MyronGainesX - Former Fed Predicts Trump Will Be ARRESTED! Here's WHY...w/@LegalMindset

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 17, 2022 - MyronGainesX

02:02:50

Former Fed Predicts Trump Will Be ARRESTED! Here's WHY...w/@LegalMindset

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And we are live.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to FedEd 1811.
	I'm here with my boy Andrew from Legal Mindset, man.
	We got a lot to talk about, man.
	We're going to talk about Trump.
	We're going to talk about some migrants again pushed around the country.
	Got a lot to talk about.
	Let's get it, baby.
	I'm a special agent with homeland 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 Fed covers.
	Dr. Lafreel confirmed lacerations due to stepping on glass.
	Murder investigation.
	And he's positioning.
	He's been on February 13th, 2019.
	You're facing two accounts of two legitimate millions.
	Racketeering and Rico conspiracy.
	Young Slime Life, hereinafter referred to as YSL to the present.
	6ix9ine.
	And then this is Billy Seiko right here.
	Now, when they first started, guys, 6ix9ine ran well.
	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?
	Who's that in the back?
	Firearms and values.
	AKA Bush rights he's violated.
	They're wanting to stay away from the victims.
	Rapper Kitcha's be arrested after shooting at King's Diamond Minus Club in 2015.
	This is the one that's going to fuck him up because this gun is not traceable.
	Well, it happened at the gun range.
	Here's your boy 42 Doug right here on the left.
	Okay.
	Sex trafficking and sex crime.
	They can effectively link him paying an underage girl.
	I'm going to localize it, right?
	Right.
	And the first bomb went off right here.
	Septdown backpack.
	The site of the second explosion.
	Brothers.
	Dezokar Sarnev and Tamer Land Sarnev.
	When the cartel ships drugs into the country.
	As this guy got arrested for espionage, okay?
	Trading secrets with the Russians for monetary compensation.
	The largest corrupt police bus in New Orleans history.
	So he was in this bad boy.
	I'm going to go over his past seven.
	All right.
	What's up, guys?
	Welcome to this special edition of Fed It Man.
	I'm here with my boy Andrew Esquire, man.
	As you guys know, we're going to be going to London tomorrow.
	So I want to make sure that I film an episode of Fed It for you guys before I leave.
	Yeah, man, we're going to be in the UK for a bit.
	So, Andrew, what's going on with you?
	No, man.
	Love that you're taking it international.
	You know, I'm sitting over here in Seoul, South Korea, waking up my morning talking about some a little bit of Trump, you know, a little bit of TDS.
	It should be really good stuff.
	I was streaming last night, and I wanted to talk about it real quick because I was yesterday on this migrant situation.
	And I think this goes with, I think this goes with today's topic perfectly because a lot of this, a lot of this anger about what's going on there all goes back to Big Daddy T. It all goes back to, you know, people being mad at Maddie Trump from that era.
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	Real quick, Lord Infamous 20 Books goes, can you cover Michael Jordan's father's KRTI's 2008 gun charge rapper, Cool C. Banks bank robbery that got security guard killed, the NBA referee scandal, and Amy Fisher's story.
	My apology.
	I'm asking for a lot.
	God damn.
	Okay.
	Damn, that's like six cases in there, man.
	You guys have to make significant civil unrest if Trump is indicted.
	We'll talk about that in a second.
	That's actually today's topic, a part of it.
	And then if Trump is charged and indicted, do you think there will be civil conflict or possibility, possibly a divide within the FBI because of the partisanship?
	That's going to come up on today's show as well, guys.
	So don't worry.
	So, Andrew, I know who you are, man.
	Can you introduce yourself to the people real quick?
	Yeah.
	So if you guys don't know, I'm a Florida attorney, practicing Florida attorney.
	Work completely remotely.
	I live in Seoul, South Korea, and I have a channel, The Legal Mindset, which you can check out on YouTube.
	Also, have a community on locals, legalmindset.locals.com, Twitter, TheLegal Mindset, and my Instagram is Esquire International.
	I decided to mix it up a little bit.
	But other than that, find me on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube.
	Check my channel out.
	Cover all sorts of topics and try to give as debased of a take as I can give.
	Because, I mean, look, a lot of people out there, they're getting into their feelings.
	They're getting into the way they feel about stuff.
	I'm just going with the facts, the law, and how things are really going to work when we actually apply these things and we take these things to court.
	Yeah.
	So, and then could you react to the documentary called Liberty 7?
	I've never heard of it, but thank you, RJ Robertson.
	I could definitely check it out.
	So, today's topic, guys, is, you know, we're going to talk about Trump potentially being charged for, you know, as you guys know, they did.
	You know what?
	Should we do a quick timeline of events for the people?
	Yeah, let's do like a review, review, a little review.
	Because some people may, I don't know where you've been living, maybe under a rock, but maybe you haven't been paying attention.
	But this thing's been going on for the past couple months.
	But let's go.
	Yeah, so quick recap.
	And Andrew, please fill in any gaps that I may miss.
	But long story short for y'all, what happened is the FBI went ahead and did a search warrant, executed a search warrant on Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence resort up there in Palm Beach County, Florida.
	The FBI of the Washington Field Office ran the investigation.
	They went, you know, they submitted.
	So basically, they submit an application for a search warrant.
	And an application of a search warrant, you have to put something together called an affidavit, guys.
	And this affidavit, I'll show you guys real quick what it is real fast.
	It's this document right here, which I'm going to pull up for you guys.
	Where the hell did I put it?
	Oh my God, it got closed.
	Oh, here it is.
	Okay.
	So I'm going to go ahead and enlarge this for y'all before I share screen.
	And an affidavit, guys, is basically sworn, you know, testimony essentially that, hey, you know, I. you know, here's my affidavit, right?
	As you can see, this is the FBI agent right here, which they redacted his name, right?
	Actually, let me enlarge it for you guys so you guys can see it, right?
	And this outlines all the probable cause that they have to go ahead and search Trump's house.
	You guys can see this affidavit has a bunch of redactions in it.
	Me and Andrew broke this down in detail on another episode that we did where we actually went ahead, read through the probable cause, broke down what was behind more than likely all these redactions that you guys can see here.
	But this thing was filed along with us in the search warrant application to search his home.
	And in the home, they found a bunch of classified documents, okay, that pertain to a bunch of national defense information, et cetera.
	And now that the FBI has this information, Trump has been filing some motions to go ahead and get the reviewing of the classified documents pretty much halted through the use of a special master, if I'm not mistaken.
	Andrew, can you explain, I guess, a little bit of that?
	And if anything else, I may have missed there.
	So yeah, let me get into what a special master is.
	The special master can be appointed to do anything a judge wants them to do.
	So a special master is somebody who literally is given authority over a specific part of the trial.
	In this case, in this specific case, in the Trump case, they're given authority to decide what is privileged and not privileged.
	And there's actually two types of privilege that they're going to be reviewing.
	The first type is attorney-client privilege, attorney-client privilege, very straightforward.
	I'm an attorney.
	If I have a client, I'm communicating with them.
	That's protected.
	That is one of the strongest privileges out there, period, is attorney-client privilege.
	So if it's in a communication between an attorney and their client, that is attorney-client privilege.
	Now, the other privilege is executive privilege.
	That's the privilege you get as a president, right?
	Now, that one is one that's never been looked at before.
	There's zero case precedent on it.
	So anybody, anybody out there who's a legal scholar who says they know exactly what's going to happen regarding executive privilege, they are full of shit because there is this much goose egg.
	There's nothing in terms of actual case precedent on what is going to qualify in this instance as executive privilege versus non-executive privilege.
	So that special master is going to be doing that specific job.
	Now, Myron, should I get into exactly who the guy is?
	Do you want me to go into that?
	Yeah, we can.
	Yeah, let's get into who it is and then we'll go into like the charges that Trump might actually get hit with, or what the bureau might come after him with with the Department of Justice.
	Right.
	So this guy, Mr. Dreary, right, Judge Dreary, he is an older judge.
	He's a 78-year-old judge.
	He's been on the bench for a while.
	He was actually nominated by President Reagan.
	So, I mean, that tells you what era this guy's coming from.
	Holy crap.
	But he was on Trump's list.
	So each of the sides, the feds and Trump submitted their list of people.
	And, you know, Trump had this guy on his list.
	Now, other prosecutors, people who are local prosecutors who know the guy, actually say they're kind of surprised that Dreary was on Trump's list.
	He's not a guy who's known to be partisan.
	He's a guy who's known to be extraordinarily fair, no nonsense guy, very quiet, low-key, smart, does his job, does not fuck around.
	So this guy is not a guy who's, he's not a guy who's just going to agree with Trump because it's Trump.
	He's not a guy who's just going to vote red team.
	He's not going to do the blue team thing.
	He's a very fair judge.
	He has an extraordinary record.
	And when they bring in a lot of these older judges, the reason why they do it is at that point, the judges are really more concerned about their legacy more than their actual pay or more than their promotion.
	He's already a senior judge.
	He's not going to get promoted anymore.
	He's not going to be moving up.
	They're not going to increase his pay for this.
	So he's not really looking at that.
	He's looking at this to be part of his legacy as being a fair judge who did a fair job on this case.
	So I think he is going to do a good job.
	That's my assessment.
	When I was working in Miami, I was down there interning at the time at which they had all those evictions.
	Remember the housing crisis, Myron?
	I don't know if you remember that bad boy.
	Yeah.
	08, 09, 010.
	Absolutely.
	And when I was down there, they brought out the senior judges to rule on those because they knew that the senior judges would be fair and the senior judges won't play to emotion.
	They're not going to, you know, people's feelings or whatever are not going to come into play here.
	So they brought the senior judges.
	So in the same way, they bring out this guy.
	He's a senior judge.
	I think he'll do a good job.
	Yeah.
	And here he is right here.
	I pulled him up as you were talking about him.
	Who is he?
	Jury or Reagan nominee has served as a federal judge in New York since 1986.
	He retired in 2011.
	Is now a senior judge in the district.
	He also served a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court or FISA court, which is very important, guys.
	That means he understands the importance of classified information.
	A lot of judges will never see classified information.
	So that shows that he's educated in that world.
	And then Dre is one of the judges who approve an FBI and DOJ request to surveill Carter Page, a Trump campaign for foreign policy advisor as part of the federal inquiry into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
	So, yeah, he basically approved someone on Trump's camp to be surveilled under FISA.
	And then federal investigators used to secure the FISA warrants was riddled with errors and overall sloppiness.
	According to a DOJ Inspector General report, two of the four surveillance warrants granted by the Secretive FISA court regarding Paige have since been declared invalid, including one approved by Drury in June 2017 because of omissions and mistakes in the FBI submission to submissions to the court.
	And here's the funny part: you guys are never going to see those because FISA courts are pretty much all classified, right?
	I don't know.
	I don't even know how they brought up those, but yeah.
	Should we even like, should we explain to the people real quick the difference between FISA courts and regular courses?
	Go ahead.
	I think it's a good educational.
	All right.
	So, real quick, guys, FISA courts are a different world from regular court systems.
	So, the regular court system, you get arrested for a bank robbery, whatever it may be.
	You're brought in front of the judge.
	You know, they go ahead and take all your judicial proceedings in front of that judge.
	It's all public.
	It's all on pastry.
	You can find it.
	FISA courts don't operate that way.
	FISA courts, guys, are typically designed to go after people that pose some type of national security threat to the United States, which typically are done in secrecy.
	They're typically classified, and you need to be typically either with the FBI or the Joint Terrorism Task Force to be even involved in those types of situations so you can go ahead and get FISA warrants.
	FISA warrants are typically used on people that are terrorists or people that are suspected of damaging some type of or having issues, causing problems for national security.
	And FISA courts obviously don't have the same, how would I put this?
	They don't have the same rules.
	They don't have the same standards.
	Yes, they don't have the same evidentiary standards.
	Let's put it that way.
	They have much different standards, mischief, and rules.
	It's almost like they have a different rulebook.
	Almost like, almost like, although not quite like the UCMJ, right?
	Like they apply under their own rules, right?
	FISA courts play under their own rules in that way.
	That's the easiest and simplest way to do it.
	But we're not dealing with the FISA court here.
	And one other thing I want to clear up, because I saw some motherfuckers in the chat who are uneducated as shit, and I like to correct some uneducated shit.
	So here's what I got to put out.
	Somebody said, oh, hey, so this guy's going to be deciding whether to indict him or not.
	No, all this guy does is decide whether or not stuff is privileged or not privileged.
	And therefore, by the way, if it's privileged, the FBI cannot use that as part of their investigation.
	Remember, the FBI actually, which is fucking astounding.
	I mean, their level of balls on this is like 9,000.
	They actually tried to get granted permission to continue to investigate while they're still determining whether stuff is privileged or not privileged, which, I mean, the cojones to ask for that.
	Be like, oh, yeah, we just want to use this in our investigation.
	Oh, don't worry.
	If it's privileged, we'll just throw out everything that was involved with that.
	No, you're not.
	That's complete bullshit, right?
	That's that's complete and utter bullshit.
	So, um, if something is privileged, you cannot use anything, any lead you got from that paper, from that information.
	So, all that stuff's got to be taken out.
	All the stuff's got to be thrown out.
	So, that's what's going to be uh going on with him.
	Now, the judge and their search warrant as well.
	They talked about having a taint team and also their stuff, which is very common whenever you raid like a lawyer's office or whatever, and you think that you're going to come across privileged information.
	But, uh, but yeah, I mean, the use of a special master is probably a better idea.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry, no, exactly.
	And their taint team, frankly, I mean, the taint team has been ridiculed.
	And I think we look through the taint process.
	It gives them so much discretion.
	I mean, it's essentially not a process.
	It's the FBI doing whatever the fuck they want to do.
	So, I mean, I think bringing a special master for this, particularly since this is politically sensitive, is the only move that will let this be viewed as legitimate.
	I think that's the way to say USA.
	I wouldn't even, I wouldn't even have, I wouldn't even oppose it.
	I would be like, all right, cool.
	Like, you guys want to bring in a special master?
	We have enough evidence.
	Go ahead.
	And that's, and that's what that Myron, if anything, if you're of all the things, of all the thing that gives me a little bit of maybe Trump has a better case is that.
	Why are they opposing it if they have such a strong case?
	Yeah.
	They would only oppose it if they think some of this stuff is actually privileged.
	And if it is actually approved.
