrant, guys, looks like.
It's the same no matter where you go.
The only thing that will change is whatever district it's in.
So let's say it's in New York City.
It's going to be Southern District of New York or Eastern District of New York, et cetera, right?
And then they're going to go in the matter of the search of, and then this is what you're going to search.
So if it's a cell phone, you put a cell phone, iPhone 4, IEI number, blah, blah, blah.
You specify exactly what you're going to search, right?
And then here's a case number, right?
And then application for a search warrant by telephone or other reliable electronic means.
Okay.
So that means that the agent, this tells me right here, Keith, the agent, the affian on this thing is not from South Florida.
More than likely, it was the agent out of the Washington, D.C. field office.
Okay.
I think they're the ones that have this investigation open, right?
And also, the other thing that kind of gives us away is if I look at the Trump search warrant, right?
Right here, this is the FBI receiver property.
You see the case ID right here, guys.
WF.
I'm almost certain this stands for Washington Field Office.
Okay.
And this is a receipt for property.
Anytime the Fed takes something from you, I said steal LOL.
Anytime they see something from you, guys, they're going to go ahead and give you a receipt for your property.
All right.
Whether they seize it from you at a search warrant or they seize it from you on your person, they're obligated to give you an inventory of whatever they take from you.
All right.
So that's what makes me say that this is more than likely the Washington field office.
Second, so it's looking at Southern District of Florida.
There is now concealed, see attachment B, which is going to be the premises that's going to be searched.
And then the basis for the search warrant under federal criminal procedure 41 is evidence of a crime, contraband, fruits of a crime, or other items illegally possessed.
And then, and then you would check this one here, property designated for use, intended use, or use in committing a crime.
That would be used for like a trap house or something like that, right?
And then these are the statutes that we gave you guys before: 793, willful retention of national defense information, concealment or removal of government records, 1519 obstruction of federal investigation.
And then, see, attach affidavit of FBI special agent.
Bam, name is redacted.
Blanked.
Yeah, yeah, blanked.
And then, and then you come in here, and then they're continued on the attached sheet, which is where the affidavit is going to be, which they don't have here.
I like this, Myron.
Have you seen below attested to the applicant in accordance with requirements of federal rules of criminal procedure 4.1 by phone WhatsApp?
Like, have you seen it?
Like, what's up with that?
Like, they're calling them on WhatsApp.
Like, yes, I'll tell you why they did that more than like because WhatsApp is encrypted.
And the other thing, too, is that it's actually so in 2020, the last warrant I did myself was actually in 2020 during the pandemic.
And I remember I called the judge on FaceTime and I got, I swore to the affidavit, whatever it may be, to get the arrest warrant for the guy.
And it was done and it said like via face, via FaceTime on the actual warranty.
So they have to put the medium into which you swear to the warrant.
And what basically you call in, you call judge.
Hey, Judge, how you doing?
Blah, blah, blah.
Okay, do you swear the facts are true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Raise your right hand.
Yes, bam.
They sign it.
They file it and they give it to you.
So in this case, that tells me that this agent, number one, wasn't a Southern District of Florida when this thing was signed.
And then number two, probably is an agent from out of this district, more than likely, probably out of the Washington field office from that case number that I saw.
And from me just knowing that it's probably the Washington field office that's running this investigation into Trump in the first place.
And then as you guys can see, it was signed to West Palm Beach, Florida.
Here's a judge, Bruce E. Reinhardt.
Okay.
She's a magistrate judge.
And just so you guys understand, a magistrate judge is not the same as a district judge.
A district judge is higher up.
A magistrate judge is who you go to to get an arrest warrant or a search warrant.
But then as soon as the case becomes criminal and it's indicted, it goes to a district judge from that point forward.
And then what else here?
And then here's the motion to seal.
This is what they filed, guys, with the actual search warrant and application.
So this was them sealing it, right?
Why they needed to seal it.
Highly sensitive document.
They're putting it in here, which is this is not common to see this, right?
And then let's see here.
And then here's a sealing order.
So they did the motion to seal.
They got it granted.
Here's a ceiling order.
Judge signed it.
Bam.
Everything got sealed.
The only thing that's missing now from this application, guys, is the actual affidavit, which I want to see.
Do you want to talk about that a little bit?
Well, the affidavit, the affidavit is part of what they're trying to unseal, right?
So the point is, is that they want to, at this point, we've got all these applications from all these news agencies.
By the way, it's left and right news agencies because guess who gets clicks?
Daddy Trump gets the clicks.
And whether you're on the left or on the right, whether you're Fox or CNN, all of them know that.
And all of them want that, especially, by the way, the CNNs, because their ratings suck unless they're going after Trump.
So they want those documents.
And like Myron said, they presumptively should be unsealed.
But the government tried to petition.
They put out a petition to keep the whole thing sealed.
They got blown out.
And we'll talk about that right now.
I think we've got some other documents to show that.
But they got blown out and they got said, no, you cannot keep the entire thing sealed.
But what we will let you do is we will let you redact.
If you have, like Myron said, if you have a CI, right?
Okay.
That would be something presumptively they could probably do some redaction to.
Now, there may be some back and forth as to how much.
Now, Trump's side, and as well as all the media organizations, they say no.
