PBD - Patrick Bet-David - Tom Fitton: Biden’s Crimes, Trump Verdict, & Disgraced Former Protectees Act | PBD Podcast

June 7, 2024 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

01:48:12

Tom Fitton: Biden’s Crimes, Trump Verdict, & Disgraced Former Protectees Act | PBD Podcast | Ep. 423

Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, a public interest group dedicated to investigating and prosecuting government corruption. Fitton's commitment to transparency and accountability in government has made him a respected figure in the conservative movement. Fitton and Judicial Watch have been involved in high-profile cases including a FOIA request for Clinton tapes, advising Trump on retaining presidential records, seeking the release of the Tennessee Covenant school killer manifesto, and a lawsuit over an FBI memo on the protection of legacy tokens. —— Purchase tickets to The Vault Conference 2024 featuring Patrick Bet-David & Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson: https://bit.ly/3X1JBzm ----- 4:26 - Republicans 10:35 - James Comey 13:46 - Trump Secret Service Act 19:31 - Enemy’s move 48:46 - Strategies to fight 57:48 - Trump's sentencing affect on America 1:06:46 - Steve Bannon 1:17:31 - Clintons 1:23:46 - Wuhan & Covid 1:34:16 - Biden / Hur 1:38:46 - Biden's Cognitive Decline Purchase the new "Angry Patriot" t-shirt for $34.99 at VTMerch.com: https://bit.ly/4c3WsW2 Connect one-on-one with the right expert for you on Minnect: https://bit.ly/3MC9IXE Connect with Patrick Bet-David on Minnect: https://bit.ly/3OoiGIC Connect with Tom Ellsworth on Minnect: https://bit.ly/3UgJjmR Connect with Vincent Oshana on Minnect: https://bit.ly/47TFCXq Connect with Adam Sosnick on Minnect: https://bit.ly/42mnnc4 Connect with Ricardo Aguilar on Minnect: https://bit.ly/4c7rxrY Connect with Rob Garguilo on Minnect: https://bit.ly/426IG0R Purchase Patrick's new book "Choose Your Enemies Wisely": https://bit.ly/41bTtGD Register to win a Valuetainment Boss Set (valued at over $350): https://bit.ly/41PrSLW Get best-in-class business advice with Bet-David Consulting: https://bit.ly/40oUafz Visit VT.com for the latest news and insights from the world of politics, business and entertainment: https://bit.ly/472R3Mz Visit Valuetainment University for the best courses online for entrepreneurs: https://bit.ly/47gKVA0 Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! Get PBD's Intro Song "Sweet Victory" by R-Mean: https://bit.ly/3T6HPdY SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @vtsoscast @ValuetainmentComedy @bizdocpodcast @theunusualsuspectspodcast Want to be clear on your next 5 business moves? https://bit.ly/3Qzrj3m Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	They indicted Hillary Clinton.
	And she's not president of the United States.
	Because of the misconduct that Judicial Watch caught her in with her email scam.
	But the scandal of our generation is what's going on with the targeting of President Trump.
	This is part of a conspiracy to deprive President Trump of his civil rights under color of law.
	And the next honest president should appoint a special counsel to figure out what went on here to prosecute a former president without political motivation.
	It doesn't pay us to smelter.
	Why would you bet on Goliath when we got bet David?
	Value payment, giving values contagious.
	This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value to hate it.
	I run, homie, look what I become.
	I'm the one.
	Okay, so if you're watching this podcast, episode 423, and you're somebody that believes there is such a thing as an establishment, or you believe there's a deep state, I don't know, maybe you've read a couple books about it.
	Maybe you're not 100%, but you're thinking there's a possibility that it does exist.
	The guy here today, Tom Fitton, is one of the most hated guys by the deep state, by the establishment.
	Let me tell you why.
	He's like one of these guys that just constantly wants to sue you.
	His organization, the Judicial Watch.
	Let me give you a couple of the lawsuits that he's done.
	Just very annoying type of lawsuits.
	Okay, so here we go.
	File for records related to the death of Tafari Campbell.
	If you remember who that was, he was the chef for Obama's, you know, when he was a swimmer, but three feet deep.
	You know, he died and all this stuff.
	And everybody wanted to know what happened there.
	Obviously, no one's talking about it now.
	He's the guy his organization, Judicial Watch.
	Then you have wrongful death against the U.S. government for Ashley Babbitt.
	This is the girl in the middle inside the Capitol.
	Then he filed for records, his organization for CBP, that's the Customs and Border Protection Agents, welding open floodgates in the border wall in Arizona.
	Then filed records regarding communication between DHA cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency.
	Then they challenge Illinois election laws and handling of voter registration.
	Then filed for records concerning censorship of social media users.
	Then filed for records of payments made by the FBI to Twitter.
	Filed for communications between agencies and social media platforms regarding content moderation censorship.
	Sued for YouTube censorship of a Judicial Watch video by Biden corruption and election integrity.
	Uncovered coordination between Facebook and the CDC to control the COVID narrative.
	I mean, I can go on and on and on.
	It's constant.
	And, you know, Judicial Watch got started, what, in 1998?
	This goes all the way back to filing, having numerous high-profile investigations, including uncovering of Hillary's private email server, obtaining documents related to the Menghazi attack, the IRS targeting scandal, the misuse of FISA warrants during the Russia investigation.
	I can go on and on and on, but it's great to have you on, Tomfitt.
	Good to be with you.
	Yeah, so.
	I'm thinking, I got to find out what we got from some of those lawsuits you're reading.
	And that's what I'm curious about.
	So for me, so this is, I got a series of things I want to go through with you that I'm curious about.
	I want to talk to you about what Jim Baker and Jimmy Carter did years ago to try to have the Megalan ballots, the integrity of elections.
	I want to talk to you about the HR 8081, which I don't know if you've been following that.
	I'll read it to you.
	I want to see your thoughts on that.
	I got some questions on the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.
	The DOJ can't release Biden or her due to deep fakes AI concern.
	A couple questions with China being held accountable.
	And then U.S. soldiers, 300,000, Russia, this story just came out.
	Bannon today.
	I'm sure you saw that stuff that's going.
	There's a bunch of things to cover, right?
	But here's the first one.
	So for me, you know, you watch the Democrats, they get up there, Letitia James, right?
	All these kids are, we're going to get them, and we're going to get them, and we're going to go after them, we're going to get them.
	I was like, okay, this is just a campaign.
	They're not going to do it, right?
	No.
	Here we are, $430 million.
	You know, E.G. Carroll, $83 million.
	What the fuck is $83 million?
	$34, convicted felony.
	Holy shit.
	Everything they're saying, they're following with their threats.
	On the other side, Republicans file a lawsuit, file a lawsuit, file.
	We're going to get them.
	Nothing happens, right?
	Why do you think, whether it's true, Tom, or if it's a reputation and an impression being made that the Dems, they follow through with their threats, the Republicans do not follow through with their threats?