	So I think, I think there is at least some of this stuff, which is privileged, which they have said is not.
	So I think the FBI is going to get some mud on their face here.
	I don't think they're coming away clean on this.
	Now, they may still get enough documents that they can still charge or indict Trump.
	I'm not saying that's the case, but what I'm saying is I think this is going to expose, and I think the DOJ is sweating because the special master is going to label certain things as privileged, which they do not.
	I think that's what's going to come away here.
	And here's the me and Andrew went into detail about what taint teams are, et cetera, guys.
	But this is the part of the search warrant right here, the affidavit at the end of it, where they go search procedures for handling potential attorney client privilege information because they knew going and raiding Mar-a-Lago, they'd be running across a bunch of information that is potentially going to be privileged and which we discussed before.
	Privilege information is anything between a client and an attorney that law enforcement cannot use it against them.
	Okay.
	It could have been, yo, I did the cry, baby.
	I killed them.
	And then they find that it's the privilege can't be used.
	Okay.
	So, um, so yeah, but basically what the FBI is saying here is like, yo, we're going to have two different teams.
	We're going to have a search team that is like filled with the case agents.
	We're going to have other people that are searching that are going to be able to establish if something is tainted information, aka privileged.
	And we're going to go ahead and make sure that the case agents on the investigation don't actually come across that.
	Why?
	Because if you're a case agent on the investigation and you're supposed to be unbiased and not seeing certain information that you shouldn't be seeing anyway in the case, you can't look at that stuff.
	Okay.
	So the taint team is supposed to be there to taint themselves so that the actual case agents are investigating FBI agents on the investigation from the Washington field office aren't necessarily tainted.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	I know you're.
	And there's a very important thing I forgot to mention here.
	So this is the part of the affidavit that this is a spicy one.
	So when is this going to happen?
	What's the timeline on this?
	Because here's the whole thing.
	Like I said, the last two times we checked my last two.
	I'm like, the timing of this is very sus.
	It's very, it's very, very fucking sus.
	So the so the judge said the judge ordered that he has until November 30th to complete his job.
	But the government came back and said, oh, no, no, no, that's too long.
	We want him to complete it by October 17th.
	Oh, interesting.
	So why would they say October 17th?
	Clearly, I'm sorry, but clearly that's an election-based move.
	Clearly, that's saying, hey, we want this, we want this to come out.
	We want this, you know, indictment to potentially go forward right before the midterm elections, which are coming up in November, in the beginning of November.
	So I think that that was entirely, entirely timed.
	Trump's lawyers, of course, assert that the special master needs at least 90 days from now.
	So that's where we're at.
	But November 30th.
	So we're looking at November 30th timeline.
	This is not something that has to be completed before the election.
	Although he may end up doing it quickly.
	He may, this guy may be impartial and say, look, I'm going to do it.
	I'm going to take as long as I'm going to take.
	That may be what he does.
	Who knows?
	But he has until November 30th.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So what we're going to react to, guys, is we're going to go ahead and actually, as you guys know, me and Andrew, right?
	Even though full disclosure here, I like Trump.
	Okay.
	I'm a Trump supporter.
	I will go ahead and say that.
	I like Trump.
	Okay.
	However, I'm going to put my personal biases aside and assess the situation and totality of circumstances.
	I personally believe, based off the information that I've seen, et cetera, that more than likely there's no way that the Department of Justice isn't going to indict Donald Trump at some point in the future.
	Andrew, I don't know if you share the same sentiment.
	I think I had a subsequent conversation after our last conversation with some other lawyers about the obstruction charge.
	And I think because when he was subpoenaed, he didn't turn over what he was supposed to, even though that was privileged, even though he didn't, but technically or declassified, because we got into this big hole, is it classified versus declassified, the declassification process.
	But technically, the way the subpoena was worded, he should have turned it over because it was marked confidential, whether or not it was actually confidential or not.
	That's technically the way the subpoena was filed and granted.
	Now, his lawyer should have objected to this.
	There should have been a lot of things that were done.
	They frankly weren't done.
	So I think it's possible to get him on the obstruction charge.
	Of course, if all of this information, right, turns out to be pretty much privileged mostly, then it's going to be like convicting him or indicting him for resisting arrest on a time when you pulled him over on a, you know, a bunk.
	You know, you pulled him over for a bad reason, right?
	He wasn't speeding.
	You pulled him over for speeding, but then he resists arrest.
	So you arrest him for that.
	You know, yeah, you can get him for it, right?
	Because clearly he didn't do it.
	He didn't produce the documents.
	So could you get him for it?
	Probably.
	Is it going to be incredibly divisive?
	Is it going to look horribly political?
	Yes.
	It's going to look very petty and very political.
	But that may be what happens.
	So what we're going to do here is I'm actually going to pull up a very biased former prosecutor that clearly doesn't like Trump.
	And we're going to go ahead and react to his analysis of what he thinks is going to happen with the Donald Trump situation.
	And right here.
	Okay.
	And this is from the Brian Tyler Cohen channel.
	He's a little biased as well.
	I'm not going to lie.
	But like I said before, for full disclosure, we're telling y'all that, you know, we like Trump, et cetera, but we're going to go ahead and be unbiased here and, you know, kind of, you know, give credit, you know, credit where it's due and then also criticize points where it's wild speculation, which there's some wild speculation in this video.
	But let's go ahead and play it.
	They do make some good points in here, which I will definitely agree with some of them.
	But let's go ahead.
	Now we've got the host of Justice Matters on YouTube.
	All right.
	So let's get started with the newest bit of news.
	And I'm going to do my best not to have our interviews immediately become obsolete, which is something Nicole's top prosecutor reveals how long a Trump sentence could be.
	And this was released on September 5th, 2022.
	So it's fairly recent.
	And once again, you could tell from that title, because there's not even an indictment right now.
	Like, this is not just wild speculation.
	This is like, this is not just wild speculation, but it's clearly angled against Trump, right?
	Like 100%.
	Because he might, I mean, he could get convicted of this and not ever have a sentence.
	So this is absolutely ridiculous and wild speculation from the title itself, right?
	No, this might be clickbait.
	It might just be clickbait, right?
	Which, you know, I say we all do, I do clickbait sometimes.
	So, you know, it is what it is.
	But yeah.
	And when he says top prosecutor, I want to go ahead and we're going to, I'm going to talk about that here in a second when they say top prosecutor, because the type of prosecutor he was is extremely relevant to this conversation.
	Something that we've encountered a lot of times in the past.
	Y'all will see what I'm talking about.
	The DOJ revealed that there were 43 empty folders with classified banners on them at Mar-a-Lago.
	Glenn, do you think they came that way?
	Like, what are the implications of finding empty classified document folders?
	Yeah, I can't imagine Trump said, Here's what I want you all to pack up at the White House.
	I'm going to need you to take those 43 empty folders that used to contain classified information.
	I'm going to need you to take those 28 empty folders that say on them, return to staff secretary/slash military aid.
	I'm going to need you to deliver all of those to my office proper in case anybody wonders if it was my office.
	I've named it fantastic sarcasm.
	So, so, and by the way, you can tell, you can tell this, this, once again, how do they start this, right?
	They start this with an incredibly this is all speculative because neither one of these guys is a member of the FBI, neither one of these guys was on the raid, neither one of these guys knows whether those were actually empty or not, right?
	So, they're going on, I mean, at best, hearsay.
	None of this has been proven, none of this has come to court, none of this has been shown at all whatsoever.
	So, where I mean, regardless of okay, the FBI said it, have they proved it in court?
	No, they have not.
	They proved none of this, they've shown none of this.
	So, the fact that these guys are going on this, the fact that this lawyer is starting out with that and not starting out with a legal analysis shows you how deeply biased he is and how deeply flawed his analysis will be.
	That's that's what I start out with.
	I'm like, okay, this guy's criticizing Trump for years.
	Yeah, he's not starting by explaining the law, he's not starting by telling you the statutes, he's not starting by showing you the subpoena, he's starting by telling you there's there's some boxes.
	Well, okay, prove it, you know, prove that, prove that he took those, prove he took that information out, absolutely, yeah.
	And Brian, that's just some of the empty classified documents folders that were found at Mar-a-Lago.
	There were also several found in a storage facility across multiple boxes.
	Nobody, nobody packages up empty classified documents folders to move them to their new digs.
	This is, I'm not sure how this guy knows about classified folders either.
	Like, what makes him a classified folder expert?
	Yeah, he so you guys are going to see here.
	This guy wasn't a when they say top prosecutor, this guy was a military prosecutor, which those guys almost never lose in the UCMJ.
	Okay, um, he wasn't a USA, he was a jag, essentially, is what he was, which you know, anyone that's been prosecuted by a military court already knows it's a fucking rap for you.
	Like, you're gonna take a L. Those guys don't lose, they got some something crazy like an 80% plus like closure rate on investigations.
	Like you don't lose, you know, everything's in your favor.
	Yeah, those, I mean, the UCMJ is like, for example, I would say operating under the UCMJ is the same thing as saying I'm a Canadian lawyer, right?
	Like, you do not know.
	I mean, you literally, you're not operating under normal American civil law.
	No, you're not operating under a different system, a complete different system.
	Yeah, and not only that, like soldiers have way less rights than a regular citizen.
	You actually give up your rights as a soldier.
	Most people don't realize that you, all those rights you think you have, as soon as you enlist, you gone up.
	Yep, it's definitely those rates gone for our national security.
	Yeah, I guess at this point, all we can do is surmise where those documents went.
	I mean, what seems like the most likely explanation?
	I know that we're treading on like treading on shaky ground because I guess we yeah, that's an understatement of the year, shaky ground.
	He's wildly speculating, but yeah, you know, sure, sure, you know, and this is what they're doing to prop up what they're going to say next year, right?
	Right.
	Looked into this, but what's the most likely explanation as to why there are empty classified documents?
	So, the ground under our feet might have become a little firmer in the last 60 minutes or so because the reporting just broke that a Russian oligarch by the name of Victor Veskelberg has right now, as we speak, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are searching his New York and Florida properties, and they are carrying, they are seen carrying boxes out of those properties.
	Do we know whether that's related to this morning's revelation that Donald Trump had empty classified documents folders?
	We don't.
	Might be pure coincidence, but I think we have to wait and see.
	That is so the FBI is doing an investigation on somebody today.
	And because today they're doing an investigation, that person is linked to Trump.
	This person loses all his credibility for saying this.
	He has no idea what this guy is being investigated for.
	The fact that he's being investigated today, it's like this is happening today.
	And because it's today, that's the link to Trump.
	You have no idea.
	Once again, the Russia stuff is what they've been trying to come after Trump for years for.
	They have not said this is related to Russia at all.
	In fact, they've actually insinuated it's not related to Russia at all whatsoever.
	And this is something they've been trying to put on Trump.
	This Juju, they've been trying to put up the Russia stuff, and they haven't been able to bring any concrete criminal charges, anything.
	There's no proof of any of this.
	Yeah, he has been debunked a million years.
	Six years this has been going on.
	And here we go.
	Federal Agent Search Homes links a Russian oligarch who recently had yacht seized sources tell CNN.
	So this is a guy that this is CNN too.
	So he's very, very biased.
	Extraordinarily biased right here.
	So basically, CNN film agents dressed like in jackets marked police HSI as they were removing items from the Park Avenue property Thursday afternoon.
	So this is my former agency actually that went ahead and did a search warrant in his house.
	And I'm wondering what the U.S. court documents.
	Okay, let's see.
	Okay, so here's a search warrant.
	So it's an FBI search warrant here.
	They got him for Tango, International Maritime Organization to include all shadows on board in inventory or in transit to a vessel, 18 USC 1349.
	What the hell?
	Hold on, let me enlarge this for y'all.
	This is a very, how the hell did this guy go ahead and link this the monetary yacht tango with international maritime organization number?
	How did they he link this to Trump?
	What does this have to do with anything?
	This has nothing to do with this.
	Trump has a yacht where he hides all the documents.
	Like, like, what's your theory of the case here, bro?
	Like, he has nothing.
	He just said he literally only used that fact that it was a search that happened now.
	That was the proof he had there.
	That's that's that's TDS like on a million, right?
	You turn that up.
	That's over 9,000.
	That's fucking super saiyan level of Trump derangement syndrome.
	Like, not every, he is not this mastermind, this criminal mastermind.
	And we're going through it right now.
	I got the search warrant.
	Here it is, guys.
	You see it right here.
	Who's the guy he's talking about?
	I don't.
	I just went ahead and searched Trump.
	Nothing in here says anything about Trump in this search warrant.
	How the hell did he come to that conclusion that they're searched?
	To me, this looks like I'm already looking through it.
	I see they looked at FinCEN records.
	Okay.
	So this is a torpedo?
	The word Russia.
	The word Russia is in it, and therefore it has to do with Trump.
	So I don't know how he came to that wild speculation, but let's keep going here.
	Yeah.
	So this is the level of credibility.
	When you start out with this, it seems I'm going to give you that level of credibility.
	Yeah, that's wild.
	Yeah.
	To me, that Donald Trump very likely exploited those documents in some way for his own benefit, whether that was financial, whether it was for blackmail, whether it was to leverage future business deals he might have in other countries.
	How can you come to that from a yacht?
	How can you come to that wild conclusion?
	We have the search for it right here.
	I looked at it.
	They didn't mention Trump in it one time.
	And for me, looking at it right now, I'm looking at it right now.
	It looks to be a bank fraud investigation of finances.
	We'll keep going.
	Yeah, I think we're going to just begin to learn more about that.
	But I've talked to some national security folk who, oh, sure.
	Okay.
	So he's talked to people, right?
	This whole, I've talked to people, like, but he's not naming anybody, right?
	So, oh, no, I've talked to people too.
	I've talked to the fucking head of the FBI.
	You know, like you can say that anybody can say that.
	Oh, yeah, I've talked to people.
	I know people.
	Fuck you.
	Like that, that part there, I don't like that statement because anybody can say that, right?
	Anybody knows people, right?
	it's an empty statement, doesn't mean anything, right?
	He hasn't produced, he's not producing, okay, based on this evidence specifically, this fact, I'm going to assert this.
	...that I had liked.
	If you have an empty folder with a classified banner on it, might you be able to tell what that folder used to contain?
	And I was told, yes, we do have ways to figure that out.
	And Brian, I had a TS-SCI clearance when I was an army prosecutor handling an espionage case out of...
	Army prosecutor, very important, guys.