No, no, no.
Fuck that.
We need the whole thing.
Unseal the whole thing.
And in fact, justice would require, in fact, the First Amendment would require that we get the whole thing.
Presumptively, we would get the whole thing.
However, this is a special case.
And this is incredibly political.
This is incredibly huge.
And it's going to have an impact on what?
On the elections that are in a couple months.
Right now, we are going into this season.
If you think this is not related and the timing of this is totally coincidental, you're wrong.
You're absolutely 100% wrong.
And if they can turn the election into Trump is bad, every candidate that Trump has endorsed is bad.
Because by the way, if you look at the candidates that are winning, by the way, for example, Liz Cheney just lost to a Trump endorsed candidate.
So if they can turn Trump into cancer and everything he touches into cancer, that is great for the fall elections.
So this timing is definitely there, but the unsealing of it and the revealing of it would show that, hey, there is a CI, the FBI is doing this sort of thing.
And it looks like it's going to paint the picture that the FBI has it out for Trump right now.
And of course, has it out for Trump at the direction of who else?
Merrick Garland, who was appointed by Biden, right?
Yeah.
You want me to make a video?
Do you want me to show this document or do you want to show him because we could talk about his press release too if you want after?
Let me see.
Actually, no, you know what?
Let's talk about, let's show the video.
Let's show Merrick Garland because I think that'll help give some context to this.
Okay.
So give me one second, guys.
I'm going to go ahead and pull this bad boy up for y'all.
Just so you guys know, Merrick Garland, he was, remember, some people may have forgotten Merrick Garland was almost on the Supreme Court.
Obama said he was neutral.
Obama said he would be totally fair.
However, he's exposed himself as being wildly left.
I mean, he would be out there with the most left folks on the court right now.
So Merrick Garland, almost a Supreme Court justice.
Instead, now he's AG.
And now, mind you, under his reign, we've also gotten things such as prioritizing domestic terrorism, right?
The famous PTA parents are domestic terrorist thing.
That was going down under him.
I mean, that's that's real.
You're laughing, Myron.
But it's funny because that's where we're at.
Like that, that going to a PTA meeting and speaking up is now domestic terrorism.
It's really insane.
And just so the people understand like the gravity of his position, he is the attorney general, guys.
He is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States.
He is number one, number one over the director of the FBI, over the director of DHS, over all these guys, chief law enforcement officer in the United States.
So this is a very powerful man.
Okay.
Yeah.
Since I became Attorney General, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work.
Just now, the Justice Department has filed a motion in the and this was right after they did a search one, by the way, guys.
This was his press release right after the Southern District of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the FBI conducted earlier this week.
That search was of premises located in Florida belonging to the former president.
The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search.
The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right.
Copies on Twitter, he was like, these fucking guys are raiding my man.
God damn it.
What the hell?
Yeah, nothing.
And he's very, he's very careful to say as was his right, because if he insists, if he hinted that that was not, I mean, we're getting, we're getting into, we're getting into edging towards defamation here.
But that that statement is, that statement is indeed true.
He had the right to speak about it.
And they had the right to make a statement or not, right?
They're not required to make public statements.
Of course, now they have to because the fire is under their ass.
But of course, they're not going to make a statement while they're doing it.
Yes, absolutely.
And the other thing, too, guys, I want you to like the video.
We got 2,500 of you guys watching right now.
And I want you, and we only got 976 likes.
So I need you guys to like the video, subscribe to Feda 1811, and then also more importantly, subscribe to Legal Mindset because Andrew does this all day, every day.
So if you guys like these kinds of breakdowns, definitely check out Andrew on his other on his channel, Legal Mindset.
So I'll keep playing this thing.
Both the warrant and the FBI property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president's counsel who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause.
The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner.
The department filed which I showed you guys that property receipt earlier, which had the case number on it.
What he's talking about specifically, guys, is this thing right here, just so you guys kind of see it.
This is an FBI receipt for property, case number, bam, here's all the stuff that they took.
Just so you guys kind of get an idea of what he's talking about here.
Yeah.
The motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president's public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
Faithful adherence to the rule of law is the bedrock principle of the Justice Department and of our democracy.
Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly without fear or favor.
Hold on.
Evenly.
Yep.
There it is.
There it is.
Evenly, evenly would be going after both Clintons, right?
The Bushes, they probably got stuff.
Both Bushes probably have stuff.
Every president alive go into their sock drawers.
I guarantee you, they've got some memo, something.
Maybe they kept it sentimentally, but it probably would fall under one of those crimes.
If they went to one of those statutes and they went to all living presidents, they would probably all violate that.
Where's the justice?
Where's the application?
It's not there.
You're just going after Trump.
You're just single-handedly targeting Trump.
Same thing, by the way, with a lot of the hearings.
That's why the Bannon hearing was controversial because, yes, Bannon probably made some statements he shouldn't have made.
You know, there's issues there, but that's true of many people who've testified before Congress.
If you really want to go out, many people have done that.
Let's apply it equally.
I'm all for applying laws equally, but let's do it equally to both sides.
That's all.
Same thing with Amber Heard, by the way.
When we're talking about Amber Heard, it's the same application.
Men and women, let's apply the laws equally, right?
That's due process.