	Why do you think that reputation is being built today?
	Well, I don't think the Republicans do much in the way of even threatening.
	So I don't think there's much they're promising that they need to be held accountable for because they don't really promise to do anything.
	There's not, oh, we're looking at impeachment.
	We're considering impeachment.
	They're not promising to impeach.
	And of course, they're not probably going to.
	There's an old book title that I like.
	You can trust the communists to be communists.
	And, you know, when your enemies tell you what you're going to do, you should pay attention to it, especially if they've got a record of actually following through.
	And Republicans, or too many Republicans, but the number of Republicans who I think fully understand this is disturbingly small, engage in a lot of fear-based decision-making.
	They don't like scandal politics.
	They think it's a loser for them politically.
	And the target is someone that they don't really like that much, and that's President Trump.
	And so they were willing to see him abused and punished like no other politician in American history has been.
	And even as he's facing, literally going to jail, there's still this muted response to it that to me is inappropriate because I think, you know, we've had political prosecutions in the past.
	I mean, it happens time, but we never had this kind of general embrace of targeting a candidate or a politician like Trump by the Justice Department and Democratic Party allies in Georgia and New York.
	And that's never happened before.
	And it's kind of a brazen attack on the opposition.
	I mean, these investigations of Trump have led to them investigating the fundraising operations of the Republicans in multiple battleground states.
	They're trying to imprison those who question the election.
	And if the new rule is that we're going to act like Putin in Russia or Xi in China, that means the end of the Republic, practically speaking.
	And I kind of worry that if it doesn't matter who wins, but unless we right the ship, we'll be kind of a zombie constitutional republic where we've got these kind of, oh yeah, we've got this constitution, we have these alleged civil rights that protect us and due process and all the Bill of Rights.
	But they're not enforced if you're of the wrong political party or you're outside the narrative that the communist left are pushing.
	So let me ask, Rob, we can hear you, by the way, that you're listening to it.
	It comes to us as well.
	Yeah, if you can lower a little bit.
	You know, to me, you know how there's forgive and forget.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Let's not.
	I think the Republican Party forgives but doesn't forget.
	But I think the Democratic Party doesn't forgive and doesn't forget.
	Okay.
	My opinion.
	Okay.
	So on one end, it's kind of like, well, listen, you know, if you get elected, should you go after them for what they did to you?
	No, we should just let it go and we should just move on and we should try to bring the Constitution together.
	Hopefully that'll set an example to the other side to, when it comes down to their term, to be, let's forgive each other and let's move on.
	Let's make America a better place and let's be more united and divided, right?
	Like when you think about the thing, you know, the election fraud that Jimmy Carter believed that the more mail-in ballast there is, there's more possibility for fraud.
	This is many, many years ago that him and Jim Baker, Jim Baker being the guy on the right who was a heavyweight guy, Mr. Republican.
	That's right.
	I don't know if you read his book, phenomenal book, but I watched James Comey before Trump became a convicted felon.
	They interviewed him.
	And they said, so, Mr. Comey, do you think, what do you think is going to happen with Trump?
	You think he's actually, the judge is actually going to come out and he's going to be a convicted felon?
	And Comey says, yes, I actually think it will.
	So I'm like, he actually thinks he will.
	Yes, he will.
	Because at that time, the country was 50-50.
	There's no way they're going to say he's a convicted felon.
	Boom, Comey was right.
	Yesterday, Comey's being interviewed by Rob.
	If you have the clip from the part that I want, I don't know if you have it on the big clip.
	Play this clip.
	Is this the exact same one, Rob, that we showed earlier today?
	The shorter version.
	At the end of it.
	No, let me go find that.
	You know which one I'm talking about?
	I do.
	This is the first clip that we played where they talk about.
	No, no, Trump.
	I want the one.
	Got it.
	The one that you found all the way at the end, where Comey's being asked, do you think Trump will go to jail?
	Right?
	And the person asking a question, what's her name every time I forget her name?
	Caitlin Collins.
	Caitlin Collins.
	You know who she is.
	She's the one that did the CNN debate.
	And Comey's answer wasn't no, wasn't you don't do this.
	Because when they asked Manchin, Manchin's like, there's no way he's going to go to jail.
	There's no way they're going to sentence him.
	There's no way they're going to do anything like that.
	That's just not something to do.
	Manchin was, there's no way, right?
	Comey says something else.
	Rob, if you got to play the clip, okay?
	It was a little bit towards the end of it that you had it, Rob.
	Yeah, a little bit more.
	Right around there is when she starts asking and he gives the answer.
	Play the clip.
	We'll hear it.
	Fine that the defendant had acted in contempt of the court's orders on multiple occasions.
	All of that will be part of the picture that the judge looks at to decide whether a message needs to be sent that involves jail.
	As a former FBI director, what's it like to see one of the major nominees of one of our parties, the presumptive nominee at this point, be a convicted felon?
	This isn't it, Rob.
	Go back if you put it in 30 seconds.
	I really want to get Tom's feedback here.
	played right there see if it's i don't know I would ordinarily say it's unlikely.
	Go back 10 seconds.
	You have it.
	I've seen you on CNN to bring it back.
	Okay, right here.
	She's going to ask a question.
	Donald Trump, since I've last seen you on CNN, has now become the first former president to become a convicted felon.
	There you go.
	You predicted before the verdict came down, as the jury was still deliberating, as the case was still being presented, that he could potentially be convicted.
	Do you believe it's likely that the judge will sentence him to jail in this situation?
	I don't know.
	I would ordinarily say it's unlikely in a white-collar offense of this sort, but this is a defendant who's begging for a jail term by taking a flamethrower not just to the judge, but to the entire process and the jury.
	A judge will take that very seriously into consideration in deciding whether to deter this person and to send a message more broadly.
	He needs to spend some time behind bars.
	You think Judge Murshon should take everything he said where, I mean, he has called Judge Murshon a tyrant.
	He likened him to the devil.
	Every day before he walked into that courtroom, he said he was corrupt, baselessly.
	Do you think that the judge will take that into consideration when he does sentence him in a few weeks?
	I do.
	As well as him having to find that the defendant had acted in contempt of the court's orders on multiple occasions.
	All of that will be part of the picture that the judge looks at to decide whether a message needs to be sent that involves jail.
	Okay, pause it right there.
	So do you think Trump will be sentenced on July 11th?
	June 27th is the debate.
	July 11th is the sentencing.
	July 15th is RNC.
	Do you think he'll be sentenced to jail?
	I think there's a significant chance that he'll be sentenced or incarcerated in some way, either jailed directly for a short period of time or a longer period of time where his freedom is restricted through some type of house arrest or something.
	And you kind of see Comey here, who's a deep state operative, a corrupt former FBI director who was fired, basically putting out the smoke signals for the judge in case the judge isn't getting enough of them, that we want you to jail him.
	And this process is, and it kind of show you the catch-22 Trump is in.