	Like I told y'all before, again, when you're an army prosecutor, those guys really don't lose because the person, right, the person that you're going after, the military personnel, they have no rights almost, okay?
	Fourth Amendment?
	Ah, what's that?
	We're going to assert your goddamn barrack, okay, buddy?
	Because this is all U.S. government property.
	And we feel as though you may be a spy and it's a national security situation.
	So thanks to the Patriot Act and the fact that you're a service member, my friend, you no longer have certain rights.
	And it's hilarious.
	Go ahead, sorry.
	I mean, you know, somebody pointed out in the chat, there's hilarious military laws, like the fact that divorcing your wife can get you in trouble under the UCMJ.
	Yeah.
	Like, I mean, this is a level of like, what?
	You would just say, as a normal civilian, you'd be like, wait, what?
	That's a problem?
	Yeah.
	A lot of things, things that are okay in normal civilian life are not all right under the UCMJ.
	Yep, absolutely.
	Desert storm.
	And can I tell you, that scared the bejesus out of me.
	I didn't want to say or do or touch something I shouldn't.
	I was super careful.
	But, you know, this is as potentially dangerous and damaging as it gets to our nation.
	Just as a quick aside, what's the punishment for any other person other than Donald Trump, if they were found to have had been in possession of documents like these?
	Prison.
	A prompt arrest, a prompt indictment, a prompt prosecution, probably a guilty plea, which is how most of these cases involving mishandling of government classified materials, you know, play out.
	People typically will plead guilty in the gun.
	He is correct about that, that if other people got caught with this, they potentially would be charged.
	You know, correct about 97%, 97% conviction rate, right?
	I mean, that's the DOJ's normal rates, right?
	So it's 97% conviction rate.
	So they're obviously saying, yeah, if you're indicted, right?
	Guilty plea is normal.
	However, I will say this, Myron.
	Most people are not Donald Trump.
	And if you say, is Donald Trump in the top 3% of America?
	Yes.
	So I think that puts him in that category of people that doesn't have to, he's a former president.
	Exactly.
	That doesn't just have to plead guilty.
	Yeah.
	You know, I mean, I think for a lot of people, they've really got them over the ropes.
	They've really got them, you know, to a point where, Hey, they don't have the resources to fight this.
	They have the, they're not capable of fighting this, but if anybody, if anybody is capable of doing it is Donald Trump.
	So I think that may remove him.
	So when people say the 97%, yes, that's correct.
	Most people do.
	Donald Trump is not most people.
	That's true.
	Yeah.
	And here's the thing too.
	He should have right here.
	I would have given him more points if he cited the statutes because we can look at the statutes and we can tell you exactly what the punishments are.
	We can look at 1519 and say, Hey, under 1519 right here, what does it say?
	It says find or in prison, not more than 20 years.
	He could have said that if he was being honest intellectually, right?
	He could have looked at the law.
	He could have said that one of the Lee 20's looked at that and said okay under this statute that's what this says right there's a punishment under the statute actually real quick we should probably tell the people the three crimes that we're potentially looking at here that they actually put in the search warrant guys so these are the three statutes okay that they put that they so when you apply for a search warrant guys you have to cite uh statutes of law that you're using to go ahead and search you know the premise and uh the three laws that they use was this one is the first one 18 usc 793 93 gathering,
	transmitting, or losing defense information.
	Okay.
	And this one, I would say, is probably the most serious, guys.
	For some of you guys that are wondering, this is what they got Robert Hanson under.
	And right now, he is in Florence, Colorado, serving a life sentence for violating this crime, the statute for selling secrets to the Russians.
	Was obviously, was Trump selling secrets to the Russians?
	No, there's no.
	Here's the interesting thing about this one about 793.
	This particular statue, it actually technically doesn't matter whether the information is classified or not classified.
	Technically, this one is just if it's defense information, regardless of whether it's classified or classified.
	So this whole argument about it being declassified.
	So it will go to actually what is the information, right?
	Now, if it's, if it's, is it actually vital defense information or is it something that is like a trivial detail, right?
	That may have ended up being classified or being classified for some other reason, right?
	Is it actually defense information?
	We don't know.
	We have no clue.
	We haven't seen exactly what it is.
	But this one is very, very interesting because a lot of us are spending times arguing about the classified versus declassified argument, but technically it doesn't matter for 793.
	It doesn't matter.
	Yeah, for 793.
	All they have to prove is that it's defense information, guys.
	And defense information is extremely broad.
	Okay.
	And then the next one here is what Andrew was talking about: destruction, alteration, or falsification of records and federal investigations and bankruptcy.
	And in my this is the one that he is most likely to be, if he's going to be gone in anything, right?
	This is the one.
	Yeah.
	Because this is an extremely, I mean, guys, look at this.
	Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers out false files, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under 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.
	Guys, that is the biggest law run-on sentence I've ever seen in my life.
	But pretty much the U.S. government's telling you, hey, you know, we can, we could pretty much, yo, you do any of this stuff.
	We can come after you for this statue right here, 18 U.S.C. 1519.
	And this is the one if they wanted to say, if they wanted right now in that stream, that's why I'm calling them out right now, is saying if they really wanted to do a good job and they actually knew what the fuck they're talking about and they actually were, you know, former federal agents like Myron here, they would actually look this up, look at it, and be like, yo, under this statute, which is the one that we think is most likely, here's the punishment, up to 20 years or fined, right?
	Because it can be, it can be just a fine.
	He could just be fined.
	Right.
	They could choose not to imprison him at all.
	That could be something that does not happen or that the judge doesn't grant in this particular case because it's something relatively trivial or de minimis.
	So they could, they should be reading the statute.
	They're not.
	Note that they're not right now.
	And the other one here, U.S. Code 2071, concealment, removal, or mutilation generally.
	And this one, again, another extremely general statute that they can go ahead and use as almost a catch-all.
	Okay.
	And I think this one has a very interesting point to it that you actually noted here, Andrew, which is, as used in this 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.
	Basically, this statute, guys, violating this statute makes it where you cannot run for office again.
	Shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States, which is an interesting thing.
	But then you have to, you have to consider the president is not just any old fucking office.
	And the Constitution literally says the requirements for being the president.
	You live in this country, you're like a resident of the United States, right?
	You're a citizen of the United States and you are 35 years old.
	That's what the Constitution says.
	So I don't, so it's going to be a really hard argument to say that something prevent that something adds to the Constitution without being a constitutional amendment.
	I think that this law is not a constitutional amendment.
	So I don't think that technically this can change the requirements of the presidency.
	Maybe other positions, but not the presidency.
	Yeah.
	And not only that, very interesting as well.
	And we talked about this on this.
	That's so funny.
	Sorry, but what Hunch said here, this is one of my guys, the menu from a base defat can be defense information.
	Like that's literally like what they're eating in the army cafeteria, right?
	You know, that's fucking that's fucking top secret information.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Like, like, but it really could be something fucking small.
	Like we talked, you talked about it, Myron.
	You said it could be some details about Mar-a-Lago, like where stuff is.
	Yeah.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I also want to bring to everyone's attention here that this is a statute that everyone is saying they're going to use this to try to get Trump to not be able to run office again.
	And my argument to this is it goes here.
	As usual in the subsection, the term office does not include the office held by any person as a recruited, sorry, as a retired officer of the Armed Force of the United States.
	Trump's lawyers can argue that as commander in chief of the United States, he is an officer of the military.
	The chief has the highest officer.
	Yeah, I mean, that's number one officer.
	So, yeah.
	When you are in the United States, you are, you know, you are the top guy.
	You know what I mean?
	So, um, that could be something that his lawyers can use as well.
	But yeah, it's very interesting that they use this statue.
	I've never seen this statue before in my life until this case.
	So, this is also something very interesting, very interesting.
	But these are three.
	Get out their fucking microscopes to find this one.
	I mean, this is got some dust on those pages because I haven't seen that one either, ever.
	So, let's keep going.
	So, he's basically talking about.
	So, he mentioned one thing: if anyone else will put in a situation, yes, they could be potentially charged.
	But, of course, Donald Trump is former commander-in-chief, my friend.
	He is not a regular person.
	Government will debrief them out the wazoo to make sure we know everything.
	Okay, he's talking about if anyone else is caught with national defense information, what the prosecutes, what the prosecution is going to do.
	They're going to correct, but it doesn't apply to the president.
	And Myron and I, if you want to check out the last episode, we went in depth with it.
	It does not apply to the president because the president has a separate process for declassifying information.
	Thank you, George W. Bush, Obama, right?
	That is what happened under their reigns.
	Both George W. and Obama changed the process for declassification.
	So, that process has changed.
	So, this whole debriefing and all this other shit, this doesn't have to happen with the president.
	So, all this argument he's saying is true for a normie army grunt that he's used to dealing with.
	This is not a normie army grunt.
	I'm sorry.
	It just isn't.
	You're talking about the commander-in-chief, my friend.
	Right.
	That might result in damage to our national security.
	But we can use the concrete example of a Department of Justice, excuse me, a Department of Defense executive assistant named Asia Janae Lavarello, who was serving in Hawaii with the federal government, mishandled a secret document and also failed to transmit some handwritten notes she had taken that she was authorized to take at a meeting at which classified information was discussed.
	She failed to transport her notes in a secure diplomatic pouch this year.
	She was put in prison for three years.
	Donald Trump, no, sir, that is actually incorrect.
	I actually went ahead and pulled this case up.
	She actually got hit with an information, okay?
	And she agreed to plead guilty and she went ahead and got two months in prison.
	So that is not true whatsoever.
	Um, would you can you explain to people real quick what an information is, uh, Andrew, while I'll pull this up?
	Information is essentially just a way that the federal government files charges.
	There's two ways: information or indictment, right?
	A grand jury indictment.
	So essentially, they're just filing an information saying, Hey, here are the charges.
	Here's the evidence that we have, right?
	Here's a probable cause we have on this individual in order to bring an indictment, in order to bring charges against the person.
	So, those two ways, right?
	They can also call a grand jury, which is regular citizens, to decide whether, hey, are we going to bring charges against this person or not?
	So, this is a different method, but it's a it's still a valid method of bringing indictment, of bringing an indictment.
	Yeah, it's it's typically what you use when um people are like cooperating or like they're agreeing to plead guilty up front.
	Typically, if I see someone get hit with an information, that tells me nine out of ten times they're cooperating with the government.
	There you go, okay, that's a good deal.
	Yeah, it's a good tell to see if someone's cooperating.
	So, like the fact that she uh went ahead and uh got hit with an information and she only got two months.
	I mean, that tells you right there.
	Um, okay, uh, oh, do we have a chat?
	Okay, uh, Yuvestimonis goes, make no mistake, if they charge my dog Trump, clapping season will commence.
	Grab your popcorn, butterfingers, and rice krispy treats and let the show begin.
	This guy, bro, time tomorrow after doing a million times more by way of criminal conduct and potential damage to our national security than Miss Lavarello did.
	But still, he's the most persecuted person in history, so he is actually the most invested.
	And here it is right here, guys.
	He said three years.
	No, my friend, it's actually three months.
	Here's a DOJ press release.
	Uh, Honolulu woman received the removal and retention of classified information.
	Asia Janae Lavarello, 32, was sent in as U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on February 10th, 2022 by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Michael Seabright to three months of imprisonment and a $5,500 fine for knowingly removing classified information concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States and retaining it at an unauthorized location.
	Lavarello had pleaded guilty to the charges and to the charge in July 2021.
	And it's very important to note, guys, that I went ahead and read through this case.
	The case was done by FBI and NCIS, who was the Naval Criminal Investigation Service.
	And this was in Hawaii.
	Uh, it's very important to also note, guys, that she got hit with an information.
	I read through the case, and information is much different than being indicted.
	Um, and she got three months in prison, so it wasn't three years, okay?
	So, obviously, he's obviously sensationalizing it, he, but you can see right now he's just so happy at the fact stating that Trump is the most persecuted person in the world.
	Once again, this is this makes him so happy, you know.
	I mean, it's once again giving away giving away the clear, the clear sentiment and bias, absolutely, yeah, investigated and least prosecuted person in the history of our nation.
	So, there are two statutes at play, which by the way, by the way, that's not a good thing.
	Like, saying that he's been investigated but not prosecuted, what does that mean?
	There's no actual crimes, right?
	So, if you're investigated, not prosecuted, that means a bunch of people don't like you, right?
	But there's zero proof, which means literally they're full of shit.
	So, that actually is a counterpoint.
	Yeah, I don't think I don't think he's making the point he thinks.
	And this is this is the problem: an investigation is not the same thing as an indictment, right?
	Or as bringing charges against somebody, you know, and these retards are at you know, IQ level zero here trying to make these things the same thing, but they're not, they're simply not.
	And let me tell you guys as a government official.
	I mean, Andrew, you were with me during this.
	Um, yes, uh, as a public official, guys, if anyone makes an allegation against you, an investigation is automatically initiated.
	I told you guys a story before.
	I went through an internal affairs investigation when I was an agent myself.
	There was a bullshit allegation that I got into an altercation at a strip club and got in a fight with some strippers.
	I was there, I was there with Myron for that.
	I looked at it.
	I mean, it was fucking bunk.
	It was bunk.
	It was total bunk.
	I wasn't even inside the club that night, guys.
	I wasn't even in there.
	However, these allegations were made.
	I went through an entire six-month internal investigation.
	It was fucking nerve-wracking, et cetera.
	Thank God.
	Nothing, they didn't take my gun or anything like that.
	It wasn't that serious.
	But, you know, Office of Professional Responsibility, right?
	They have to open an investigation anytime some type of misconduct is alleged, even if it's unfounded and bullshit.
	So what ended up happening is they went ahead, they did their investigation.
	They found out that the people at the club were lying.
	I was never in there.
	Contrary to what they said before, the video surveillance showed this.
	I was not inside.
	The allegations were not true whatsoever.
	And I was cleared.
	However, I had to still go through six months of bullshit, go in, do an interview, et cetera.
	And, you know, no offense to the OPR agents.
	I don't have an issue with them.
	They're just doing their jobs.
	They got to do what they got to do.
	It's an administrative investigation.
	It's not criminal.
	But when it's an administrative, guess what?
	You have to go in.
	They swear you in.
	You raise your right hand.
	You got to tell the truth.
	You can't lie.
	And you have to answer the questions.
	You get no Fifth Amendment privileges.
	You get no right to a lawyer.