That is equal justice under the law.
Just a reminder for you guys.
So, you know, like, guys, look, this is the FBI's badge right here.
You can see Lady Justice here with the scales.
You got me on full screen, Myron.
Yeah.
Oh, my bad.
My bad, bro.
That's the importance of having someone helping you out here.
Guys, this FBI badge and what it typically looks like.
And the Lady Justice with the blindfold and the scales, right?
Even.
Okay.
That's what justice is supposed to be, guys.
Again, I don't have an issue with the Bureau going after Trump.
I have an issue with them only going after Trump.
That's the difference.
Y'all could go after Trump.
My thing is go after everybody equally.
Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.
All Americans are entitled to the even-handed application of the law, to due process of the law, of innocence.
Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye.
We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations.
Federal law.
AK, we got an informant.
Yep.
Long-standing department rules and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time.
There are, however, certain points I want you to know.
First, I personally approve the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.
Of course.
Second, there's no way that a search warrant of a former president's place is going to get approved without the AG seeing it.
No way.
Like, guys, this search warrant, I guarantee you, was probably seen by at least 20 different AUSAs at the highest level.
Okay.
Get approved.
I know for a fact when this affidavit comes out, it's going to be, it's going to be very, very thorough.
I mean, what's your thoughts on that, Andrew?
Yeah, I think when it comes out, when it finally comes out, when it, when we see the details of it, it's going to be multiple pages.
It's going to be dozens of pages, by the way.
I'm not multiple.
It's going to be dozens, right?
You're going to be talking about two digits.
Maybe shit.
This could be three page.
This could be three digits of pages.
I don't know.
I mean, it's so important.
And they're going to have to have so much backup to try to go into this.
So many attorneys, like I said, so many AUSAs have looked at this.
And if you know anything about attorneys, they can write a lot of bullshit.
So there are probably pages and pages and pages because think about the precedent.
This is going after a former precedent.
This is going to be something that's looked at, that's examined for decades.
They're going to pull this up in law schools after.
Yeah, I'm going to, I'm willing to wager that this affidavit is going to be somewhere between 20 to 100 pages.
Easy.
Somewhere in that range, easily.
Department does not take such a decision lightly.
Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.
Third, let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors.
I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.
The men and women.
We're not attacking their integrity.
My thing is you need to go after everybody with the same thing.
That's my issue with this.
I look at it like, listen, if you guys are going to go ahead and come after Trump and, you know, do this witch hunt that obviously we know that there's no Russian collusion.
They had investigated that for what, six, seven years.
You need to have that same intensity in investigating Hillary, Biden, the Biden situation with this accepting money from China, Ukraine situation, all that stuff.
That's my thing.
And what he establishes there is that, look, he's like, oh, we're professional.
But at the end of the day, he established he's the one who gave the order.
And he is a political entity.
He is a political appointee.
He is political.
So was this political?
Yes.
It inherently was political because a political person pulled the trigger.
If this had happened, by the way, under Trump, and this had been Trump going after Obama, I would have said the same thing.
It would be political, right?
So people say, oh, there's bias, whatever.
No, if Trump had done this to Obama, I would have said this is unprecedented.
I would have said the exact same shit that I'm saying right now.
Here's the spoiler alert.
He didn't do it to Obama.
He didn't do it to Bill Clinton.
He could have.
He had the same reason.
He didn't even do it to Hillary.
Exactly.
And she was not a former president.
He could have done it to her, but he didn't do it because I mean, you know, it looks very bad to go after a political opponent and using leveraging law enforcement to your advantage.
She had documents at one point.
She was secretary.
She was, she was a secretary, right?
She was an officer, right?
So I guarantee you, she had some documents from that.
You could have raided her house.
You could have found some documents she didn't turn over, but he did not do that.
Yep.
And also, let me make this very clear for y'all as well, because I know this from being a former investigator.
For you to do, if you're going to do an investigation on an elected public official, it's got to go up to the AG.
It's got to go.
So any of these investigations that involves political officials that were elected, it's going to go to the AG anyway.
So of course he saw this, guys.
You know, he's probably known about this for months.
They've been drafting this affidavit for months.
I promise you.
This affidavit, I'm willing to bet, is going to be somewhere between 20 to 100 pages, right?
And they've been drafting it for months.
And the reason why they're fighting so hard to keep this thing redacted is because it's probably going to have to outline the investigation from the fucking beginning, from 2016.
But the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants.
Every day, they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism, and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights.
They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves.
I am honored to work alongside them.
This is all I can say right now.
More.
I'll say this.
That's good that he's backing up his people, even though it's an unpopular thing to do.
Backing up his people, that's good.
I admire this.
As a leader, that's what you want.
So information will be made available in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time.
All right, cool.
So let's go ahead and I'll.
So what's your thoughts on that, Andrew?
I mean, yeah, I think, like you said, he made the statement he had to make, right?
He's the head of the FBI.
He's got to make the statement.
So at the end of the day, he had to pull up his pants and do it.
And he did it.
He did what he had to do.
He didn't say more or less than he had to do.
He didn't tip away anything.
He didn't give any details about the actual evidence they had, about the affidavit.
He gave nothing.
So the only thing, the only little bite you got there was, yeah, I looked at it.