	We're going to come up with a manufactured crime, deprive you of your due process rights, impose unprecedented gag orders that we know you're going to violate, and then punish you when you complain with jail.
	Not necessarily for the crimes, but for complaining about the process that led to this unprecedented and compromised so-called verdict.
	It's about as legitimate as the OJ verdict was.
	It's about as legitimate as the OJ verdict was, which is you're being sarcastic, obviously the complete opposite.
	But the reason why I'm asking this question is the following reason.
	Are you following the HR Bill 8081?
	Have you read this?
	I want to read it to you.
	So this is called the Disgraced Former Protectees Act.
	If you can go to the other link, Rob, right there, I just want to read it to you.
	So this is April 19th, 2024, right?
	Which is six weeks ago.
	Ranking member Thompson introduces legislation to ensure no secret service protection for convicted felons sentenced to prison.
	Who's he talking about?
	There's no way they're talking about a president here, right?
	So let me continue.
	Today, Representative Benny Thompson, ranking member of the Committee of Homeland Security, introduced a denying infinite security and government resources allocated toward convicted and extremely dishonorable former protectees act or the disgraced former protectees act.
	What are they talking about?
	This legislation would reform the U.S. Secret Service Protective Mission by automatically terminating secret service protection for those who are those who have been sentenced to prison.
	Keyword, sentenced to prison, following conviction for a federal or state felony, very specific who they're targeting, clarifying that prison authorities would be responsible for the protection of all inmates regardless of previous Secret Service protection.
	Here's a key sentence.
	Unfortunately, current law doesn't anticipate how Secret Service protection would impact the felony prison sentence of a protectee, even a former president.
	Okay?
	This legislation was co-sponded by Representative Troy A. Carter, Barbara Lee, Frederica Wilson, Yvette Clark, Bonnie Watson-Coleman, Jasmine Crockett, Joy Speedy, and Steve Cohen.
	So as a regular person who's not in this space, I'm not a lawyer.
	I don't have judicial watch.
	I'm not involved in politics.
	I'm a guy that's been a financial services businessman, but I read contracts, and we have different types of things that we have to go through.
	The way I read this, if I was to say the opposition is evil, how would they set it up?
	We've tried character assassination.
	We've tried trying to take all your money away.
	We've tried putting a gag word around you that you can't campaign and have all these audiences coming up to you.
	We've tried silencing you.
	We've tried demonizing you.
	We've tried painting you as a convicted felon.
	We already have a muckshot of you.
	We've sold to the entire country that you are a criminal is what we're selling you.
	None of this shit is working.
	You just rate a couple hundred million dollars based on the $70 million from small money, another $150, $130, $200 million from big money that people are coming towards your side.
	There's only one thing we got left.
	We can't provide him protection.
	So guess what we're going to do?
	Let them debate June 27th, July 11th.
	We're going to sentence him to prison.
	Then this is in effect, depending on how fast they can apply this.
	Now he's not got protection.
	Then it's a free-for-all on what happens there.
	How do you read this?
	This is how I read this.
	How do you read this yourself?
	I read it.
	They want Trump to be dead.
	I'm not a lawyer either, but you see enough legislation.
	You see who promoted it, Benny Thompson, the leading Democrat in the House.
	They want Trump dead.
	To deny a former president Secret Service protection in these circumstances would almost certainly lead to his death.
	And they know what they're doing.
	And even talking about it is dangerous because we understand he still has Secret Service protection.
	But when you see the media start talking about this, you're going to get a nut or two who interprets it to mean, well, he doesn't have Secret Service protection now.
	Now we can go after him, and I'm going to try to target him.
	And who knows what happens when that happens?
	And it highlights to me that not all leftists or liberal Democrats or Democratic Party members or whatever are communists, but they've embraced communist means to achieve their political ends.
	They're allied with them in terms of the street actors.
	And now, again, this is something that Putin would clearly understand as a technique to ensure his political opponent is killed in prison.
	They want to send Trump to Rikers with no Secret Service protection.
	What serious person would think that would result in anything other than the tragic death of President Trump?
	Terrible times we're in.
	But how is it that if the way the Constitution was set up and the way our founding fathers created America with the Supreme Court, with any of that stuff, would allow this to even progress to this levels, how does our system, our current system, allow for this to happen?
	Our judicial system, especially with respect to Trump, is broken.
	They've allowed abuse that's never really happened before.
	The only check thus far, and it's not been a reliable one, but it's been a significant one, is the Supreme Court.
	And that's why the Supreme Court's under a vicious attack by the left.
	They're targeting conservative justices, their families and such.
	And in the end, that's the most reliable vehicle for protecting Trump from these abuses.
	Because right now, this train's left the station.
	You never want to be a defendant in a state court.
	And typically, it's hard to kind of get off that train until the process ends and you're incarcerated.
	And so the challenge for President Trump and his legal team, in my view, is figuring out a way for the feds to get involved, the federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, to say in response to you, we're not doing this.
	It's obviously the, it was obvious the deficiencies in this court process up in New York made this whole process unconstitutional, designed to interfere in the election, whatever the argument is, have the Supreme Court step in and stop this notion that Judge Merchant can run our federal election by constraining the president, President Trump, and his campaign.
	He's still under the gag order.
	So Judge Merchant's still running the campaign.
	President Trump can't speak forcefully about these issues, even though he is speaking forcefully, not as much as he could.
	And his campaign's being restricted.
	I mean, our system, it doesn't contemplate a state court judge managing a campaign like that.
	He was a political hostage for six weeks up there, as far as I'm concerned.
	Patrick, the election already is compromised.
	It already is compromised.
	And the question is, will the outcome in November be sufficient in a way that people are reassured that the election's been fixed and that the right person won in the circumstances that we're facing?
	And if Trump loses, many people are rightly going to say, well, they had their thumb on the scale, so it's no surprise.
	If you think, you know, as an enemy, as a competitor, you sometimes have to sit there and think about the moves your opponent and your enemy is going to make.
	And you have to go from fair play to gray area to dark to deception, right?
	So fair play.
	This guy's going to be a fair fighter.
	All right.
	If he beats me and knocks me out, he's a better fighter.
	Fine.
	You know, gray.
	He may throw sand in my face and then boom, try to get me not to see in the Nazi is going to beat me.
	It's a little gray, but okay, fine.
	You know, dark.
	He's going to pull out a knife.
	Deceptive.
	There's a guy behind me that's going to, you know, he's not even going to fight me.
	He's going to kill me way before I get there, right?
	Let's go to putting fair play out because we know that's not going to be the case, right?
	Go to gray, dark, and deceptive.
	What tools, what weapons, what methods that are left that hasn't yet been used can the opponent still use the next four and a half months on the president?
	Well, they can jail him.
	I think the President Biden and the Biden administration could restrict access he has that candidates typically would to national security information, which would impair any transition to power.
	I think they could mess with the Secret Service short of this legislation.
	I think they would be tempted to do so.