	None of that.
	I couldn't even bring, let's say, I retained Andrew to come in with me.
	He could have come in with me.
	You would have to wait outside as they questioned me, guys.
	So that is what happens when you're a public official and an allegation comes against you, even against, even if it's bullshit.
	So yes, of course, Trump is going to be one of the most investigated people because a lot of people don't like him.
	Okay.
	He was an entrepreneur before this.
	He's a billionaire.
	He has a lot of money.
	People are going to hate him.
	There's going to be people that are going to come out the fight.
	When you have strong political positions, people are going to fucking hate you one way or another, right?
	You think he took strong positions.
	People are going to hate him one way or another.
	Or you, I mean, some, I mean, there's some people that cannot give or take it, right?
	You know, I don't, I don't think, I think for me personally, I'm not very personally invested in Donald Trump personally.
	But, you know, if you, once again, you know, if you look at this particular case and you say, okay, what's good and what's not good, right?
	What's legal and what's not legal, a lot of this stuff, a lot of these takes here in this case just come from a distaste of his political positions.
	I don't see a lot of this coming from actual legal analysis or actual judicial practice.
	From either of these guys, well, one of them's not an attorney, so I can't blame him.
	But the guy who's not wearing a tie, that guy should know better.
	Yeah, no, absolutely, man.
	And CJ Miller goes, I never got a notification.
	It's because it's related to Trump, I wonder, potentially.
	They don't like him on YouTube, guys.
	They took down his Nelk interview, even though I thought it was a great interview.
	They're trying to hide people covering the Jones trial right now.
	Is that related?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Oh, shit.
	I didn't even know that.
	But yeah, guys, so just understand that, like, yes, I get it.
	Oh, Trump is the most sophisticated person.
	But anytime you're a public official, they have to open.
	If they, there's an allegation, they have to open a case.
	There's no way around it.
	They must.
	Okay.
	OPR gets involved.
	Office of Inspector General gets involved.
	Unfortunately, if it's OIG, that means more than likely it's a criminal allegation.
	If it's an Office of Professional Responsibility, it's an administrative investigation.
	In my case, it was an administrative investigation, which is good because it means it's typically some, you know, bullshit, whatever.
	However, that means you're not afforded the same rights as in a criminal investigation, which means you have to show up.
	You have to give an interview.
	You can't assert any type of rights and you got to answer all their questions.
	And, you know, it could be any type of administrative thing, thing.
	So for me, the catch-all a lot of the times is conduct unbecoming, right?
	But I was cleared.
	Everything was good.
	But that's what happens, guys, when you're a public official.
	Anyone can make an allegation.
	Someone can call in.
	If you work for the government, someone call and be like, yeah, that person, he's a misogynist.
	Bam.
	Now they got to open up a case no matter what, even if it's unfounded.
	It's not true.
	So, which really has no enforcement mechanism.
	And then there's the Espionage Act, which has some pretty major penalties that go along with it.
	Can you speak about the differences here and how those things apply in this situation?
	Now, they're talking about the statutes, guys, that me and Andrew just went over with y'all.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So the Presidential Records Act, as you say, has no teeth.
	There are lots of laws on the books that are basically guidelines for how federal government employees and officers should operate.
	Actually, the Hatch Act, for example.
	The Hatch Act has no teeth.
	You can receive a slap on the wrist if you violate the Hatch Act.
	That is if you engage in political activity as a government employee, because that's prohibited.
	You may even get a letter of condemnation in your permanent file, but it doesn't really have any teeth to it.
	But the Espionage Act provisions sure do.
	And under 18 U.S.C.
	793, it sure seems like Donald Trump has mishandled national defense information.
	The reason I say.
	See, you know, it's funny here.
	Pause this.
	So he's literally saying, see, this is the thing.
	Like, if he came back and said what we said and we're like, yo, it's going to be 1519, right?
	Yeah.
	I would say, okay, you can make a case for that.
	But he went with 793, the one we know nothing about right now.
	See, this is how I know he's fucking wildly speculating.
	So of all three, if you're going to pick the one that we know the least about, and so therefore at this point is the least likely, I would not say is the one like this is the winner.
	No, I would never pick that one of the three.
	I would never pick that one of the three.
	He goes and picks 793.
	Why?
	Because it ties into the Russia case.
	It ties into all this other stuff going on.
	The serious charge, too.
	The nuclear codes.
	Exactly.
	It's the most serious charge.
	But we have no idea about whether or not 793 is implicated here.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, his thing is like, yo, it's because, you know, he had information like just because I know it's classified that it's going to more than likely be national defense, which that may be true, but I think the government's strongest charge is actually the, like I said, well, we said the obstruction.
	1519.
	I don't think it's 7923.
	Yeah, I don't think it's 793 either.
	Violated that statute is because that's one of the statutes cited in the search warrant for which the judge found there was probable cause to believe that statute had been violated and that there was evidence of that crime on the property of Mar-a-Lago.
	And what is Trump facing here?
	Like, give me the spectrum of punishments that we could see.
	And, you know, from best in his case to worst.
	And also what you think is most likely.
	For openers, Donald Trump is facing 20 years in prison.
	And here's why.
	One of the.
	So he literally goes with the maximum amount under 1519.
	Okay.
	So let's see what he says.
	Yeah, let's go.
	Federal statutes listed in the search warrant is obstructing an official investigation or an official proceeding.
	And that one is a lay down winner for the government.
	I don't say that lightly or cavalierly because there's no such thing as a bulletproof case.
	Prosecutors can lose any case or a jury can hang in any case that we choose to prosecute.
	But Donald Trump was subpoenaed to turn over the additional materials he had at Mar-a-Lago and he flat out refused.
	And I love how he's using the max on this charge, which is the 20 years.
	Let me tell you something about when you get what it takes to get the max on any type of federal court.
	Go ahead, Mike.
	What does it take to get the max, the max on a charge?
	To get a max on a charge, you got to have a criminal history.
	You got to be scoring high on the point system.
	You need to be fucking Jordan in the fourth quarter.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, you need to be scoring.
	Jordan of crime.
	Yeah, the Jordan of crime.
	So the fact that he's saying, he's going to get 20 years under this statute, which is the fucking max is fucking ludicrous, my friend.
	And that goes to show you guys the difference between an AUSA would never say something this ridiculous, you know, but a military prosecutor can because in their world, they could do this wild shit.
	Go ahead, Andrew.
	And a military prosecutor who's now turning himself into a social media guy, right?
	He's turning himself to a social media guy.
	So people can use him.
	He's going to be a talking head when they need a legal expert.
	Is why you guys need to, you know, subscribe to people, maybe a little bit of lawyers like me and my friends.
	And there's lots of lawyers that are in the online legal community, lots of lawyers on YouTube.
	You got the statue right here in front of y'all.
	Impartial takes.
	That's a different impartial takes.
	Because listen, these guys who are saying these things, they're just literally making the most extreme case versus 20 years.
	Okay, he's probably going to get, even if he was convicted, which by the way, this one, I'm not going to call it bulletproof.
	He said bulletproof.
	I definitely don't agree with bulletproof.
	Best charge, yes.
	This is the best one.
	That I do agree with.
	However, is he going to get 20 years?
	Absolutely fucking not.
	There's no fucking way he's getting 20 years in prison.
	If Donald Trump gets 20 years on this for failing to respond to a subpoena, by the way, that would be thrown out on appeal.
	That would be thrown out on appeal.
	If the judge gave him that, to be thrown in on appeal, 100%.
	This, yeah, this, this right here, he would plead guilty to this.
	If he were charged, he'd probably get, you know, six months probation or some shit like that.
	No jail time, a heavy ass fine done.
	20 years, for him to say 20 years is preposterous.
	I can't believe that as a lawyer, that he would say something like this, knowing damn well that you're not going to get 20 years.
	Like the only way you're ever going to get the maximum on something is you need to be a goddamn career criminal.
	This got to be like your fourth offense.
	You score high on the point system.
	You robbed someone while you did this.
	You committed some kind of crazy act of violence.
	You have some kind of enhancement, which allows the judge to even go to that.
	Like absolutely no way.
	Like, I can't believe that he even insinuated that he would get 20 years on this alone.
	Right.
	And then we had to get it.
	Federal prosecutors had to get a search warrant.
	They went in there and they found a veritable mountain of documents that were responsive to the subpoena.
	That is a fairly easy obstruction case to prove that carries with it 20 years in prison.
	Potentially, that's the maximum punishment.
	So for openers, that's a relatively easy charge to prove on the facts as we know them.
	He's not getting 20 years, though, bro.
	Stop being fucking stupid.
	And AUSA would have never said this.
	And that goes to show you guys the difference.
	This is me as an agent.
	I wanted people to get as much time as possible when I was arresting people.
	But guess what?
	Even I know there's no fucking way someone with zero criminal history is getting the max on a charge.
	No way.
	You would have to kill someone during the commission of the crime to get an enhancement like that.
	Right.
	What happens to Trump's attorney who signed that sworn statement attesting that all those classified documents that were held at Mar-a-Lago had already been returned?
	Like, does she get disbarred or could she actually face legal punishment herself?
	The answer is yes.
	Both of those.
	This is true to a degree.
	Okay, but I'll respond to this.
	I want to see what this joker is.
	I want to see what this joker has to say, and then we'll go.
	We'll see what he has to say.
	I'm going to give him a chance to save himself here real quick while this motherfucker is laughing over here because this is like a preposterous statement.
	But let's bring this up in a second.
	Okay.
	You know, first of all, let me back up.
	I've talked to a lot of my friends who operate kind of at the upper echelons of the white-collar defense practice in D.C. Once again, his friends that I served with many years ago.
	And I said, look, I've never been a defense attorney, never wanted to be a defense attorney.
	But my understanding is that defense attorneys never certify that their criminal clients have turned over all the evidence of crime that they had.
	You're representing a bank robber.
	As a defense attorney, it's not really in your job description to certify to the prosecutors.
	By the way, my client gave back all the money he stole from the bank.
	That's not the way the practice of law is supposed to play out.
	So Christina Bob is in potential deep legal jeopardy, not only professional jeopardy, because she will be referred to her state bar wherever she's licensed for an investigation to see whether she should be sanctioned or disbarred.
	But she is in legal peril because she certified something that is provably false.
	It's not something she should have certified in the first instance, but and she also now has a conflict, right?
	Anytime.
	I'm going to pause it, Andrew, or do you want to go?
	Yeah, let me hear what this guy's saying because I'm going to take all this.
	I'm going to take the entire bullshit.
	I'm actually interested to see what you have to say on this one.
	This is actually really fucking ridiculous.
	Okay.
	Attorney's conduct is potentially criminal in furtherance of that representation.
	The attorney has a split loyalty now because you have to zealously represent your client, but you also have to keep yourself out of hot water.
	And those two goals may conflict with one another.
	So very soon, holy shit.
	Withdraw from her representation of Donald Trump.
	Doesn't it kind of make sense to put so okay?
	Let me start with two things.
	Oh, holy shit.
	Okay, here we go.
	First of all, everything this man just said was complete bullshit.
	Number one, first of all, there has been generally, to be very fucking clear, there has been a prosecution of attorneys in a concerted effort to go after attorneys who represent people with views you don't like.
	Well, guess what?
	That is fundamental to justice in America, regardless of your political views.
	You could be a goddamn communist.
	You could be a fascist.
	You could be whoever the fuck you want to be, right?
	You could be anything you want to be.
	You could be a libertarian, whatever you are.
	Attorneys have a duty to defend you, a duty of zealous advocacy.
	We have to defend you to the utmost of our abilities, regardless of your beliefs.
	Remember, one of our very first presidents, right?
	Adams defended the fucking red coats during after the Boston massacre, right?
	This is the fundamental of our constitutions.
	It's fundamental to our system of justice is that everybody deserves a fair and zealous defense.
	So you can, you are never, ever supposed to attack an attorney for doing his job.
	And it is disgusting that this man who calls himself an attorney, who cosplays as an attorney, because clearly he's never been a real attorney in the actual U.S. legal system.
	He's worked in the separate military legal system, which honestly has nothing to fucking do with the actual legal system and practice of law.
	And you can tell because the way he represented himself here, the way he spoke about defending clients is disgusting.
	You can only talk like this if you work in a whole separate system, which is a whole separate system of values.
	This man does not hold the values of an American civil attorney or a criminal attorney in the regular U.S. justice system.
	He does not hold those values.
	That is fucking clear from what he said right there.
	It is absolutely not criminal to defend your client.
	It is, in fact, your duty to defend your client to the utmost of your abilities.
	Now, when he talks about sanction or disbarment, right?
	Now, let's say an attorney fucks up, right?
	Myron, do you think attorneys fuck up on a regular basis?
	Of course.
	Of course, we make mistakes.
	We are all human.
	Sometimes we make typographical errors and a judge wants it to be in Times New Roman and you put that shit in Ariel, right?
	And that's that's the type of comic sands.
	Comic sand.
	You put in fucking comic sands.
	You put in wing tings, you know?
	You submit it and you fuck up, right?
	That's a fuck up.
	And guess what?
	Some judges will deny, well, won't give you a chance to review it.
	They'll deny it.
	They'll throw it out of court and you lose the case because you put it in the wrong goddamn font.
	That's the type of error that attorneys make all the time.
	Is that criminal?
	No.
	Attorneys fuck up.
	Attorneys do things that they don't necessarily need to do.
	So he's saying, oh, well, you know, in this case, they certified something.
	They shouldn't have certified it.
	Okay.
	Maybe an attorney fucked up, right?
	Maybe if Donald Trump is convicted, then he might have some sort of bar complaint to submit.
	But guess who's the person who gets to submit that motherfucker?
	It's not your bald head ass.
	It's Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump is the one who would have to report because he has that attorney-client relationship.
	You do not.
	You know nothing about this.
	You know nothing about this case and has no standing to submit that complaint.
	In fact, when you submit a complaint to the bar, you have to certify that you have personal knowledge of this case.
	This man could not do that.
	He has no personal knowledge of this case and he wouldn't dare do that because in fact, he could get in trouble for submitting a false bar complaint.
	So what he had to say about attorneys was not just wrong.
	It was vile and disgusting and really goes against the spirit of the American legal system.
	God damn.
	Go off, man.
	Give you a dynamic.
	I'm sorry, bro.
	I'm sorry, bro.
	When I see attorneys do that shit, when I see attorneys do that shit, it's disgusting.