Yeah, I touched it.
Okay.
So that means you're acknowledging this was a political thing.
This wasn't an administrative thing.
This wasn't something that you had no idea about.
This was something that you gave the go-ahead to proceed on this.
And obviously, he's known about it for months.
They've known about this for months.
This is something they've been working on probably the last, I would say, Myron.
I mean, for an investigation like this, six months to a year, right?
Would you say that's probably fair?
Absolutely, right?
I would be willing to bet that there's a case.
There's probably a case open, obviously, for the Russia, for the Russian interference.
And then there's probably another case open simply for this situation here.
And that's what you call walling off a case, right?
So if you can have like one, man, I'm about to really give you all some sauce right now.
Guys, I need you guys to make the video.
So normally when you have big complex investigations like this, right?
You typically have like an umbrella case.
And I don't know if the FBI organized it this way, but I would be willing to bet maybe they probably did it this way.
You have an umbrella case, right?
Which encompasses everything related to the person that's on the file title.
Then you have segmented investigations under the umbrella case that encompass that same individual.
So when it comes to prosecution and discovery purposes, you go ahead and just turn over that file that you're using to go ahead and prosecute that individual.
You don't necessarily have to disclose all the other information that that person is involved in.
So like, let's say I have a big drug conspiracy case, right, for example, and I'm looking at an entire organization, but I'm able to go ahead and open a separate case on one individual that got involved in one off, one, one like incident, right?
I'm able to go ahead and give that information for discovery purposes to prosecute that single individual.
However, I have an entire case, right, on the entire organization.
And I had already identified this guy and I know him, but I don't necessarily have to disclose.
all that other stuff until I take the entire investigation down.
Then when I take the entire investigation down, now everyone's going to have all the discovery.
But if I'm taking off one segment of person involved in this investigation, I'm able to use a certain case file.
So they probably have a case open simply on the documents in itself, this situation with Mar-a-Lago, right?
To wall off, you call it walling off your investigation from all the other stuff.
Right, right, right.
Like the video going to get that shit nowhere else.
God damn it.
Sorry, go ahead, Andrew.
You have something?
No, that makes sense from a law enforcement standpoint, also from a legal standpoint, because you're kind of isolating the documents.
So any sort of attempt to get access to those documents is going to be limited to that silo, right, that it's siloed under.
So if there's other stuff that's coming at Trump, that's separate, right?
Exactly.
Yeah.
And of course, a good attorney can obviously, you know, try to fight that, whatever it may be.
Right.
It really comes down to the case agent and the AUSA to strategize and do it the best way, cleanest way possible.
But that is one way to kind of, you call it walling off your investigation and having it where, okay, I'm going to give you the stuff privy to your client and this charge that we're particularly going after him on.
Here's that case file.
Bam.
So here's the, so you want to break this down for them as far as like you were mentioning this earlier with the order to unseal.
Right, right.
So this is actually the order to unseal.
So what the argument is is that, hey, listen, the First Amendment, you know, declares and makes required that we've got to unseal, but the presumptively unseal all documents, right?
So I believe this is the actual order from the judge, which says, hey, look, you know, hey, look, we've got to unseal this, right?
And they set a timeline of Thursday, noon, Thursday, August 25th.
So we can actually look forward to that timeline.
So that's the new news that we can look forward to that timeline, the 25th.
So three days from now, three days from now, we should get that proposed redactions, which means probably a couple of days after that, we're going to get the judges, you know, the judge's ruling, right?
So we may early next week, I would imagine, that's my guesstimate, we may get an actual unsealing of the affidavit with or without the rejections.
Of course, Trump side wants the whole thing, right?
And the news, by the way, wants the whole thing.
The news, once again, the lefty news and the righty news.
It doesn't matter if you're left, right, or pretend to be neutral.
Although I'd argue there's no such thing as fucking neutral news nowadays.
But, you know, I mean, Myron is probably the closest to it right now because he's telling you the facts from like a pure agent standpoint.
He's giving you both arguments.
I'm trying to give you both arguments here.
Probably the most neutral shit you're going to get ever.
And we're going to the original documents.
Here's the thing, guys.
Here's what you don't appreciate.
When you watch MSNBC, Fox, whatever else, they're not showing you any of the original documents.
They're giving you only their opinion.
So if you disagree with our interpretation, it's like, all right, but here's the original documents.
Look at them yourself.
You can find all of these documents.
These are all accessible documents.
You can pull up yourself.
And hopefully when we get this affidavit, even if it's redacted, we'll be able to go through it and check it.
And that'll be great to go through probably next week.
I have a prediction.
Yeah.
FBI is going to redact the hell out of it.
Of course.
But they have a very bad habit, dude, of number one.
I've had it before where I've given them information and then I'll ask them for that same information.
They'll be like, oh, it's classified.
But what the fuck?
We gave it to y'all.
What are you talking about?
They're not going to, but Myron, on this, they are not going to get away with redacting the whole thing.
They're not going to get away with doing what they do to you.
They're not going to get away with that.
This is a different scenario.
And certainly there's way more eyeballs on this.
If they try to pull that shit, it is not going to fly.
I just do not believe they're going to get something that's all black boxes.
You know, you've seen those documents that have all black boxes.