	They've already misused the Secret Service to help enable that improper raid of his home.
	So who knows what else they'll do?
	The Secret Service is compromised at the top, in my view, and as politicized as any other deep state agency.
	I don't know why we would think it's any better than anything else in D.C.
	So it's really bad.
	Now, on the other hand, they're kind of losing in some respects.
	As you pointed out, Trump is still doing well.
	And there are charges here in Florida and up in D.C., the federal versions of the Get Trump effort have been stalled.
	Fanny Willis, because of her own misconduct, shut that case down.
	So they're losing some additional, you know, they're losing some key vehicles there.
	Now, what did the left do in 2020?
	They went to the streets and engaged in violence.
	And so that's another arrow in their quiver.
	It's a reliable one.
	They use it time and time again.
	Political violence is key to the left's political thinking.
	They don't always use it, but they are willing to use it.
	And it wouldn't surprise me if they escalated it in that regard as well.
	Got it.
	Yeah, I mean, if that's the case, a couple of them, it's publicly, we're looking at it, and it's obvious that they're doing it.
	What I'm curious about is what are they going to do that we're not thinking about?
	Because this is not being covered enough by the market, right?
	The fact that they're putting this HR Bill 8081, that they're trying to get him to lose Secret Service, this only tells me one thing.
	There's no other way to process this.
	Why would you want to take Secret Service away from him?
	Check.
	That's easy, right?
	A couple of the other ways.
	I'm trying to wonder if there's anything else we're not paying attention to.
	Tom, you look like you're thinking something.
	I am.
	I'd like to ask Tom a question.
	And I'll premise it with something.
	First of all, thank you for all you do.
	Personally, that's for me personally.
	You're welcome.
	And I think part of this, people can get a civics lesson if they just follow some of the things, whether they completely agree with your approach or not, or even what you're saying, you can get a civics lesson in what the Freedom of Information Act and other things you can do as a citizen that I think are very important to be part of the process.
	My observation is I think they went from, and I'd like to know what you think, to he won't win, but it was always a comma.
	We're going to hit him with all these indictments.
	We're going to say 96 counts.
	He won't win because the voters will be thinking he's a criminal and that'll do it.
	It didn't.
	And he went up in the polls.
	And he even went to a point, North Carolina, Georgia, as you know, that all of the polls, including their polls, he's like eight, nine points up now.
	Say what you will about Fulton County.
	The rest of Georgia is bright red and upset.
	Right.
	Then, oh, we'll convict him in New York.
	He'll be a convicted ven.
	He's a convicted felon, he won't win.
	And the next day, we saw everyone in the media, they were using convicted felon in the same way right on script.
	Do you think from your perspective that we've crossed from if we do this, he can't win, to we can't allow it?
	And therefore, the kitchen sink is on the table, including a manipulated homicide.
	Well, I mean, they're sending a signal out there that they prefer, they want to put the president's life at risk, President Trump's life at risk.
	In 2020, they contemplated Trump winning and what they would do if he won.
	And the war game included John Podesta and John Podesta pretending to be Joe Biden in a war game where there was a dispute about the Electoral College, a close count, where Trump was winning.
	They would have the left-leaning states demand that the electors be seated they supported in order to change the outcome of the election.
	And the threat would be we are going to withdraw from the union if they do, if they don't do what we say.
	So they were actually contemplating civil war in 2020.
	Yeah, so that's what they were planning to do in 2020.
	So, of course, who gets prosecuted?
	People who actually disputed the election under law, rather than those who were evidently conspiring ways to engage in civil war against the Republic.
	Then now we hear Democrats talking about even if Trump does win, we're going to object to his electoral counts in Congress, not because the election was compromised, not because there was any evidence of fraud or administrative deficiencies that require a do-over, but because we don't think Trump is eligible for other reasons.
	So just a pure power play to overturn the outcome of the election.
	So they're never going to stop.
	I mean, they've impeached him twice.
	They're trying to jail him.
	They want him dead.
	And so, and they're telling us what they're planning to do.
	They're talking about figuring out what to do in January if Trump wins.
	And you can bet there'll be more efforts to impeach him.
	They'll probably target his family more directly.
	They're never going to stop.
	They're never going to stop.
	And it's up to, you know, if you like the Republic, whether you're liberal or conservative, I think you should be very upset about what's happening here.
	And I think this is where they're making a political mistake.
	Because you understand why some of the bad guys do what they do because they see a political benefit.
	But when Biden's out there advocating for, quote, democracy all the time, I think a lot of the blowback in favor of Trump is a concern about democracy or the constitutional republic.
	And they don't see a vote for Biden as advancing democracy.
	They see a vote for Trump as ensuring that sort of crazy politicization of justice stops.
	And so the pro-democracy vote, in my view, Trump is in a position to benefit from.
	Trump is in a position to benefit from.
	Okay.
	If you want to protect democracy, you remove from power those who are using the Justice Department to jail their political opponents.
	Purely because they're political opponents, not for any other substantive reason.
	And that's what the partner at Sequoia said in a very long Twitter, McGuire, who summed it up by saying, and that's why I think it's very important to protect this election, protect this, and that's why I'm giving $300,000 to the Trump campaign.
	I mean, it explains why Biden publicly at least is a little bit nervous about talking about the conviction.
	Because I think people have been it's destabilized the country.
	And an incumbent president doesn't benefit from a country that's destabilized when he's running for reelection.
	Let's stay on this before we go to the next point.
	Okay, so for me, you know how we learned in 2020 that whoever has control over the Supreme Court, that's the ultimate power.
	We learned that on a big way, the Supreme Court's more important than president.
	We learned that.
	I mean, I decided, where for me is like, oh, you flipped three seats?
	Damn.
	What if it would have gone Hillary Clinton and she would have flipped those three seats?
	Imagine the next 20, 30, 40 years what it would have looked like.
	Because these guys, this is not a five-year job or a 10-year job.
	They're there for a while, right?
	Now, when we're seeing this case study with New York and what New York is doing to Trump, what are we learning?
	Are we learning who has more judges, has power?
	Are we learning?
	What are we learning?
	Are we learning who has more judges or who is willing to be more corrupt?
	Because I just pulled this up, Rob.
	Can you go all the way to the top?
	If you go all the way to the top, so this shows us we have a total of, zoom in a little bit, the United States Federal Court has a total of 1,770 judgeships authorized across 209 courts in the federal court system, okay?
	1770, 209.
	Go lower to break it down by states.
	This will tell you by states, but go all the way down to the one that you just had a minute ago.
	So then this shows us on this page, 178 are judges, 84 are Democratic appointed, 92 are Republican appointed, two vacancies, and then four pending nominations.
	Then go lower because this is circuit court to judges, right?
	Go up.
	These are circuit court, the one you just had, Rob, go all the way up.
	No, no, where you were at before.
	At the top, it says current U.S. Circuit Court judges, top left, right there.
	Yeah.
	So then if we go a little lower, then we'll see numbers.