	It is vile.
	And this is exactly why I have my channel because I see people do these things.
	They're unethical and they do them again and again and again and again.
	That is not what justice should be.
	Justice should be giving a fair defense or giving a fair case to everybody, right?
	There's a fair prosecution.
	There's a fair defense.
	We play by the fucking rules.
	We don't say, hey, you represented a person I don't like, right?
	They don't like Trump, right?
	Anybody who represents Trump, they want to get rid of all those lawyers.
	They want to try those lawyers for crimes for defending their clients.
	That is disgusting.
	That is vile.
	And the fact that he even brought that up is really is really horrible.
	And I'm really glad because I'm learning right now.
	I'm really glad I had you on because I genuinely thought I was like, damn, maybe she's in trouble.
	Maybe she could get referred to the bar for this.
	So you're saying that what he just said is a moot point.
	It's not going to happen.
	It's cap on.
	It's never going to happen.
	There's no fucking way that the attorney gets brought up on criminal charges.
	There's no way.
	I'm telling you guys, it's not happening.
	It's not happening.
	The fact that he said that from going to the storage room, that's like their allegation is she kept them from going the FBI from going to the storage room and she certified a document that wasn't true and correct.
	So you don't see, you know, for worst case scenario, worst case scenario, after if Trump is convicted or fined or whatever, he's punished in some way.
	If, if, once again, if.
	So if we get there, Trump could file a bar complaint, right?
	And the worst that would probably happen was probably they'd be probably they might be suspended or might be fined or might be punished, right?
	I don't think they're going to get disbarred for it.
	I don't think it was a big enough issue.
	Gotcha.
	So the whole thing.
	Disbarment is serious.
	Disbarment and disparate usually involves, frankly, the biggest reason people get disbarred.
	So everybody in your audience knows is from embezzling money, frankly.
	So if you take your clients' money, they actually, actually, you know what's funny, Myron?
	You can do Coke.
	You can get drunk.
	You can have a DY.
	That probably won't get you disbarred.
	What get you disparaged is taking your client's money.
	Oh, shit.
	Okay.
	I learned something new every day.
	So, so, um, so you're saying the only person that even really has the authority to refer her to the bar is Donald Trump himself.
	No one else, really.
	They don't really have standing.
	The only other people that might are the prosecutors, if they have actual knowledge that Trump's lawyer did that.
	But other than the federal prosecutors or Donald Trump, there's really nobody else who has standing to do that.
	These are the people don't have standing to do that.
	Gotcha.
	Gotcha.
	And the federal prosecutor would have to have a good amount of information to be able to do it.
	Because if you make a bullshit allegation to the bar, you can lose yours.
	Somebody risk.
	They would have to.
	I don't think the federal, yeah.
	So if I was, I'm saying they could do it, but I don't think the federal prosecutor would do it because you have to understand the relationship between attorney and client, what was said, what wasn't said, to realize whether they breached their duty.
	Because that's the duty that's being breached that can be potentially criminal is if you breach a duty to your client.
	How the fuck does anybody know that?
	Judge, this Justice Ritter, he doesn't know shit about the attorney-client relationship.
	He knows nothing.
	He's completely making this shit up just like he made up the Russia shit.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	That dude learns something new every day, which is why it's great to have.
	I didn't know I was going to get turned up on this one, man.
	This is giving me the truth because in my head, I was like, damn, can she be referred to the bar for this?
	That's a bombshell.
	It's only really Trump that can refer her.
	That's only Trump in this case.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	Yourself and your profession on the line in service of or on behalf of someone like Donald Trump who's known to lie.
	I mean, like, just from a judgment standpoint, wouldn't it be smart of her to have, you know, everyone lies, bro?
	No one, you know, like, how, come on, man.
	These social, these SJWs, man, make it look like everyone is 100% honest all the time.
	Everyone fucking lies.
	Matter of fact, one of the FBI agents that was involved in busting the 9-11 case, one of the biggest things he got was to get turned informant was he said a bunch of Lebanese people were killed in the 9-11 attacks.
	And that's how he was able to go ahead and identify a bunch of people that were in charge of the 9-11 attacks.
	Like everyone lies, bro.
	You know what I mean?
	That's what maybe not predicated her this entire thing on trusting what Donald Trump says.
	Yeah.
	But let's, you know, let's recognize that she is now one of a long line of attorneys that Donald Trump has touched and they have died, right?
	Every attorney Donald Trump touched on the dynamics.
	I think died.
	We're looking at Mike Coleman Woods, you've got John.
	Once again, people they've gone after politically.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	These are these are attorneys that they're going after politically.
	It's not because it's not because they represent the representation of Trump.
	Like it's because of their prosecution for other things, right?
	So it's collateral things that have ended up getting them in trouble.
	That's true.
	That is true.
	Clark, a little bit of an outlier.
	He was a Department of Justice high official who joined Donald Trump's conspiracy to overturn the results of the election.
	Oh, God.
	There we go.
	See, Bob will join that.
	You know, one six was getting in there, baby.
	They're going to work one six in any way they can.
	They're like, they're like, it's like a, it's like a challenge.
	Like, let's get one six into this.
	You know, let's throw that in there.
	Like, how can we get, how can we mention it?
	It's totally not related to this at all.
	It's completely irrelevant.
	You know, capital riots have zero to do with this.
	Nothing.
	Who, according to Christina Bob, is the one who really conducted the search of Mar-a-Lago for additional classified materials and then told me he didn't find any.
	So you already have two of Donald Trump's lawyers doing a little bit of finger pointing.
	You had mentioned.
	I think that's what he's doing with this dude right now.
	Possible that Trump could still run for president from prison.
	Is there any punishment here that would preclude him from being able to hold federal office?
	No.
	The restrictions on somebody running for the presidency are few and far between.
	Is it practical that he could run?
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Myron, pause it real quick.
	Yep, go ahead.
	That's the first true thing I've heard him say.
	That's the first thing I can say.
	That statement right there is actually true.
	So he actually just said true.
	He admitted, he admitted that Donald Trump can run from president, even if, even if technically he was in prison, which is actually true.
	He could run for president.
	So he admitted it.
	So, so one point, like one point, he's got all these negatives.
	Like, fucking, he's, he's a negative 100, but he got one thing right there.
	I'm going to do a poll in the chat.
	Do y'all think that Trump would win?
	And do you think he would win against Biden?
	Could he win?
	Could he win?
	Yeah, could he win?
	I'm going to go ahead and put a poll in the chat right now.
	Could he win from jail?
	Could he win from jail, gentlemen, is the real question?
	I mean, he's running against Biden.
	So, you know, yeah, that's that's a W. That's an easy, that's an easy W. Guys, do me a quick favor, by the way.
	There's 948 of you guys watching.
	We got a special Saturday Feder for y'all.
	So go ahead and please like the video, sub to the channel.
	And then also check out Andrew.
	I got all his links below.
	He's on locals, Instagram, and YouTube as well.
	Check it out, Legal Mindset.
	His links are below.
	I'll tell you guys this right now.
	No one gives you guys more thorough breakdowns of the whole Trump investigation slash Trump search warrant than us.
	We've been looking at it.
	We're the only ones that have been actually going through the legal documents.
	Everyone I see that talks about this shit, none of them actually pull up their legal documents.
	We read the legal documents alongside you guys and interpret it appropriately.
	Okay.
	Oh, go ahead.
	No, but I don't think there is a legal prohibition.
	Of course, that's something that the Supreme Court has never taken up because, you know, go figure, we've never had a presidential candidate behind bars during the campaign.
	So, but no, I think practically speaking, that's a non-starter.
	But that's just in this case, because there are other cases like the one being investigated regarding January 6th that would have those to him holding federal office in the future, correct?
	Exactly, because there are some statutes on the books.
	For example, a seditious conspiracy, I believe, that say if you are convicted of that crime, treason is another one of those crimes.
	If you are convicted, then the statutory punishment that the judge could impose includes banning someone from future federal office.
	So, in theory, that is one way to stop not only Donald Trump from running for office, but any other of the insurrectionists in Congress, if they are convicted of any of those charges, they and the way he says that presumes that these people are guilty once again.
	There's no proof.
	There's no proof of any of this.
	There's no case out there that's going to do any of this, but he's labeling other people in Congress as insurrectionalists.
	Pretty much he's saying, Hey, if you politically support this person, you're an insurrectionist.
	That is the definition of political warfare.
	That's the definition of having a political opinion.
	You know, and he gave away the ball in the beginning and he continues to give it away here.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So, I just put a poll in the chat: Can Trump beat Biden for presidency while in prison if indicted?
	And we'll see what y'all say.
	That'd be hilarious.
	That's the talking point of the day.
	My take on it.
	It's not like let's stop here real quick.
	It's not a fucking talking point.
	It's not a talking point.
	It's a court order.
	Like, it's not a talking point.
	This is literally the thing that you should have been focusing on because this is actually what the court is doing.
	It's not all this speculative stuff.
	The court has actually ruled on this.
	And I think it's very pertinent that the special master was something that was opposed by the DOJ.
	Yeah.
	Like Myron said, like Myron said, if he was in the DOJ and he was on this case, he would be like, yo, have your special master.
	Who cares?
	Somebody who's impartial.
	Why?
	Why?
	I mean, everyone hates the FBI right now.
	They think they're biased.
	The way to fix that is to bring in an unbiased person and have them review it.
	Why are you fighting an unbiased person coming in?
	Yeah, the taint team isn't good enough.
	Like on a regular investigation, sure.
	You can run that taint team situation.
	I've done it before in my investigations.
	Sure.
	But something like this with this type of national spotlight with a type of person that you're investigating, a former president of the United States, yes, let them have it.
	And obviously, the DOJ argued and said, this is just the Trump legal defense team trying to stave off the inevitable.
	Whatever.
	It is what it is.
	Because the thing is now, the reason why they're mad is because the FBI agents, for some of you guys that are wondering, the FBI just cannot go ahead and continue their criminal investigation while the special master is being selected and while the special master goes ahead and goes through the documents.
	That's another reason why, too, with the DOJ is mad because it sets back the investigation probably for a few months here because now Master's going to have to be involved and he's going to be the arbiter in between the two parties.
	Yep.
	Uh, and we'll keep running it.
	He separated out documents that don't pertain to this.
	No one really gives a shit about documents that weren't classified anyway.
	My idea is that bringing in a specialist.
	See, he's wrong.
	He's actually wrong about that because, yeah, see, this is how he doesn't know the statute.
	Like, and I'm, I don't know whether this guy is a lawyer or not.
	I guess he's just some fucking random YouTuber.
	Yeah, but it's like, okay, so actually, like we said, like we said before, if you wanted to make your case numb nuts, you could actually argue that whether he says, oh, nobody gives a shit about unclassified information.
	Well, actually, it can still be defense information, even if it's unclassified.
	Yeah, so yes, you do care about information that's not classified, buddy.
	You know, so I don't think he's understanding the actual legal nuances here, but I think a lot of people go into this with a lot of bravado about what the law is and isn't, and they end up being wrong.
	He's an actor, he's an actor.
	He's an he is from what I'm looking here on his way.
	I'm gonna look more, but it's he's an actor.
	And that's the other thing.
	Shifty YouTubing.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Yeah, you know, that's another thing, too, that I want to say as well.
	Uh, the difference between us and these other people, guys, you have a former federal agent that written hundreds of search warrants, and you have a lawyer here that's breaking all these things down for you guys.
	We're pulling up the statutes, we're going through the legal documents, we're actually reading it and deciphering it for you guys.
	I don't know anyone else on YouTube that's doing this, and we're doing it from an unbiased standpoint.
	Just like I said before, we do like Trump, we do support Trump.
	However, I'm telling y'all that I think he's going to get charged.
	And we think, well, I think me and Andrew both agree here that the 1519 charge, the 1819 charge, you know, that the obstruction charge that they that they have here, which you know, we read for you guys before, is extremely broad, okay?
	And it's the biggest runoff sentence I've ever seen.
	That is probably the U.S. government's strongest charge to go after Trump.
	All they need is one document.
	So, like, if there's one fucking document that's not privileged and they can get him on this, they can technically get him.
	Now, the judge is going to be like, okay, it's one document.
	Your fine is a hundred bucks.
	You know, go away.
	You know, yeah, it's it could be a de minimis thing, right?
	But then the, you know, then the Biden, the DOJ team gets to say, look, he did something wrong.
	We actually got him.
	You know, and the Trump team is like, womp, womp, because it's, it's so minor.
	Um, so I think this is going to be very interesting to follow and see what exactly it is.
	Yes, they can get him for this, but what exactly are they getting him for?
	Yep, exactly.
	He was in three movies: What happened last night?
	Submerge and Independence Day, all from 2016.
	That's what this guy is.
	He's an actor, the bad Independence Day, not the good Independence Day.
	Not the good one, Will Smith.
	This from all from 2016, which you know what?
	Now it all makes sense.
	This guy is one of these highly weird people.
	Um, that is who realized he's not going to go anywhere in acting, so he's got to go to YouTube and try to make that happen.
	Yeah, and he's got all the Hollywood lib support.
	Yes, and let's let's let's the cool thing to do is hate Trump, you know what I mean?
	That's the cool thing.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, you can't be in LA, southern LA, and and you know, in Southern California and LA, and like I mean, it's not possible, you'll be right there.
	You can't, you can't do it.
	Yeah, you're considered a bigot.
	Bo walk this whole thing so they have more time to obfuscate the facts.
	Do you do you have a read on this on this whole special special master situation?
	I do, it's all kind of uncharted territory.
	But here's what's for me: first of all, Judge Aileen Cannon, who is the judge that somehow got appointed to hear Donald Trump's demand to have a special master appointed.
	She's a federalist society member since 2005.
	Okay, that's some bullshit.
	See, I was trying to apply there real quick.
	I'm in my mid-20s.
	Here, go ahead.
	They try to throw this out there.
	It's like, oh, the federalist is the evil federal society.
	It's literally a club that you join, and it's a it's literally, I would say, half the law students are members of the federalist society, right?
	It's not as evil and maniacal as everyone thinks it is, right?
	And I think that she was appointed through a legal process, right?
	Through an actual legal process.
	It's not like she was appointed from some district that had no oversight over this.
	She's coming from Iowa down to Mar-a-Lago.
	No, she's she was an appropriate judge.
	So, to intimate here that she is in any way biased or that this process was improper, once again, shows this Justice Ritter's uh ignorance.