It's not going to happen.
This is what I think is genuinely going to happen.
They're going to redact the hell out of it.
The judge is going to say, fuck no.
Yes.
You guys need to go ahead and redact it less.
Yes.
I think that they're going to go back and forth on this redaction thing a little bit longer than we expect is what I think is going to happen because they're going to argue national security.
They're going to argue sources.
They're going to argue safety.
They're going to argue so many different things.
And they're going to continuously just like go back and forth and try to, they're going to start like, this is what I think they're going to do.
They're going to redact it almost the entire affidavit.
Judge is going to see it.
He's going like, no, fuck no.
You need to go back.
They're going to redact a little bit less.
Nope.
You need to keep going.
And I think what they're going to do is they're going to keep doing that until the judge finally says, you know what?
Fine, here we go.
But I genuinely think the AUSA and the Department of Justice is going to do their best to redact everything.
And it's going to be upon the judge to go back and forth and keep telling them to redact less and less and less.
Right, right.
Yeah, no, I agree.
It's going to be a back and forth.
And that could take an extra extra week or two.
But I think the ultimate result is we're going to get something that is redacted, but it's not going to be a sheet of black.
That's not going to fly here.
I think that's fair.
I think that's fair.
I think for us to get to that point, though, it's going to take longer than expected.
I think the Bureau and DOJ are going to do everything in their power to redact that entire document.
And the judge is going to have to keep telling.
Because as y'all can see, I showed you guys already.
The judge has been getting harassed by a million news outlets to unseal this thing.
You know, his clerk, whoever his clerk is, is probably pulling her fucking hair off because the judge don't do none of this.
Just so y'all know, judges don't do nothing.
You walk in their chambers, okay?
It's all nice.
It's big and huge and mahogany everywhere.
It's fucking, you know, dripped out.
And their clerk does everything, bro.
The judge don't do shit.
He does like two minutes of work.
You walk in there.
He has already read the affidavit because he's had it for like a day.
The AUSA sent it.
Okay.
Do you sort everything in the streets of the Great to your best knowledge?
Yes, Your Honor.
Cool.
All right, sign here.
Bam.
Sign.
Okay.
Give it to my clerk.
Done.
Clerk does all the work, bro.
They do all the motions, all the unsealing, all the sealing, all that shit, bro.
It's hilarious.
And remember with this, this is already an unprecedented case because they're searching a former president.
That's one level.
It's unprecedented.
They don't want to make it another unprecedented case by keeping it sealed because what did Myron say?
Almost every case is just boom, automatically unsealed.
So now we're going to create an unprecedented level of sealing.
I mean, this is, I mean, it would have to be like literally the new codes, which by the way was a meme.
That was a made-up thing.
If you saw that on Twitter or whatever, somebody edited a Trump fundraising email to be like, the new codes are 65, 42, 86, 59, like a fucking powerball.
Like he was sending those out by email.
That was ridiculous.
That was a meme.
That was made up, right?
Now, a lot of people believed it.
A lot of people, even including blue check marks, retweeted it, but that's bullshit.
That's not exactly what it was.
I don't think that's what we got here.
I really don't think that's what we got here.
And then also, do you want to do the Patrick Michael Byrne thing here?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I want to go through that.
So this is a statement that is given by somebody who was clearly in the Trump White House.
They were in the Oval Office at a time when Trump made an official appointment.
And it's a very long affidavit, but essentially he appointed, I believe, Sidney Powell as special counsel during the tenure in the White House as president.
And I believe he was given the legal opinion, which I believe is correct.
I haven't done the specific research on this one, but I believe it is correct.
You can issue a commission to somebody, a top-secret clearance, just verbally.
So he gave top-secret clearance.
He gave a commission to somebody verbally, right?
And so any documents that are between somebody, so now if this person is given clearance, any documents between them are now permissible, right?
There's no violation there.
That person's been given a clearance.
So that would eliminate some of the potential charges here in this filing if this person has a clearance and they were permitted to have those documents.
It is actually pretty funny.
Paragraph 12.
So basically, guys, to sum it up for y'all, because I read through this, they had a meeting on some national security stuff with the FBI and DHS.
And this guy, Michael, his name is Patrick Michael Barn.
And this is basically a sworn declaration from him, guys.
So this was taken under oath.
If he lied, he could be charged for $1,000 for this, okay?
Which is perjury.
And paragraph 12 here, guys, basically it's kind of funny.
So Pat, right?
Pat Siplone, who was, I think at the time, some high-ranking officer in the military.
Okay.
We're White House general counsel, Pat Siplone, attorney Patrick F. Phil, Phil Binn, and Attorney Eric Hirschman.
Okay.
So he was the White House general counsel.
So basically, Trump, President Trump stated to White House general counsel, Pat Saplon, you know what, Pat?
A few minutes ago, that Trump voice, right?
You know what?
Yeah, yeah.
A few minutes ago, you said that I can make it happen just by saying it.
Just make it by saying it.
Okay, I've decided.
Now I'm saying it.
Sidney Powell is hereby appointed as White House special counsel.
Bam, and you gave, and he basically appointed her, right?
So he got rid of Pat.
I guess he pissed him off.
Yeah.
And this guy witnessed this.