	Go lower, Rob, to the next one with numbers.
	Keep going, keep going, keep going.
	Here is now total judges, 678, by state, Democratically appointed, 363, Republican appointed, 272, vacant, 44, pending nominations, 26.
	Are we learning that the number of judges also appointed prevents it?
	Because I just don't want to see this happen again in the future where somebody uses their power to bully the other side and Republicans are almost feeling helpless.
	It's like, we can't do nothing right now.
	So Republicans, there's a part of us like, man, I'm glad he's going through this because I want him to be gone.
	What role does this play to prevent this again happening in the future?
	Or, no, this really doesn't matter.
	If they want to do it again in the future, they can do it again.
	Well, they see judges as an impediment to what they want to do.
	That's why, as I said earlier, they're attacking the Supreme Court.
	So unless their folks are in control of it, they see the judiciary as an impediment.
	So they at least believe that the person appointing the judges matters in terms of their politics.
	And typically, the Trump judges have tended to be a bit more fair in understanding of the president's concerns.
	It hasn't been perfect.
	I mean, many of the judges up in D.C. are Republican appointed, and they've been treating the January 6th defendants miserably.
	And they fully embraced the left-wing narrative about January 6th.
	So the fact that they're Republican isn't a perfect measure of how they'll follow in terms of what they'll do in terms of the rule of law, but it's a reasonable indicator.
	You know, Judge Bork had a great book, the late Judge Bork, who failed to become a Supreme Court justice.
	I think the title was The Tempting of America.
	And he said that, you know, the problem with the judiciary power, you don't want judges who get up there of either side who see their power and they are tempted politically to get to the right result.
	And that's the danger we face from the judiciary.
	We don't want judges of either side who, because of the politics, they let that guide their decision as opposed to trying to apply the law in a dispassionate way.
	Now, is there a perfect way of getting that, of ensuring that's always the case?
	No.
	But in the case of Judge Merchant, who gave a donation to Joe Biden and other Democrat anti-Trump organizations, I mean, that's kind of like an easy call.
	He should be nowhere near that case.
	I mean, in the least, I mean, he broke the rules and suggested in a way that showed partisan anti-Trump bias.
	So it wasn't like a contribution he was able to make under law.
	And, you know, that's just the reality.
	Just deal with that.
	No, he broke the rules to make that contribution, in addition to all of his other displays of bias.
	So, you know, there is a process for holding people like Judge Merchant accountable, but he's not fearful of that process, obviously.
	And I think the only way, or I shouldn't say the only way, but unless there are consequences for what we've seen going on, Comey suffered no consequences.
	None of these folks face any consequences.
	You know, Adam Schiff, one of the worst congressmen, disreputable, dishonest, abused his authority in ways that we don't even fully understand in terms of going into phone records of innocent Americans just in a secret way, just crazy stuff.
	He's likely to be the senator from California.
	So there's been no consequences.
	He was never really sanctioned by the Republican majority.
	And I appreciate Republicans are, you know, they're not going to subpoena a brag.
	Well, you know, Trump's already been convicted.
	Day late and a dollar short.
	You know, I was yelling at them, why are you funding this process?
	And they didn't want to fight in terms of these government shutdown fights.
	Why not?
	Because the leadership didn't want to engage in the fight because they were fearful of losing.
	Which leadership?
	Is it McCarthy?
	McCarthy and Speaker Johnson.
	What do they fear?
	Well, Johnson feared that if the government shut down, he wouldn't be able to get it open again without giving Democrats everything they wanted.
	And what did McCarthy fear?
	I think that was McCarthy's approach, too.
	Same.
	Yeah.
	They opposed, you know, the establishment Republicans, and I don't use establishment in the pejorative sense, but the mainline Republicans, folks in leadership, it's the accepted theory that we don't shut the government down.
	Okay, so what if you do?
	Why would the Democrats have control that you would have to give them everything?
	I was never persuaded by the argument.
	I'm actually curious.
	Why would even Johnson have that fear?
	I'm not persuaded by the argument either, because I depend on the escalation of powers and the checks and balances, and I depend on that, and I'm still a believer of that.
	And so what the thinking is this is, you know, it's the classic, you know, 1980s caricature of the little boy that says to his mom, if you don't give me the ice cream, I'll hold my breath till I die.
	And she caves.
	When in reality, what you need is somebody on the Republican side with cojones that simply says, I will shut the government down and we won't open it again.
	And look them in the eye and say, do it.
	You know, do it.
	It's the same BS that, you know, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden said about, oh, what if they use heavier weapons in Gaza?
	Do it.
	You know, like as if it's some threat.
	You need somebody with Cahonies that says, look, you're not going to threaten me like that.
	I'm going to the microphone right now.
	I'm going to tell the American people, look, they're going to keep the government shut down.
	They're going to hold back funds.
	It has to be a Republican that is unafraid to do that pat.
	And you may lose in the end.
	Are we tracking the other two?
	Yeah, but you may lose in the end.
	I'm not saying they would have succeeded.
	Lose what?
	But they could have at least advanced the ball in terms of highlighting this abuse of power that was so controversial that Republicans were willing to say, look, if you want to fund the government, it's not going to include jailing your political opponents, censoring your political opponents, allowing an invasion of the United States.
	Pick something to stand on the hill over.
	And they refused to do that.
	And now we are where we are.
	Why isn't Supreme Court getting involved?
	Why isn't Supreme Court getting involved to say, hey, guys, knock it off?
	Same way they do with Colorado.
	What are you guys doing?
	Stop.
	They can't.
	Why can't they, though?
	The Supreme Court, there is a gate at the front of the Supreme Court, and this is a Solicitor General.
	And the Solicitor General hears with the court what matters.
	So the Supreme Court.
	No, no, no, no.
	The Solicitor General is just another lawyer.
	He's the DOJ lawyer.
	Correct.
	But he presents, and then the court decides what it will hear.
	And the court also pre-filters.
	It doesn't go out like an act of police action.
	Well, things come to it.
	I mean, you're partly right.
	You have to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.
	The party does.
	Sometimes the government does through the Solicitor General's office.
	But in the case of Trump or someone else about this New York eviction, he'd have to go up to the Supreme Court and the President Trump's lawyers would have to bring the case justifying Supreme Court involvement.
	They have not.
	Why not?
	I don't know what their thinking is.
	I mean, my suspicion is the challenge, now I'm not a lawyer, but I kind of am generally familiar with the arguments here, is the Supreme Court rarely gets involved in state prosecutions until they're concluded.
	So you get sentenced, you do your full appeal, and then maybe we'll take a look at it.
	So maybe July 11th or even 11th.
	Yes, maybe there are opportunities there.
	I would argue that under Supreme Court precedent, they can do what they want.
	You know, that someone like President Trump, who's being victimized in this extraordinary, unusual way that has national implications, is the type of extraordinary circumstance that would allow the Supreme Court to get involved.