	Yeah, you know, and the big thing they say is like, Oh, well, he uh, he appointed her before, right?
	I mean, she's still hearing the case out, you know what I mean?
	She, the fact that she appointed a special master and she allowed it to happen, I don't think that's big of that big of a deal, you know what I mean?
	I mean, why not afford the defense every opportunity to appropriately defend themselves?
	You know what I mean?
	So, I look at it like you guys could go ahead and say that's biased.
	I look at it as she's the thing is people got to understand is that the judge, when in doubt, always say the defendant side.
	That is the United States innocent until proven guilty.
	It's on the, it's the government's burden of proof to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Not the defendants.
	Okay.
	So I look at it like given the chance.
	You're going to err with the side of the defendant typically.
	Where I could get the cheapest beer and pizza.
	Yeah.
	Judge Cannon has been a Federalist Society member since 2005.
	I think it's worth noting that not only was she nominated by Donald Trump, but she was confirmed by Mitch McConnell's Senate after Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.
	Why does that matter?
	Once again, none of this matters.
	She was confirmed.
	She was appointed and confirmed.
	Does that mean that every judge, once again, this is his flawed view?
	And this is how I can tell he's definitely not in the regular process.
	There's plenty of judges that are appointed by Obama that were appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by various senates.
	That doesn't mean that they're automatically like, once again, this judge is automatically going to be biased.
	There's plenty of good justices out there that go out and take their jobs seriously.
	Just because this man is biased and projecting his bias on other people doesn't mean that everybody else holds that same bias.
	I know many judges that are appointed by liberals that are relatively conservative in their personal lives, but give fair takes on the bench.
	The whole point of being an attorney or a judge is you're supposed to be impartial and put your personal political beliefs aside.
	But despite what people think, attorneys, judges are allowed to have political opinions.
	We can have political opinions.
	I can have political opinions.
	I could support whoever I wanted.
	Shout out to my boy Ron Paul hanging out in the fucking hospital right now, right?
	But I can go out there and defend who I want, right?
	If I wanted to go defend crooked Hillary, I could defend her, but I'm not going to do it.
	But, you know, I could, right?
	I could.
	I have the ability to do that, right?
	I have the ability to go out there and defend who I want, pick the clients who I want, regardless of whether my political beliefs align with theirs.
	And I have represented and do represent still, because I'm an actual practicing attorney.
	I represent clients who I don't necessarily agree with everything they say politically, everything they support, particularly some corporations that, hey, maybe they do one or two things I don't agree with.
	I can still represent them.
	That's the job of an attorney.
	You put your personal shit to the side and you do the job.
	He is not able to do that, but that doesn't mean other attorneys and judges aren't able to do that.
	And he comes from a world where he didn't have to do it, quite frankly.
	I mean, he came from a world, I mean, military prosecutor, bro, like it's, we got him.
	Guilty, guilty, guilty.
	Oh, you were grabbing ass in jail.
	Sorry, in the showers.
	Okay, we're going to get you for, you know, lewd conduct and give you a dishonorable or give you a demerit.
	Like that's the world he comes from, you know?
	Yeah.
	So, yeah.
	I mean, he could afford to be that way given his background.
	And background does matter to a degree, which influence, as you guys can see, influences his views on this.
	And Donald Trump made the demand that she appoint a special master.
	And here's something I've never seen in my 30 years as a prosecutor, Brian.
	The judge, before she even asked the prosecutors at the Department of Justice to state their opinion, to file their brief, to argue their case, she said, I tentatively am inclined to grant Donald Trump's request for a second master.
	That's not the way litigation.
	Hold up here.
	Hold up here.
	This is actually, okay, this right here is some bullshit because you saw how she gave, she gave them a chance not just to reply and answer, but then they had a second reply and answer.
	So the Justice Department, we went through it, Myron.
	There were two, there were two positions from the federal government, two papers from the federal government on why there should not be a federal master.
	And Donald Trump got two responses as to why there should be a federal master.
	So there was a lot, a lot of opportunity for them to argue their case.
	So the fact that he's implying right now that there was no ability to argue this, that they could not argue this is very disingenuous.
	The government had the opportunity to argue this, that there should not be a special master.
	And in fact, anybody who's an objective legal scholar here would say, and we're saying right now, you said it, the taint team is not enough.
	This objectively required some special master to go through it, determine what was privileged and not privileged.
	This thing that I think is pretty fair.
	I haven't spoken to a lawyer that I work with that I've been streaming with or ones that I know that have said, yeah, special master is uncalled for here.
	No, special master is a neutral third party.
	In fact, in fact, if he thinks this judge is so biased, he should like a special master because then that special master is going to not be biased like the judge.
	And not to mention, the special master that's going to come in is a guy that authorized an investigation on a Trump campaign person.
	You know what I mean?
	There you go.
	So, I mean, I don't want to hear nothing about biases or whatever.
	Hear from both parties, and then you make your announcement, whether tentative or final.
	She didn't do that.
	Now she's kind of found herself in a tough spot because the Department of Justice filed a motion that legally and factually knocks out of the box every legal argument Donald Trump's defense team made as to why she should appoint a special master.
	Here's what I suspect she's going to do.
	I make this prediction at my own peril.
	She's going to try to save face by say, well, I'll appoint a special master only to review those few potential attorney-client privilege documents that the prosecutors have already set aside and segregated as part of their privilege review process.
	Not what happens.
	He's wrong on this prediction.
	Go ahead, that's not what happened.
	He's running this prediction.
	They're reviewing all potentially attorney-client privilege documents.
	So he's wrong on that prediction.
	This is a good, this is a good pause for him because this is the level of incredulousness is this level of the image right now.
	It's out of control.
	Yeah.
	No, I mean, yeah, the thing is, is that they're going to have to look at everything.
	Like, I don't think people understand the gravity of privilege information.
	Guys, I'm telling you as a former federal agent, if I came across privilege information, it was a problem.
	Okay.
	I could not use it.
	It could have been in there.
	Yo, I did the fucking crime.
	Fuck the police.
	I'm the guy.
	I did it.
	Woo.
	You know, Ric Flair type shit.
	It cannot be used.
	Can't be used, guys.
	Matter of fact, when you're wiretapping someone and you're listening to their phones, if they have any type of inkling of a conversation with a lawyer, you must turn the monitoring off.
	Yep.
	Privilege information is very, very serious, guys.
	They're not going to appoint a special master, you know, out of some bullshit.
	Obviously, the FBI tank team is not enough, especially with a situation like this.
	You know, the lion's share of the documents, which were the classified materials that Trump stole and was illegally concealing at Mar-a-Lago.
	That gives her an opportunity to save face.
	But here's the thing: we saw in the government's reply to Donald Trump's motion that they have already reviewed all the documents and they're already following up on all of the investigative leads and the national security leads to assess the damage that may have been done to our national security.
	So, look, the horse is out of the barn and galloping around in the evidentiary field, and it really doesn't make sense to close the barn door now by appointing a special master.
	Okay, so that's over this.
	Like that analogy made no fucking sense whatsoever.
	Like, he just wanted to throw some random analogy in there to sound folksy.
	I mean, that yeah, he's basically arguing that, yo, um, it doesn't matter anymore because he's going to get charged anyway.
	And the reality is, well, no, it does matter because if there's stuff in there that's privileged, the government can't fucking use it.
	Right.
	It's extremely important.
	And maybe that removes the 793.
	And maybe you can't move ahead on 793, which once again, it's not a full W, but it's definitely, it would remove one potential cause of action.
	Maybe that's why they're fighting so hard because this whole 793 argument is over stuff that's privileged, whether it's attorney, client, or executive privilege.
	And by the way, we don't know the scope of executive privilege.
	That's something that we could argue on a little bit more.
	I think maybe, you know, if this guy said, what is executive privilege?
	And I said, what is executive privilege?
	We'd probably argue on it.
	And there's no case law.
	So we're just making an argument.
	Would people argue, oh, Nixon?
	Oh, there's case law on it from Nixon?
	No, right?
	It's not really.
	No, no, it's not really.
	It's not the same scenario.
	So we'll see.
	We'll see what happens with that.
	But in this case, it is possible 793 could be removed.
	It does have an impact.
	And it's not going to have no effect.
	It can have a serious effect on this case.
	Yeah.
	So they actually did an interview with Trump a couple of like a day or two ago.
	And basically, this is, I'll just turn it to y'all and let you guys see what happened when they asked questions.
	Hey, Trump, if you're indicted, what would happen?
	And it's amazing how they kind of ran with this, which I think is ridiculous.
	But let's go ahead and play it.
	Explosive new interview.
	Former President Trump warns there could be big trouble if he's indicted over those top secret documents sees from Mar-a-Lago.
	Here's CBS's Major Garrett.
	He shouldn't be coming, but yeah.
	Former President Trump says he quotes.
	Yeah, I don't know why.
	I wish he didn't see it.
	This is Trump, though.
	Trump just says, you know, that's the one here.
	Like, as much as you may like or hate Trump, his problem is he doesn't know when to shut the up.
	Yeah, he's really gotta just let everybody know you are fake news.
	Yeah, yeah, being indicted.
	And these are pictures here, guys, um, that they got from Mar-a-Lago with the cover sheets, you know, top the FBI video.
	This is the FBI photo that they clearly placed it like that.
	That was not how Trump kept the document.
	That's how he kept it.
	Yeah, the FBI staged it clearly because they cut out pieces of white paper and put it over it.
	And you can see there's white paper in that upper left corner.
	You can see there's white paper underneath the top.
	So each layer has like a piece of white paper over it, which means they placed it like that.
	The FBI placed it like that.
	It over his handling of classified documents after leaving office.
	And he warned of unrest if charges were brought.
	I think you'd have problems in this country, the likes of which perhaps we've never seen before.
	I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it.
	Democrats slam.
	And nothing he said there was like a lot.
	I mean, maybe it's a little bit of an exaggeration saying, like, we've never seen before because you know, we kind of have had an actual civil war at one point.
	But, like, but like, okay, like, would there be definitely unrest?
	Would there be protests?
	Would there be people pissed off?
	Yes, like for sure.
	You know what's funny?
	They so Trump says this, and they try to insinuate that he's like gonna, you know, start incite some kind of violence.
	But, you know, when George Floyd got killed, or when there's some type of uh police situation where a black man is killed or someone is killed, no one has no issue when they say, Yeah, we're gonna take to the streets, we're gonna go ahead, we're gonna give them hell, blah, blah, blah.
	No one says about that at all.
	In fact, in fact, they're trying to make that behavior more legal.
	Yeah, they're trying to make than they have been.
	There's states like Illinois, which just passed a law, which will make a lot of the stuff that happened during those protests, those riots, those burnings, actually legal and non-detainable.
	So you're able, so the police officers aren't even able to stop people that are trespassing, burning, looting, you know, which is really sad that that behavior is condoned.
	But speaking up and giving your political opinion, how fucking dare you?
	Like, I mean, nothing that Trump said is a lie there.
	People are going to obviously have an issue with it if he's indicted.
	There's people that aren't going to stand for it.
	Nothing you said is a lie.
	That's true.
	But they're going to go ahead and try to twist that and say, yo, he's inciting violence.
	But when the situation happened with George Floyd, et cetera, people running around saying, defund the police, let's riot in the streets.
	Let's attack businesses.
	None of that energy is there for these guys at all, which I find very, very interesting.
	And the remarks.
	Inviting the mob to return to the streets is exactly what happened here, January 6, 2021.
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on.
	Did we not remember how we did a show?
	Um, Andrew, when we talked about the Chauvin situation with George Floyd, etc.
	Yeah, wasn't there a senator or someone that was out there?
	Maxime Waters, her name, old Maxime Waters, who legit, who legit said, let's take it to the streets and get confrontational.
	She actually called for incitement and insurrection against the government against a legal judicial decision.
	She called for rioting and rebellion in the face of a legal decision if it didn't come out exactly how she won.
	And by the way, not just the guilty.
	Remember, she said not just guilty, but guilty on all charges.
	Yep.
	If it's not guilty on all charges, which I mean, to say that was beyond ridiculous.
	And the fact is, she wasn't sanctioned by the court.
	She wasn't brought up on insurrection charges, but she actually called for insurrection in a way that Donald Trump never has, never as directly as that.
	Yeah.
	And that's what I'm trying to say.
	Like, they didn't bite an eye with that.
	The CNN didn't cover that.
	Nobody covered that.
	You know, they just covered, oh, no, Trump.
	Yeah, he's inciting violence, blah, blah, blah.
	But no one said anything about this chick literally out there on the streets protesting against the very government that she works for.
	Hold on, Ryan Ransom.
	I take offense to that.
	I take offense to that because we covered that.
	Yeah, we did cover that.
	And we are the coverage, baby.
	We are the coverage.
	That's why you got to like and subscribe, motherfuckers.
	Yeah.
	Because we are the coverage because you're not getting it from them.
	You're getting it from us.
	Yeah.
	And actually, I got to find on our video right now.
	I'm trying to find the clip of her saying that crazy shit.
	That was that was fucking nuts.
	It's Maxime Waters, George Floyd statements.
	You can see.
	Yeah, Maxine Waters.
	Chauvin trial.
	I have it here somewhere.
	And guys, you guys are wondering, this is what we're talking about here.
	Me and Andrew did a really base take on this where he talked about new info-free Chauvin breakdown of appeal with legal mindset unbiased.
	Basically, we talked about how Chauvin was filing an appeal.
	There, he had a pretty strong appeal here.
	We went through it and uh broke it down, and um, you know, uh, but here I'm trying to find here back to appeal papers, okay.
	You know what?
	Yeah, the problem is the problem is that too many people uh like I was trying to find the clip, but too many people were commenting on it instead of showing the actual video.
	And like the one thing I try to do, and we always try to do on the channel is like show you the video.
	So, uh, and we showed it on that one, um, so you guys can go back and find that one.
	But uh, once again, it's in partial justice, and the only thing that I call for is equal justice.
	I'm okay with investigating crimes.
	In fact, like I said, I'm okay with investigating whatever you think is a crime, but let's see it done to both sides.
	Let's see it done equally to both sides.
	Yeah, that's my final thing.
	Let me pull it up real quick.
	And this is what we go.
	Like, they're not going to talk about this anywhere else, right?
	They're going to like, it's okay when you got people like her out here saying, like, yeah, protests, and we need to get more confrontational.
	A message, and everybody's going to take it very differently.