All right.
And the president can do this, guys.
The president is the most powerful person, a man in the world.
No, no, no, no.
So he didn't get rid of Pat.
So Pat's general counsel, he put him as special counsel.
That's actually different.
So general counsel is like your overall head, right?
Special counsel is like you have a siloed issue, right?
So like, this is your issue.
And this was related to, I'm going to, I'm going to be very careful on how to say this because I don't want to get the channel you did.
Fraud involving something that happens every two to four years in the United States, right?
So to investigate that form of fraud that may have been that may have been tampered with, or in this case, they think they had proof of that.
So they said, okay, because of that, I'm naming you special counsel for that type of fraud, for this issue, right?
And gave him her, sorry, Sydney is a woman, right?
December 18th, I witnessed President Donald J. Trump verbally appoint attorney Sidney Powell to the position of White House special counsel.
And guys, this is crazy to me, by the way, that we're literally like reading actual White House conversation that is this would be considered like a white, a white hat classified, by the way, just so y'all know.
But now it's public.
It's coming out here.
Crazy.
Yep.
And then gave her the position.
And then right here, right, the says that I witnessed Michael Flynn, who is the 24th U.S. National Security Advisor, advised the president.
He could verbally grant on the spot any security clearance level.
That's actually kind of crazy, by the way.
But remember, this originated, I believe, under Obama and Bush.
Yes.
So this is not a Trump level thing.
Trump didn't invent that.
That's something that happened even in the past.
So he verbally granted top secret clearance to Sidney Powell on the spot.
Yep.
Which is, which is crazy.
But remember, those charges, remember, going back to the charges we just read, those charges related to transmitting documents to people who do not have an appropriate clearance level.
So at this point, based on that law, based on that precedent, which is this one right here, the 793, right?
Right.
They would have now Sidney Powell, if she sent any information that's top secret, that's totally okay because Sidney Powell now has top level security clearance.
Bam.
So that argument that they didn't have that, you're transmitting documents, people didn't have that, that's gone out the window.
And if that's the case, if the case is, if the FBI's case is that Sidney Powell received top secret documents, that's their argument here.
I don't think that's going to be a real great one based on this.
I think that he's going to have a potential defense to this based on what they're submitting here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And this is just probably one of what one of one of several witnesses that are going to come forward and go ahead and say, hey, I witnessed this, blah, blah, blah.
Trump giving people this authority, whatever it may be verbally.
And that's the thing, man.
Guys, the president has a lot of power, man.
Like the president has a lot, a lot of power.
I don't think people understand.
We can debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, right?
But for what, whether you, despite your feelings about that, because you can feel like that's bad or good, but we have given the president an insane amount of power.
I mean, personally, personally, I think it's way too much.
I think it needs to be scaled back.
But like taking my feelings aside, right?
Fuck my own feelings about it.
This is where we're at with the president's power.
So we just got to acknowledge that and say this is where we're at based on granting that power to grant this clearance by just saying, poof, you've got a clearance.
And not only that, real talk.
Like for all you guys out there that are like, oh, y'all are biased or whatever.
Who else is reading the documents with you guys and explaining line by line what the fuck shit means?
I've looked at a couple of people that have broken this stuff down.
I obviously none of them pull up PACER documents.
None of them.
Okay.
Some of them don't even know what the, how to even find the search warrant on PACER in the first place.
You got a former Fed, you got an attorney breaking this down for y'all.
And, you know, hell, I didn't even know about the special counsel thing.
So thank you for that, Andrew.
I was incorrect about that.
But that's the importance of having people that know what the fuck they're talking about.
You got a guy that wrote the search warrants and you got a guy that knows what search warrants are, works in the legal system.
A lot of these commentators don't even have a quarter of the experience.
And we're breaking it down for y'all.
So you guys could say it's biased or whatever.
My thing is this.
I don't have issue with them going after Trump.
I don't have an issue with them going after anyone.
My thing is the badge, right, of the FBI shows a woman wearing a blindfold and scales being even.
You need to have that same type of investigative feracity with everyone else.
That's my argument.
It's very obvious that they've been going after Trump for several years.
Okay.
And at this point, you can make the argument that has been like, they've just been picking on him because with the Russian probe even, with the interference, seven years unfounded.
They've been trying real hard.
And you know that as soon as Biden got in office, he's like, let's cook this up, right?
Like, you know, this has been going on.
Let's, let's, let's, let's go after him, right?
And to be fair, to be fair, to be fair, I mean, probably Trump did a similar thing to Hillary, right?
Probably.
But, you know, that's neither here nor there.
Trump's out of office right now.
But the point of the matter is, is that if there's a swing back, imagine if Trump gets re-elected, right?
So imagine that.
Imagine what's going to go on with Biden now.
Yeah, is it fair for this same shit to go on with Biden?
How are all the Biden stands out there?
People who love Biden, how are they going to feel about that?
Although I feel like nobody loves Biden nowadays, like left or right.
I think Biden is not getting any points from anyone.
Yeah, no one, even the crazy libs don't like Biden, dude.
So that's how you know.
Right.
But when this exact same shit happens to Biden, we're just going down a toxic spiral, right?
This is not, this is not somewhere we should be going.
It's the same thing with impeachment.