	Now, Trump may lose, but at least the Supreme Court will have considered some of it, and you may get good language out of the Supreme Court from dissenters.
	I guarantee you there are members who would be more than happy to police what's going on up in New York as a wild abuse of power and an attack on the federal system in our Constitutional Republic.
	And that language might be very useful in the public debates and in instructing the lower courts in New York if they consider this appeal in the ordinary course on how they should be proceeding.
	Who knows?
	Who knows about the constitutional law?
	Who is the best constitutional lawyer right now that knows what would be the creative way to go to the Supreme Court, similar way that Giuliani back in the days went to that professor at Rutgers University to help him with the RICOL law?
	Who is that person?
	Used to be Dershowitz many, many years ago.
	Who is the formidable name today that can hold a meeting to say, this is the right thing for us to do next?
	Well, I think there'd be a few people.
	And, you know, you get, you've been, you've dealt with lawyers in your professional life.
	Many.
	And they all argue with each other about what the best way forward is, right?
	And it's up to the client to say, this is what I want to do.
	And there are kind of there's a mix.
	Client needs to know the option.
	Client's not a lawyer, right?
	That's true.
	And there's a mix of political and legal consequences for proceeding in some way versus another way.
	If you lose, does that make you worse off than better off if you proceeded another way?
	But as far as I'm concerned, he's facing a real irreparable damage in July with this sentencing.
	And if I were Trump, I would be demanding every possible tool be used to stop that sentencing from happening.
	But you got to know it's got to be somebody that's a like I'm not looking for a 95% chance.
	I want the lawyer that said to Giuliani, this is how you can take down the mob.
	You can take them down by going this way and this way and this way.
	Not, you know how some of these movies, you're like, okay, arrest them.
	We can't.
	We don't have to.
	Go ahead and arrest them.
	We can't.
	We can't arrest them.
	I want to know 100%.
	And the other trick is from an outsider's perspective, outsiders coming in.
	So some have suggested that the states could sue New York.
	And under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, meaning they don't have to go through the lower courts.
	They can go immediately to Supreme Court to handle disputes between states.
	And let's say Texas sues New York saying, you're messing with our election through this process.
	I don't know what you may pretend that's a dupe, that's something legitimate that you're doing.
	We know what it is.
	It's election interference.
	You're gagging a candidate for our voters.
	You're messing with our ability to participate in this federal election.
	And we want the Supreme Court to shut it down.
	You're not going to keep on holding our candidate hostage or the number one candidate for president hostage and try to rig the election that way.
	We have rights too.
	And we have a right to hear from this candidate.
	We have a right to have him campaign.
	Frankly, Democrats and Republicans have that right.
	And so the Supreme Court should step in and say, you're right.
	New York can't hold the rest of the country hostage with this kangaroo court proceeding.
	And you raise all the issues legally that raise questions about the deficiency of the whole process.
	This to me.
	You got to just, you know, and you don't need to be, I would submit, you don't need to be a lawyer to think like this.
	You just need to kind of say, what, I want every tool available and kind of figure out what has happened before and see how it might apply.
	But what I want right now is this is no longer like, let me put it to you this way.
	So you got five months is all you got.
	Okay.
	After July 11th, you really have how long?
	Less than four months.
	Okay.
	Because it's November 5th, so four months.
	I just say you got 17 weeks is what you have to election from July 12th.
	Well, early voting starts in September at some point.
	But decision time, you know, I'm saying like November 5th, whatever that line is.
	Give or take.
	So to me, who behind closed doors is holding an emergency meeting with the top 10 most qualified constitutional lawyers to fly out and have a meeting to say, what are we doing with this?
	Because, you know, here's how this works.
	How long did it take at this point?
	How much does America know those 51 intelligence officers that signed saying there's nothing in the Hunter Biden laptop?
	How many people know that that was bullshit?
	Everybody knows that was bullshit, right?
	But it worked because it was timely for them to put it out there.
	Do those people give a shit that now they're caught knowing they lied?
	They don't give a shit.
	It's over with, right?
	Okay.
	How many people in America know that the Russia collusion wasn't Trump?
	It was really Hillary Clinton paying that $35 million.
	You know, whoever she paid.
	How many people know that?
	Everybody.
	But it doesn't matter.
	It worked.
	For three years, everybody believed that this guy, you know, on the left, that this guy was linked to Russia.
	You know, this guy.
	So how many people does it take for COVID to say, hey, Trump is a racist against Chinese people and look at this?
	Let's go to Chinatown and the COVID vaccine didn't come from China.
	How dare you say such a thing?
	Call a China virus.
	I call it China because it came from China.
	That's racist, Mr. President.
	Would you say that to me because I'm Chinese?
	Is that why you're saying that?
	No, I'm saying it because that's where it came from, right?
	But it worked and it doesn't need to work for two years.
	It doesn't need to work for 10 years.
	It just needs to work for five months.
	So if this works for the next five months and Republicans are not being paranoid enough, boom.
	Then we find out next year in July, guess what?
	Trump was right.
	Who gives a shit?
	He lost.
	He lost.
	What I'm trying to say is who is that super Avengers lawyers to put in a room to say, what is the right next 15 moves?
	What needs to happen?
	Who needs to get behind it?
	That's what I'm interested in.
	Well, Trump has his team of lawyers.
	He does pay attention to folks on the outside, you know, people who talk about this publicly, like yours truly.
	I know that one of the reasons the left hates me is because I put ideas out there like this and people pay attention to them.
	I mean, I had the FBI come knocking at my door because I was blowing the whistle and Judicial Watch was asking questions and highlighting the abuse of Trump.
	I mean, I had to go before the grand jury on this crap because they wanted to highlight that and abuse me for saying what they were doing to Trump on this records issue was baloney because we had sued similarly for Clinton records.
	And they told us, well, you don't have any basis to sue.
	The president can do whatever he wants with these records, more or less, right?
	And so they changed the rules, did a 180 of their own legal position to try to jail Trump.
	And what did we get in response for us saying, well, that's not right.
	I had the FBI come to my door.
	So they're jailing his lawyers.
	They're disbarring his lawyers from the previous legal fights.
	So I'm sure the lawyers around him around him now are probably pretty cautious in light of all that as well.
	It's a challenge.
	Maybe it's not lawyers.
	Maybe it's a governor.
	Maybe it's a governor from some of the red states to say the same way that DeSantis sued God knows how many people.
	Maybe it's through that.
	But all I'm saying is if we have, if you have the, if I'm in a position like this, and let's just say we're facing an issue, a crisis that we've never faced before, whatever it may be.
	Department of Insurance, I'm in the financial industry.
	Okay.
	There was this lady that was a lawyer in San Francisco.
	Do you remember who she would pick up my calls at 5 o'clock in the morning while she's on vacation in Hawaii?
	Because we paid her $1,200 an hour.
	I don't know if you remember her or not.
	I don't want to say the law firm she was with.
	But guess what?