	Some people may think, okay, me speaking to the what there could be, but also seeming to attack and almost threaten the court system.
	That look, if we don't get the verdict that we want, there could be consequences.
	I think when you have a person, all right, hold on.
	Where's it?
	Did it play it right there in the beginning?
	Did it play it in the beginning?
	No, it didn't.
	Let me right there, right there, right there.
	Did it play right here?
	But also seeming to attack and almost threaten the court.
	Let's get her actual clip here.
	I think this was it.
	I think that's it.
	A very difficult time in the history of this country.
	Despite the fact that we know that people of color have been killed too, often unarmed young men, in particular, black men, have been killed.
	We know that we're now coming to the end of the George Claude trial.
	And that I suppose the closing arguments are going to be made on that case coming Monday.
	And we're really just almost at the beginning of what is happening with our young man, Dante Wright, who was killed.
	And that we have to persist in calling for justice.
	We have to let people know that we're not going to be satisfied unless we get justice in these cases.
	And so I just could not sleep.
	I could not rest.
	I could not be satisfied without coming here to let the family know and the friends know and the people of this community know.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	All those who have organized for justice that I stand with you and I'm going to stand not only with you, but continue to fight in every way that I can for justice.
	For justice.
	No, they cut it out.
	Oh, they cut it out.
	They cut it out.
	This thing, the fucking Guardian cut it out.
	Here, I am very close to.
	Look where she's from, California, of course.
	You can, you can, by the way, this is how you can tell they're trying to hide this.
	Yeah.
	How hard do we have to look to get this?
	Yeah.
	Again, see, see what I mean, guys?
	This is what they do.
	And they pretend they don't do it, but they do it.
	They cut it out.
	They remove it because they fucking want to memory hole it.
	They want to send it down this hole where you can't find it.
	It's nowhere on the internet.
	You know, it's, it's just, it's vantage.
	But let's see.
	I think this may say it right.
	Verdict that say guilty, guilty, guilty.
	And if we don't, we cannot go away.
	And not just manslaughter, right?
	I mean, oh, no, not manslaughter.
	No, no, no.
	This is this is guilty.
	Murder.
	I don't know whether it's in the first degree, but as far as I'm concerned, it's first degree.
	Congresswoman, what happens if we do not go get what you just told?
	What should the people do?
	What should protesters on the street do?
	I didn't hear you.
	What happens?
	What should protesters do?
	Well, we got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active.
	We've got to get more confrontational.
	We've got to make sure that they know that we make this.
	Yep.
	So there it was.
	It was get more active, more confrontational.
	If they don't get what they want, if they don't get a guilty guilty, by the way, he wasn't even charged with first-degree murder.
	She's out there saying first-degree murder.
	She's not even charged with it.
	And by the way, Mike is 100 on this.
	There was jury tampering during the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
	They were literally following the jury bus trying to dox the jurors.
	Yep.
	In this case, nobody covered that.
	Nobody said, I mean, I covered it on my channel, and that's kind of what I'm doing.
	Yeah, we need to do Rittenhouse.
	They've been asking for that.
	We need to do a written house.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, we can 100% do Rittenhouse, but they fucking, they absolutely were unethical in more than one way, every way.
	And once again, you're exactly right.
	That's the no equal justice under the law, right?
	George Floyd gets everything.
	Kyle Rittenhouse, no justice, right?
	He got off, but he got off by the skin of his fucking teeth with the other people doing all the dirty tricks.
	Fresh, bro, get on your ship, bro.
	That was like fucking years ago, man.
	Like, bro.
	You just wake up.
	That's why you're down this stream right now.
	We got to have some IQ over here, man.
	Come on.
	Come on, man.
	Typical Fresh L comment.
	Thank you, sir.
	But no, man.
	I mean, dude, this is the crazy world that we're in.
	I've said it before.
	People can go ahead and get mad at me.
	I don't give a fuck what they think.
	Yo, the Rand House case was probably the most clear-cut demonstration of self-defense I've ever seen in my life.
	And the fact that they went ahead and said, oh, yo, he's a murderer.
	He was killing black people.
	And he killed black people.
	Myron, there's still people that think he shot three black dudes.
	There's still people that think he shot three black guys.
	Molester and he killed another dude who were both what?
	Caucasian.
	And that's white for all you fucking idiots out there.
	Stupid.
	But they're saying that he kills black people.
	Ridiculous.
	It is ridiculous.
	Ridiculous, bro.
	People are fucking stupid.
	We had to kick three girls off the show yesterday because they're stupid.
	One girl goes to USC.
	One thing I've realized is that the more educated people are, a lot of the times the more indoctrinated they are and the less intelligent they are.
	Education does not necessarily mean intelligence.
	It's incredible the level of stupidity.
	And what I'm starting to realize, Andrew, too, is that people lack the ability to critically think.
	Yes.
	I'll give you a question.
	They don't teach that.
	They don't teach that anymore.
	They don't teach critical thinking.
	They teach two guys right here.
	We've told you guys we like Trump.
	We support Trump.
	We are going to go ahead and disclose our personal biases.
	However, we're on this fucking stream telling you guys right now, even though we like Trump, that more than likely, based off of the facts, fuck our feelings, there's a good chance he's going to get indicted.
	And we gave you guys the charges more than likely the government has the strongest case on him with, regardless of the fact of how we feel, because we think that this is what's going to happen.
	Based fuck our personal preferences.
	But these other commentators aren't going to tell y'all that.
	They're going to go ahead and say, Trump's an asshole, blah, blah, blah.
	Now I give you guys the other side.
	We're keeping it fairly unbiased here, I would say, regardless of our personal, you know, like or dislike for Trump.
	I still think he's going to get indicted.
	I'm keeping an objective here.
	But it's crazy to me how these lip tards, right?
	These weirdos out here, Zubi actually came up with a good term for it.
	He called them authoritarian leftists.
	I love it.
	Right?
	Because it's full-blown TDS.
	The only thing that powers them is this derangement.
	And it's kind of funny, too, because you see that when Trump goes away, they got nothing, you know, and they'll either start attacking each other, which happens in a lot of different issues and places, or their whole position falls apart because they really got nothing to stand on.
	It's just, yeah, we don't like that guy.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I get it.
	But like, other than not liking that guy, what do you got?
	And the answer is nothing.
	We're able to exercise critical thought regardless of how we feel about a situation, which is what we're doing here.
	But these other people, you ain't going to, no, you're not going to see that.
	Said he declassified the sensitive documents found in unsecured locations at his Mar-a-Lago residence.
	This, Trump suggested, should absolve him.
	I have the absolute right to declassify.
	Absolute.
	A president has that absolute right.
	Trump's attorneys have not made this argument in court filings, legally speaking.
	It doesn't need to be made yet.
	Yeah, I was going to say, like, you guys got to remember that it's the government that's got to go ahead and make the attack.
	The defense sits back and waits and has their has their stuff ready to go.
	Yep.
	No.
	You're not going to see what the defense has to say.
	You're going to see what the prosecution has to say.
	Classified is irrelevant.
	It's a question of mishandling national security information, even if they have been declassified.
	Meanwhile, Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, having been subpoenaed, is now, according to CNN, cooperating with the Justice Department investigation into January 6th.
	At least 40 Trump associates have been subpoenaed in recent weeks, part of a widening probe into efforts to overturn the presidential election.
	That is also the focus in Georgia, where a grand jury is investigating Trump-led maneuvers to undercut the state's 2020 results.
	The district attorney told the Washington Post.
	Again, this is unrelated.
	So the fact that CBS is trying to make this the same thing as it just shows you they're once again trying to correlate all these things into one.
	They're not related.
	They're completely unrelated.
	Yeah.
	That's a whole other thing.
	Yeah.
	Do you think the state of Georgia is going to indict him on this?
	It's a separate, it's a separate thing.
	Honestly, frankly, I haven't looked at this one, but I don't think that he directly will be indictable on this.
	I think that the actions will go down a step or two lower on the lottery if there is anything, but I haven't looked into it.
	So I don't want to comment on something that I haven't looked into enough specifically.
	I don't have enough on this either, so I can't speak on it.
	Also, we got to be very fucking careful how we cover election stuff on YouTube because that still is a touchy subject, unfortunately, that we can't talk about.
	Like we can't keep it 100 and say exactly everything we could say about the elections.
	Exactly.
	Anything concerning the cough, cough, and this stuff is pretty much off limits on YouTube.
	Yep.
	But yeah, as usual, they're deflecting.
	This has nothing to do with the documents.
	I don't even know why they're bringing up the Georgia 2020 election, but that's what they do, moving the goalposts as usual, right?
	So let's see here.
	Did I have anything else here?
	And then, of course, this guy, Cohen, right?
	He pulls out this thing.
	Trump emulates himself with dumbest statement possible at rally.
	I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but this guy to tell Merrick Garland to charge Donald Trump sign here.
	Here's another thing, too.
	Merrick Garland was designated by Trump, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't he?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no.
	Merrill Garland tried to get appointed when Trump, when Obama was on the way out, like and Trump was on the way in.
	The Republicans were like, nah, we're going to wait.
	And he didn't get appointed.
	So he's salty.
	So Merrick Garland has a grudge against Trump because Trump wasn't going to appoint him.
	It turns out he was Merrick Garland was pitched by Obama.
	Oh, he's a centrist.
	He's a central judge.
	No, he's extraordinarily left.
	And by the way, even by the way, Trump, too, even some of the justices he's picked aren't as conservative as you think they are.
	They just ruled one of them, Kavanaugh, which, you know, people were making fun of him for that Dobbs decision, the one that set back Roe.
	But guess what?
	He just sided with an LGBTQ club over a Jewish university, right?
	So, you know, shows exactly how conservative and biased he is.
	Right.
	So it's just very interesting.
	But we're going to see a lot of court cases that'll be very interesting going forward.
	And what happens with the court will be very interesting going forward.
	And remember, this case could potentially also come before the Supreme Court because of the issue of executive privilege, which has never been brought up before, which honestly would be the first new area of law.
	This would be a new area of law that is breached for the first time in history.
	So absolutely.
	Absolutely, man.
	So I guess so.
	We'll give the guys, do me a favor.
	There's 929 of you guys in here.
	Please like the video.
	Like I said, y'all get a special episode of Fede here because, like I said, we're going to go to London tomorrow.
	And Andrew, thank you so much for coming on and sharing your professional stuff.
	I learned a bunch myself.
	I did not know that Trump's attorney.
	It's pretty much Trump that can really refer her to the bar.
	Yes, that is the main person who can do it.
	That is the person who would do it.
	That's the person that would actually sting.
	If Trump does it, then yes, the attorney could potentially be in trouble.
	But for Trump doing it, no, no, no.
	A rando reporting someone to the bar is not going to get somebody in trouble.
	In fact, that Rando might even get in trouble themselves, particularly if that Rando is a lawyer who doesn't know shit about what they're talking about, like this bald head motherfucker right there.
	I'll read some of these chats.
	Colonel Sanders 20 Bus goes got banned from a coffee shop for saying fat chicks are unhealthy and don't belong on a swimsuit issue.
	They do belong on Wells Weekly, though.
	Trump 2024, Make America Florida.
	There you go, man.
	Man, the harpoons, boys.
	Man the harpoons.
	Okay, fucking fat girls.
	Nobody likes fat girls.
	God damn it.
	Get them out of here.
	I'm an Asia.
	I don't know what a fat girl is.
	Oh, yeah.
	They don't even have it.
	They don't even have the, I don't know what that is.
	That's an extinct species.
	Yeah, just like nobody wants that.
	Me and Daniel goes, Gracie and YouTube collab with Fed and legal points of view, making sense of all the facts.
	We got y'all, baby.
	Like I told you guys before, I really don't mean to toot my own horn here and talk shit, but there is no one else on YouTube that's going to go ahead and have a former Fed and a attorney still practicing, by the way, giving you guys this sauce, reading legal documents with you guys.
	These other ass clowns are not reading the documents.
	You think this Cohen ass clown is reading documents?
	You don't even know what the hell some of these charges are.
	He's not.
	And once again, he's a YouTuber and the judge is not practicing at all.
	And once again, he's not even actual attorney in the real U.S. justice system.
	He's a military.
	Totally separate.
	And he's retired.
	He's not in that anymore.
	Yeah.
	Like, like prosecutor, you know, in the military is not the same as a federal prosecutor, AUSA, who actually tries these cases.
	Like, and I hate that they don't go ahead and delineate what their actual experience is.
	Okay.
	You said, oh, I did a national security case with an army guy, blah, blah, blah.
	Bro, if it was that serious, you would not be handling it.
	It would be the FBI and it would be AUSA.
	They would be the ones doing it.
	All right.
	Anything that's espionage and of serious national security magnitude, they're not going to go ahead and get your dumbass in it.
	Sorry, guys.
	Hold on, Discord.
	That's Sneeko hit me.
	They're not going to go ahead and bring a fucking military prosecutor in from the UCMJ.
	It's going to be 100% the U.S. Attorney's Office.
	Okay.
	And the U.S. Attorney's Office, I hate to say it, has way more weight than a military prosecutor, bro.
	Sorry.
	Oh, yeah.
	I do remember this, bro.
	Shout out to Colonel Sanders.
	I do remember when we hung out in 2020.
	That was fucking balling.
	So yeah, that was good, bro.
	Shout out to you, brother.
	Totally forgot Andrew Hungarian with MLD in Orlando 2020.
	I barely remember that night, but it was lit.
	Black dude who carried.
	Okay.
	Yep.
	I remember that, brother.
	Thoughts on DeSantis moving illegals to blue states.
	Oh, you want to do that?
	That's fucking.
	And I think it's great because it puts it on the offensive.
	And by the way, they've been shipping illegals all over the United States for the last months.
	I mean, thousands of illegals across the country.
	They do it all the time.
	They ship them to the heartland.
	They ship them to, you know, small communities.
	They ship them to communities that are unable to support them, that do not have the services to support them.
	And the fact that they ship them to these entitled assholes in Martha's Vineyard, who have everything, who have everything, when they've declared their state a sanctuary state, right?
	They're sanctuary states or sanctuary cities, but these are only things they say.
	They do not back them up.
	It's always easy to be a sanctuary state when you're nowhere near the fucking border.
	When you're a border state, whether you're Texas or whether you're Florida, and Florida has a maritime border, right?
	And, you know, obviously Cuba, Venezuela, a lot coming in from that direction.