When you're impeaching every single president, that's not a spiral you want to go down on.
Yeah.
So, I mean, yeah, guys, I mean, like the goddamn video, man.
Subscribe to Legal Mindset.
Subscribe to Feda 1811.
You guys are not going to get this type of information where we actually are showing you guys the court documents and breaking it down for me for you guys.
A lot of these commentators that I've seen that are talking about this case don't show you guys the documents.
And worse yet, don't even know what the fuck they're talking about a lot of the times.
So like the video, share it with a friend.
Andrew, anything else, man?
That's it.
I mean, we got a week going to wait.
I mean, I'm happy to come back on and talk.
Once we get this unsealed, we got to go back and do that.
So I'm happy to come back on when we get this document, the finally the redacted version.
Like that's going to be really good to go through.
So I'm happy to come back on and talk about that.
Yeah, no, we definitely do because the whole other thing as well is that, what was I going to say?
The affidavit is going to have so much more stuff, dude.
Like, I'm actually very excited to see that.
We might have to do an episode like whenever they drop it.
Yeah, like live, like go live like that and get it, you know?
Yeah, because I mean, me and you have read affidavits before.
I mean, between me and you, we're going to be able to get break.
We'll be if we get it, here's the thing that you're able to do because we've done this together, Myron, before.
You're able to tell us what's probably redacted.
That's the thing.
Because you know what they're redacting.
You know exactly what they're redacting.
They're 100% going to redact.
I already know because they probably have an informant in this situation.
And when they have an informant, they're going to refer to them as confidential human source dash number, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They're going to 100% redact that.
And they're probably going to redact where they met, times they met, all that other stuff to try to like, you know, alleviate the source getting burned.
But just off the information that the source provides is they're going to Trump and his team.
I want to, you know what?
Do you think Trump has a copy of the affidavit in your opinion?
What do you think?
His legal team may.
I mean, but yeah, I mean, his legal team may, but that wouldn't matter.
I mean, I guess that then, yeah, Trump would have it, right?
So I guess he could have a copy of it.
But once again, he can't release it, even if he does.
Yeah, yeah, that would be a problem if he released it on his own.
That'd be contempt of court.
That's a contempt of court that way, right?
Um, I'll read the chats real quick.
Uh, Harry Zicos goes, salute, gentlemen.
Thank you so much.
Split the wig goes, his attorney signed a statement saying they gave all classified documents.
Uh, then they came back and found more.
They lied, hence, obstruction charge.
Um, okay, all right.
I mean, again, like I said before, from what I understand, they were working with them to give those documents back.
There was a subpoena issue.
The FBI had come there before.
Hey, we need you to lock it up a certain way.
So that's really what it comes down to, man.
But like I said before, Trump can articulate: hey, this stuff is declassified.
So that's going to be the, I think that's going to be kind of the linchpin here.
Any chance of Fed or FNF being on truth or true social or rumble?
Hopefully not.
If 45 is charged, they set a precedent for all.
Okay.
Yeah, that's true.
If they charge the president, that's going to be crazy.
My dad was in Military Justice Intelligence.
He said the document charge on Trump was akin to a cop charging another cop with speeding.
Everyone does it.
Clown World Charge.
Yeah, exactly.
That's what it is.
It's just like one charging another, right?
Because they're all doing it, right?
They're all fucking doing it, right?
No, you're right.
You're right.
And that's true.
That's a good point.
I mean, people, people move around documents all the time.
And for them to go after the president of the United States for it when other presidents have done this shit too and has been proven is wild.
Beast with Red Pill goes, Andrew, great breakdown so far.
I love your content.
If you need help with your channel, I would love to give you value any way I can.
I'll also assist FNF, MLD, RP Thor, Justin Waller.
I'm also doing stamps for this show right now.
Okay.
Andrew Grape, and that was from before.
Yeah, I could put you in touch with Andrew Beast with the RP.
He helps me with timestamps.
And I think we're good, man.
You know, like I said, guys, this channel was not about me.
Sorry, this video was not about making money.
It's about giving y'all the sauce, giving you guys the information.
And Andrew, where can people find you, bro?
Find me at LegalMindset on YouTube, The Legal Mindset on Twitter, legalmindset.locals.com for my private community where I talk unscripted.
Also, get access to my Discord there.
Also, my second channel, Illegal Mindset, which I just started to talk about, non-legal stuff like dating, like other stuff like that.
I had a good video on dating in Korea and what you got to know, the red pills about Korea, stuff that is more familiar to the Fresh and Fit audience.
So I'm going to put that on that channel, separate it out for the algorithm because I keep the law stuff on legal mindset.
But yeah, great stuff.
And look forward to covering this, covering this topic and more topics this week.
There's been some great stuff coming out and there's always new stuff in the legal world.
But I'm glad when it's a federal topic, when it's a criminal topic to come here and talk about it with Myron, absolutely.
DJ B. Fit goes, oof, do you got anything on the Pfizer result, Doc?
I don't have anything on that.
I'm starting to see some stuff.
So I'm actually getting some documents, but I may have to cover that once again on a separate platform because when I really go into those documents, I can't say the truth on YouTube because you say certain things, even if you give a caveat or whatever, this is not medical advice.