	Anytime we would go through something that we had to really, really, really 100% find out what the legal ramification was by the state, because we're in 49, 50 states of, so I have to deal with different legalities based on these states.
	I can get all the lawyers on, set up a Zoom, let everybody debate each other.
	No, that's not true, actually.
	According to such and such, okay, what do you mean by that?
	So what do you have?
	No, it's actually not.
	Let me tell you what happened three years ago.
	No, no, no, both of you guys are wrong.
	And then based on that, so I want those 10 people in a room, ASAP.
	And then based on those 10 people, is it better for us to use lawyers to go?
	Is it better for us to use a governor from a state to go?
	Who are the shortlist of governors for them to come together and sue New York?
	What does that look like?
	Because this right here makes a big portion of American voters sit there and say, hey, if you can do this to this guy, you can do it to another person.
	Does the election really matter?
	It probably scares the shit out of some people that want to run for office.
	Who the hell today?
	Think about it.
	Say right now you're a conservative, you're a capitalist, you're a business owner, and you love America that one day you would think about running for office.
	Who in the right mind is inspired to run for office?
	And typically the people that you want to run for office are the ones that don't want to run for office.
	Well, this is probably pushing those guys away even more.
	Unless if somebody comes down and says, you're protected by the Constitution and the law, here's why.
	Don't worry about it.
	But I feel the urgency on the right is like, ah, don't worry about it.
	No, you got a role.
	So I don't know.
	I just don't see urgency there.
	Maybe it's happened and I'm not aware of it.
	Well, you and I shared the same type of approach.
	And I've always had urgency about these issues.
	And I remember after Trump left office, I got a call from a reporter.
	And they said, well, essentially, there are all these former DOJ people complaining about my distracting Trump when he was in office with these ideas I had about legal issues and policy issues.
	And they just hated it because, you know, he would find out about something from me directly or indirectly.
	And the Justice Department, you know, just hated the idea that someone like Tom Fitton or Judicial Watch had any influence.
	And so they're complaining to the New York Times.
	And I'm thinking in the end, you know, I'm just a guy on a street corner with a sign.
	And these are the top officials of the Justice Department complaining that I was causing trouble for them.
	So my point is these small voices can have a big impact if you get the right attention at the right time.
	And I think President Trump needs to be urgent about this because I do think, as James Comey is slyly highlighting, as we highlighted earlier, he faces jail time.
	And all bets are off if there's a jail sentence that's recommended.
	Everyone says, well, he's going to be released pending bail or pending appeal.
	Well, I hope so.
	I hope so.
	I tell you, if it were me, I'd be thinking, how can I avoid even having to worry about that on day one, on that day?
	Is there anything I can do in the meantime to derail this sentencing through federal court intervention or getting the states to intervene or something like that?
	And I just don't, I tell you, a lawyer who tells you, don't worry, the Supreme Court will overturn your conviction that sending you to jail.
	I mean, to me, that's a loser approach.
	It's a slow approach.
	It's a loser approach.
	It presumes you've lost.
	Planning to lose is the Republican way.
	And I reject that.
	Yeah, to me, Trump gives me the vibes of a very urgent guy who asks, what do you think?
	He gives me the vibes of what do you think?
	And then he makes the final decision at the end of the day.
	But I think he's the type of guy that calls five different random people saying, hey, what do you think about what just happened?
	What do you think is this?
	I think it's like that.
	And I've never, this is not like I'm telling you based on experience.
	I'm just assuming that I may be fully wrong.
	I wrote a few things down.
	This is what I just wrote down.
	Okay.
	Strategies on how to fight this.
	Number one, An all-out public push, if this is legal or not, to encourage whistleblowers on the higher-ups on the inside, DOJ, FBI, CIA, who are high-ranking, to come out and talk about what really happened.
	Two, retired guys that know there's going to be a big price on the line, if they know anything, if it's legal.
	Everything I'm saying is, if it's legal, number one is whistleblower.
	Number two is constitutional lawyer emergency meeting in Mar-a-Lago or whatever he's going to be at to have that conversation a few hours and everybody talks to each other.
	Number three is getting the usage of governors, House, Senate.
	Number five is use, number four is using WTP, we the people, to rally behind something.
	Number six is a massive method of how, remember back in the days in 1985 when we did the We Are the World, you know, or even Africa when we raised the money when there was this massive live aid.
	That's right, the band aid, right?
	Let them know it's Christmas time, that song and the next year.
	So maybe a full-on type of a model with 5 million people live on a platform for you to raise a billion dollars in a day where you have those kinds of resources.
	I think there's got to be some kind of a, hey guys, you ain't got a lot of time.
	To me, it drives me insane that they're moving like politicians instead of moving like entrepreneurs, but the urgency has got to be a little bit higher.
	I don't know.
	Again, all of this stuff I'm saying right now, maybe some of it is in full effect.
	But to me, I want the American voter to think, believe, trust that our system is built so perfectly by our founding fathers that one cannot use the method to go after the opponent like Russia, Iran, other countries have done, that that is not acceptable in America.
	And we make an example of it.
	Go compete equally, beat them, not the way we're doing it today.
	If that trust goes down like it is right now, trust in government, trust in CIA, trust in media, trust in all of that, that's actually not good for it to be that low of a trust.
	We need to be a little bit higher than what we are today, not 100%, but definitely not 23, 27%, which is where we are today.
	That's horrible.
	That's a way of you saying you don't believe in the Constitution because the people that are running it right now are going based on the laws that was written 250 years ago, you know, 248 years ago, whatever the timeline is.
	So it makes me feel very uncomfortable that those laws, that, you know, Supreme Court and some of these other guys can't come in and say, guys, you're crossing the line here.
	Makes me a little bit uncomfortable.
	Tom, you want to say something?
	I'm agreeing with Tom.
	I think the Republicans are playing to lose here, and it scares the hell out of me because you're exactly correct.
	Because right now, we already saw that they went with a judge that was conflicted.
	Somebody from the, we know the name, from the Biden Department of Justice suddenly appears in the district attorney's office in New York.
	I mean, you look at all these things that they went with, and then everything from the jury instructions to how he parsed the arguments for deliberation, and the judge really had a someone scale manipulating that.
	They're not playing by the rules.
	So there's the headline, folks.
	Whether you call those big rules or little rules, they're not playing by the rules.
	Now we're waiting for the sentencing.
	And once again, the Republicans leaning back.
	Well, and this is absolutely what I've seen.
	Well, it's a white collar crime.
	There's no jail time in New York for that.
	It doesn't happen.
	This is a first offense of a Class E felony, which is Class E, which is pronounced barely a felony.
	That's the joke that they use in the DA's office in New York.
	I didn't make that up.
	Class E, barely, a felony.
	In other words, it's not really a felony.
	No jail time for this.
	It just doesn't happen.
	Now, if it is reporting dates for these things that are even worse than this, for Class D, Class C felony.
	Reporting dates is usually three to five months and they pull your passport.