	But when you're not a border state, when you're fucking in the northeast of the United States, it's easy to say you're a sanctuary state.
	But then when you, are you going to back it up?
	Are you going to provide these people with what you say you're going to do or are you all talk?
	Is it just the sign you put out front?
	And it turns out that they substituted their BLM, their, you know, all lives matter, their, you know, human rights, you know, what is it, you know, whatever, you know, their human rights signs for surveillance 24-7, no trespassing.
	They put out those no trespassing signs real quick when the illegals showed up and when they weren't mowing their lawns.
	Let's keep it 100, right?
	Let's fucking keep it 100.
	Yeah.
	And shout out to Sneeko in the chat.
	Sneeko, I didn't call you, bro.
	He's saying that I called him.
	But whatever you say, bro.
	But I will say this, you know, coming from Homeland Security, where I did immigration investigations myself, criminal immigration investigations, not administrative, which are two different things, by the way.
	Yeah, the sanctuary states are always weird blue states that are nowhere near the border.
	That's 100% true.
	You know, typically, California, yes, it's on the border, but you would have to go far up north for them to actually like, you know, give you some type of sanctuary.
	You know, say, you know, LA, you'd pretty much be safe because they're very liberal over there.
	San Francisco, et cetera.
	But yeah, typically, yeah, man.
	I mean, it's wild to me how.
	Oh, man.
	I don't even want to talk about.
	Yeah, it's, but it's wild.
	It's wild to me how it's wild to me how they can turn these away and say, oh, we can't handle it.
	Same thing with, by the way, there were Texas governor sent them to Chicago as well.
	And Chicago's like, oh, we can't handle them.
	I'm like, you're a sanctuary city.
	Like, what the fuck?
	Yeah, you are a sanctuary city.
	You said you wanted these people.
	And DeSantis, his justification is like, look, you said you're able to handle them.
	We don't tolerate this.
	We're not a state that is a sanctuary city.
	So we're sending them where you're better equipped, right?
	You said you adopted this.
	Now, are you going to go rescind your sanctuary status?
	Is that something you're no longer going to do?
	And of course, you know, what it really means is what it really means is they don't want to report them to the INS.
	They don't want to report them to immigration.
	Right.
	And of course, they didn't want to, they did all that under Trump, but now that it's Biden, oh, well, you know, it's Biden.
	So we got to trust Biden's immigration policy.
	We got to trust the fact that he wants to let people in the country.
	It's very interesting.
	Yeah.
	Like I said, see, people want all these benefits, but they don't realize who's going to have to pay for them.
	They don't realize that, okay, when you let illegal immigrants in, who's going to pay for that?
	Okay.
	When you want to go ahead and forgive everyone suited that who's going to pay for that?
	You know, and they don't understand the concept of consequences.
	Okay.
	You want pros, but without with pros, there's always going to be cons.
	You can't have it all.
	You can't.
	No.
	Okay.
	It's incredible to me how people think that they should be able to get the utmost of something while simultaneously and not having to forego something else.
	That's just the way things work.
	If you're getting a plus, there's always going to be a negative.
	There can be no yin without no yang.
	There's an up, there must be a down.
	And people think it's only upside, no negative.
	And that's exactly what we break down to people on a daily basis.
	You do it with hoes.
	I do it with the law.
	And sometimes we do it together here on FedEx and we break down these prosecutions.
	So, I mean, that's why that's why we're here, Myron.
	Yeah, no, absolutely, man.
	Giving people the reality of what the hell's going on here.
	But no, I think it's hilarious to just to get my personal way in.
	I think it's hilarious that they ship these guys off to these sanctuary states.
	I think it's fucking great.
	And the memes are fantastic.
	You guys haven't seen some of these memes, uh, like the Obama's faces over the McCloskeys with the guns.
	You know, the guys who are out there on the lawn with the guns and see Obama's faces in Martha's Vineyard.
	It's hilarious.
	I mean, uh, it's absolutely hilarious that they sent them specifically to Martha's Vineyard, one of the most affluent places in the United States.
	Yeah, and they said, Oh, we don't have the resources.
	Are you kidding me?
	Yep, yep, because a bunch of these states have issues with like any type of immigration.
	I mean, I remember when I was a uh, when I was an agent, guys, there were certain places like if you went to go ahead and serve a warrant for like human smuggling conspiracy, like a smuggler that was smuggling in illegal aliens, sometimes the local PDs would not assist you.
	No, depending on where you were.
	I know Austin PD was notorious for that.
	If you had a warrant for somebody, right, and it was a federal warrant where it was an immigration violation, but it was a criminal immigration violation, human smuggling conspiracy, whatever.
	And these guys are U.S. citizens, by the way.
	The idiots that are coordinating and orchestrating all these things where people are getting killed, hurt while being transported into the United States illegally, these are U.S. citizens overseeing these operations most of the time, or green card holders that, quite frankly, don't deserve to be green card holders committing crimes in the United States.
	Right.
	They would still not assist you in going to pick those people up, which is ridiculous.
	Crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy.
	And that's how much they want to support this insane agenda.
	Yeah, dude.
	And like, you know, Austin Police Department, shame on you.
	You're one of them.
	I know that for a fact.
	They would not, they would not support.
	There's some place in the United States.
	I'm, you know, I'm sure like in a San Francisco and New York, Chicago.
	Yeah, they're not going to want to, they're not going to want to touch that stuff.
	You know, no, they're going to want to sit around doing nothing because that's what they're paid to do now.
	Versus San Antonio PD, right?
	Only an hour south on Interstate 35, San Antonio PD, they'll assist on that stuff.
	You want to know why?
	Because they've had truckloads of dead migrants in their city, 100, 100 plus illegal aliens dead in the back of a tractor trailer.
	So this, they see the negative consequences of what happens when you let immigration go rampant.
	The smugglers make tens of thousands of dollars.
	People die, and it's not safe.
	So they take a stand on it.
	They're like, no, we're going to aggressively assist the feds in going ahead and getting these smugglers that are responsible.
	Remember, guys, when you do these criminal investigations, you're not necessarily going after the illegal aliens.
	You're going after the people that facilitate the importation and smuggling and harboring of these people.
	Because what happens is they end up dying a lot of the times because these people aren't.
	They're like, okay, there's codes and regulations to our human smuggling conspiracy.
	Let's make sure that we get these guys in safe.
	No, they put them on the back of trucks in 100-degree plus weather.
	Well, they're on top of each other.
	They can't breathe.
	They're smuggling them through the brush with coyotes and wildlife and with no water.
	They die a lot of times of heat exhaustion.
	They leave them to die a lot of times.
	If someone can't keep walking, they don't sit there and be like, oh, let me help you, whatever.
	No, fuck guys, a lot of the times leave the aliens there that are dying or can't continue walking to die in the brush.
	You know how many dead bodies I've seen of children and families?
	See, but they're not going to talk about this on these channels.
	They're going to talk about, oh, people should be allowed in and all this other stuff.
	Listen, man, I have no problem with the American Dream.
	She people should be given the opportunity to come to the United States.
	There's legal ways to do that.
	There's legal ways to do that, right?
	There's plenty of legal ways.
	And it's not fair to all the people who are waiting in line that have been waiting in line.
	And you just cut the line because, hey, I was able to walk over here, right?
	I was able to walk over a border because Biden said I could do it, right?
	Because Biden said the border is open.
	Yeah.
	Wild, bro.
	Wild.
	And what happens is you let these illicit organizations make tons of money.
	And the other thing, too, you know how many terrorists have been smuggled into the United States, right?
	Through the Southwest border that people don't know about because we've thwarted attempts, you know, me, including myself, I've thwarted attempts where they've tried to fucking bring people in that had issues, if you know what I'm saying, from the high side where they were involved in some particular activities that may or may not endanger U.S. national security and these motherfuckers are coming in.
	It's not like the cartels are like, oh, yeah, bro, you know, you're a terrorist.
	We're going to screen you.
	We're not going to let you.
	You know what they do with those fucking guys?
	I've talked about this.
	With Chinese nationals, Russians, Arabs, people from the Middle East, et cetera, they just charge them more.
	They're considered exotics.
	They charge them.
	Chinese, the Goring Rate, $60,000.
	Arabs, $80,000 to $100,000.
	Russians, similar.
	Right.
	They still bring them in.
	They still bring them in.
	They just charge them a lot more money.
	Yep.
	So, but they're not talking about this.
	They're not telling y'all about this.
	They're saying immigration.
	Yes.
	But they're not talking about all the crazy people that come in.
	I can't tell you guys how many times we've caught a load and there were several convicted felons in that load of illegal aliens that were trying to come into the United States.
	Child, child molesters, criminals, robbers, drug dealers, people that had been deported multiple times, which is felony, people that have killed people all the time.
	You know, but anyway, that's a whole other thing, not to make this an immigration debate.
	But it's a good one.
	It's a good topic.
	It's going on right now.
	And look, that's something immigration is something that I think is at large going to be a way larger issue for this country.
	It's going to last way longer than this Trump debate, this Trump search warrant is going to last.
	So it's a very important thing to bring up.
	And I think it's a very important issue for America politically to resolve.
	It's not going to go away because we ignore it.
	And this is coming from a guy that's a first-generation American, guys.
	My parents immigrated here in the 80s.
	So, you know what I mean?
	This isn't coming from a guy that's like fifth generation American that doesn't appreciate what it's like to be an immigrant.
	No, my parents are naturalized U.S. citizens.
	They came here and they figured it out.
	They got green cards.
	They legally adjusted and turned into U.S. citizens.
	I was born here.
	So I don't want to hear none of that stuff.
	You know what I mean?
	It's there's people that wait in line that bust their asses to come here legally.
	Myron, you can't get in.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That too.
	And that's another reason, too.
	But at the same time, this is why I hold people accountable.
	Like, if you're born in the United States and you're a bum, dude, you deserve to be a fucking bum because I've seen people buy to come here that find a job, still make it work, even though they came here illegally.
	They paid $10,000, $20,000 to some human smuggling organization based out of fucking Nueva Laredo, Mexico.
	And they're still owe money and they still figure out a way to fucking get that money, pay their debt off, and still stay here and figure it out and get a job.
	Meanwhile, you fucking assholes are sitting here complaining that, yo, I don't get enough welfare.
	And accountability is something that we got to bring back.
	I mean, accountability is something that, you know, the justice system, the legal system, it's there to give us legal and illegal accountability, right?
	But we got to have personal accountability to fix a lot of these issues.
	A lot of these issues are only going to be fixed when we fucking take charge of ourselves.
	Like Myron said, no one can fix your shit unless you're a bum.
	And that's what he tries to talk about on this channel.
	I talk about that shit too.
	It's absolutely fucking important that you take responsibility for your shit.
	Yeah.
	Personal responsibility is a foreign concept in 2022 with this fucking weird wokies.
	Yep.
	But man.
	Hey, great, brother.
	Legal mindset.
	YouTube, legal mindset.
	Follow my channel.
	It's going to be really great.
	I also have a second channel, Illegal Mindset.
	If you want to follow that, I put out non-law-related stuff.
	That was my hilarious channel.
	I actually did a debate about Andrew Tate on that with a chick.
	And we were talking about is Andrew Tate good or bad?
	Like we kind of argued about that.
	I think you know my take will probably be.
	But, you know, we had that Tate debate.
	So, anyways, illegal mindset, legal mindset on YouTube, legal mindset, the legal mindset on Twitter.
	And here's his channel right here, guys.
	Legal mindset.
	Okay.
	Subscribe.
	And then you said there's another channel.
	I'm going to wear.
	Okay.
	That's actually illegal mindset.
	You can just put it in there.
	Illegal mindset.
	That's it.
	That's it right there.
	So boom, right up there.
	So anytime it's totally off topic, I try to keep the algorithm friendly.
	So if it's not there, I have very few videos right now, like literally very few videos, but I talk about like dating in Korea, some stuff like that.
	So anytime it's content like that, I'm going to put it on this channel.
	Like if it's, if it's not law-related, but you guys know I like, you guys know I like talking about that shit.
	This is where I came from, Myron.
	You know, we used to run Night Game all the time.
	So, you know, this is this is great for me.
	Check it out.
	Subscribe to my channel and I'll catch you guys there.
	Also, I have a locals, legalmindset.locals.com.
	That's a private community, which takes a lot less than YouTube does.
	So if you ever want to support me, that's the best place to do it.
	Yeah, man.
	Here's his channel right here, guys.
	Make sure to go ahead and subscribe, join his channel.
	And yeah, man.
	And guys, I'll probably do, I'll probably do another collab with Andrew on Rittenhouse.
	Maybe Raynhouse, when I come back from London, yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.
	Let me know.
	I'll let you know what my schedule is, but I should be able to get something going.
	We'll talk and get something done.
	Rittenhouse.
	That is something that is criminally underdone.
	Yeah.
	Also, by the way, Rittenhouse is simping now.
	So we can pull up while we pull it up.
	He's simping his video.
	Oh, bro.
	He's big simping for some conservative thought.
	Well, we can get into that.
	That's a whole separate thing.
	That's a whole separate thing.
	Let's not go down that stream.
	Okay.
	Well, he, so I guess he may, he beat the criminal case, but he's about to beat the case in the in the in the family case, family court law.
	Yes, yes.
	It's how you got to win both.
	You can't take out.
	You can't take a W in one and an L in the other.
	You got to take a W on both.
	Well, his name is going to be Ellen House in this case.
	Yeah.
	All right, guys.
	He has legal mindset.
	I am Fed It, man.
	Check us out, man.
	Subscribe to both channels, like the guide in that video.
	Give me to 100% engagement, guys.
	Give me to like 900 plus likes.
	I really appreciate it.
	And yeah, man, I'll catch y'all on next week when I come back from London.
	Thank you so much, Andrew, for coming, man.
	Yeah, brother.
	Always great to have you guys.
	And peace out, gentlemen.
	Later.
	Peace, guys.
	I'm a special agent with homeless 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 Fed covers.
	Dr. Lafredo confirmed lacerations due to stepping on glass.
	Murder investigation.
	You should have reached into this jacket.
	You don't know.
	And he's positioning on February 13, 2019.
	You're facing two counts of two meditating music.
	Racketeering and Rico conspiracy.
	Young Slime Life, Karen After referred to as YSL to Defendants, 6ix9ine.
	And then this is Billy Seiko right here.
	Now, when they first started, guys, 6ix9ine ran.

▲