They don't like you talking about it.
And real quick, you know what?
Let's get a quick prediction here before we end the show, just to give the people the final sauce here.
And I need you guys to like the goddamn video before we get into this conversation.
Yep.
In your opinion, Andrew, do you think that they're going to indict Donald Trump?
I think this is tough, right?
Yeah, I think, I think, I don't think so.
I don't think they got it.
I don't think they got it.
They got him in New York.
They're trying to go after him in New York for tax for real estate fraud and shit.
Okay.
They've been convening a grand jury up there.
You know, he's been up there.
He's testified a bunch of times, taking a fifth, right?
Intelligently so, which the fifth of the amendment, guys, if you guys are wondering, like talking about this specifically, not anything, anything at all.
I'm talking about this, because like right now, I'm just talking about all the cases they have open against him.
They have total, total something.
In the state of New York, they're going after him for like real estate fraud, right?
And then I know in Georgia, they're going after him for like, um, for so the New York one I've looked at, the New York one, I think it does not have wings, but Georgia, I haven't looked at.
So I'm, I'm a little bit, I'm, I'm reticent to comment on Georgia because I haven't read it, right?
Like I said, I'm, I'm pretty unbiased.
If I read something, I think it's got teeth.
I'll, I'll, I would, yeah, I didn't read it.
I read the Georgia one.
I just know what they're going after him for.
I don't, I didn't read it myself.
I just know that they're going after him over some election stuff.
And I know in New York, they went after, they're going after him for some like real estate fraud, allegedly.
And then I know that he has like almost 20 civil lawsuits open.
And then on top of that, he has this situation with the FBI.
Overall, overall, Trump has been the Teflon Don.
He has, he has definitely bounced a lot of these lawsuits.
So my presumption with Trump, just in general, a safe presumption is that Teflon Don is going to bounce this one, right?
Because he typically has been able to do that.
And a lot of these lawsuits are bullshit.
But like, like everybody, I maintain an open mind.
If someone sends me something and I'm like, yeah, they got him on this, right?
Like, is it possible?
Is it possible?
Yeah.
But guys, once again, for all of you out there, there's probably a crime or a civil infraction or something that you've done that law enforcement could get you for right now.
Right now.
Like, don't doubt that law enforcement couldn't get you for something right now because they probably could, right?
Which is why I have to pause and think about it for a second.
And mind you, there's more people looking to get Trump than you can imagine.
So if anybody can make it stick, they're going to do it because that is great news.
That's a great lawsuit.
And whatever attorney is able to do it, they're going to become famous.
And you got a high chance of settling.
So you'll get some money out of it more than likely.
You know what I mean?
If your case is, they're not going to want to sit there and litigate the whole thing.
So you might even get a settlement out of it.
So it's in your best interest to sue somebody like Trump.
He has the money.
So it happens, man.
You know, I don't know, man.
I need to read the affidavit.
That's my biggest thing.
And guys, like the goddamn video, by the way, because you guys are going to get sauced like this nowhere else.
Get me to 2,000 likes, goddammit.
We got 2,000.
You guys watching right now.
Get us 100% engager because we gave you guys a lot of sauce reading the documents.
I want to read the affidavit.
Do I foresee?
You know what, man?
I foresee if they do actually try to get him with some kind of charge, it's going to be brought down to like misdemeanor and a fine.
Yes, yes, yes.
I think if they do bring any charges on him, they're going to give him some bullshit.
Like, okay, man, we're going to, this is a felony, but we're going to go ahead and drop it down to a misdemeanor.
Just pay this fine and we'll leave you alone.
But then, but then his opponents will be able to call it.
But if it's criminal, his opponents will be able to call him a criminal then, you know?
So they'll be able to say, oh my God, Donald Trump was the first president to be indicted by a grand jury, United States, federally.
Oh, my God.
And he pled, you know, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, blah, blah, blah.
So I will say one thing for sure, without a doubt, this is going to pick up.
You are going to hear more and more about Trump over the next four months.
Absolutely for sure.
Without a doubt, three to four months.
The Trump stuff is going to start ranking again in the algorithm.
It's going to rank again in the news.
This is the wave we're going into for the next three to four months.
Yeah, absolutely, man.
Absolutely.
But yeah, no, that was a great discussion, Andrew.
It's always great to have you.
We need to do the 9-11 thing.
I got to get ready for that one.
I'm going to need some Red Bulls.
I need to get ready for that one.
That one's going to be, that's going to be huge, man.
We're going to lose some sleep on that one.
Yeah, that one's going to take a while.
SG goes, won't support if he doesn't come out against the shot.
Okay.
I don't know who that is, but all right.
Um, but other than that, guys, uh, andrew, guys, he has legal mindset, Andrew, aka Andrew, check him out, man.
Subscribe to his YouTube channel.
Uh, subscribe to this channel if it's your first time here, like the video.
And yeah, we'll catch you guys back here.
I'll be, I'll probably drop an episode for you guys on OJ either Tuesday or Thursday, guys.
But other than that, man, we'll catch you guys.
Peace.
I'm a special agent with Homelands Investigations, okay, guys?
HSI.
The cases that I did mostly were human smuggling and drug trafficking.
No one else has these documents, by the way.
▲
Export Selection