	In other words, okay, you will serve nine months in New York prison.
	You have 90 days to report.
	Give me your passport.
	That happens all the time.
	Or you're now under house arrest.
	And by the way, for the 90 days, here's your ankle bracelet.
	You have to check in.
	It's going to call your phone.
	You have to check in.
	Or it's merely, okay, this is 90 days, but it's a suspended sentence, and you're on probation for three years.
	And I feel like, by the way, what I just outlined, this is the normal way it works.
	But this is Republicans assuming it's going to be the normal way it works.
	It's not.
	They're bending it.
	I fully anticipate that what you heard Comey doing, and I heard the phrase smoke signals, that's what he's doing.
	He is sending smoke signals to the judge.
	It worries me that the Republicans are sitting back saying, white collar, first offense, class C felony, do a jail time.
	Oh, it'll be three to five months.
	He can still do presidential debates, win the election.
	Tom, if you're not.
	I agree with you.
	Why aren't they going down the list and getting a team in place?
	If you don't have, like, for example, we have a code of honor in our company, okay?
	If I cross the code of honor, okay, what can you do to come to me?
	Hey, Pat, I want you to read number 13.
	What is it?
	Just read it.
	Okay.
	Ba, ba, ba, ba, pa.
	That's exactly what you're doing.
	Not tolerable.
	Do you know what we wrote in our Constitution that'll happen if you cross the line with 13?
	What's that?
	It's grants for termination.
	That's where you are right now.
	Do you want to continue this behavior?
	Or what do you want to do?
	Because I can bring this up to the board.
	Then I back off and I say, holy shit, he's right.
	So then I can either go behind closed doors and manipulate and play more games to make your life a living kill.
	Then you get to go and say, hey, guys, committee, I was going to bring this up.
	This is the third time he's done it.
	I think it's time.
	We've got to make a decision to vote and fire this guy.
	I tried to have a conversation, went behind my back, started lobbying.
	Now we're at the board.
	This gives everyone confidence.
	You write a living trust.
	You do state planning.
	You put a nuptial agreement in place.
	What does that say?
	Here's what you agreed on.
	You sign it.
	Lawyers witness everything.
	There needs to be confidence in this in America today.
	This minimizes confidence in this, unless if there's proper methods of holding the opposition accountable, which they're not doing today.
	Again, if they do it on November 6th, no one gives a shit.
	This needs to happen pre-November 5th for it to have its weight.
	That's all I'm talking about.
	My only concern is that.
	And it's not a question of Trump should win.
	Okay?
	That's a political argument.
	The argument is, should our elections be manipulated and rigged by interference from political officials in the Justice Department, elected politicians in New York, Letitia James, Bragg, Biden donor masquerading as an ethical judge.
	And the answer is no.
	I mean, if I want folks to win free and fair, and that's at this point, no one can be sure that's going to happen in November, unfortunately, because of this election interference.
	Now the courts can mitigate that, as we're talking about.
	But, you know, as you highlight, the time window is shrinking fast.
	And I'd be very nervous about July 11th resulting in an irreparable disruption of our election.
	What would happen if they do say it's July 11th?
	Debate's done.
	Trump crushes it.
	Everything on the internet, June 27th, is going viral.
	Even though they can mute him, there's plenty of clips that are going viral all over the country.
	And we know that's what's going to happen on Insta, on X, on YouTube, everywhere.
	They can't stop that.
	Polls move another point and a half.
	Okay.
	Then, fast forward, 14 days later, 16 days later, boom.
	He is, you know, prison, sentencing.
	He's going to jail.
	What happens to America then?
	I think it's disruptive.
	I think the left is going to look for ways to engage in violence.
	And even objections, honorable objections, First Amendment-based objections to this, either through protests and such, is going to be met with leftist violence.
	And of course, I think they blame the right for it.
	But I don't even know if the right's going to protest.
	I mean, right?
	The conservatives generally don't protest about stuff.
	I mean, arguably, there should have been protests all through the trial, but it wasn't terribly there.
	There wasn't much there.
	I wouldn't do physical protesting today.
	My protesting would be in a very different way.
	My protesting today would be the biggest live worldwide to show support.
	I would bring a lineup of 20, 30 people all to talk with him being the closing speaker.
	And I would raise money and I would drive everybody to go retweet a video, drive traffic to it, to make it the most viral clip in the history of Twitter or whatever it is to make a record, to make announcements, reveal stuff, educate people, have stuff out there for them to know how they can go and drive the traffic and intensity online.
	Today, a few years ago, I'm Armenian and Assyrian.
	My dad's Assyrian.
	My mom's Armenian.
	The Armenian community would tell me, Patrick, how come you don't come and march in Glendale anymore for the Armenian genocide of what happened April 24, 19?
	How come you're not coming representing?
	I say, I don't think you realize this anymore.
	The people you want that can make changes, they don't protest on streets of Glendale.
	They protest on streets of Twitter.
	That's what they're protesting.
	Why don't you take your protesting online?
	That's what's going to spread like wildfire and get a lot of attention.
	I'm not getting that vibe.
	There needs to be a different kind of a strong.
	I'm not a campaign manager.
	I'm not involved.
	That's not my job.
	I hope the right people hear this.
	You go take the idea.
	It's not even my idea.
	You go take it.
	You go take ownership of this idea.
	I don't need credit for it.
	Go do it.
	Whoever's going to be doing this.
	I think there needs to be a real intentional drive for something like that.
	So then imagine, let's just say we do this biggest live ever.
	Ready?
	So invite Dana.
	It's like an RNC.
	Don't wait till the RNC.
	Like, don't wait till July 15th because the RNC may not happen.
	Go do it pre-don't think you have all this time.
	Don't wait till like, oh, we got plenty of time till the election.
	No.
	Bring people like Dana.
	Bring people like this guy that just gave $300,000.
	Let them tell a story.
	Bring people like Shamaat.
	Bring the most random people, not the typical everybody that you're going to get that's already, we know they're going to be behind it.
	Bring the weird different types of names that don't make sense who agree to speak and say, wait, what?
	DeSantis just spoke?
	This guy doesn't like Trump.
	Shamaat, who gave Trump a D-minus and then he flipped a year ago saying, I think now that I look at it, it's a B plus.
	Wait, Elon Musk did this Twitter?
	What?
	Wait.
	And they are like, holy, there is actually something going on.
	And by the way, the sooner you do it, the more their backs are against the wall.
	The later you do it, the more they're going to be able to play their games.
	And you're kind of playing reactionary counter instead of, no, here's how you do boom.
	Boom, boom, boom, shit, shit, hit, hit, boom, no, no, no.
	You got to get them to go on the offensive.
	I think sometimes Republicans right now are just like waiting.
	Okay, guess what?
	Another month is gone.
	Another month is gone.
	The hell are you doing?
	Compete.
	Well, the Republican response to all of that is we just have to win in November and let's not get distracted.
	Let's keep our eyes on the prize.
	Let's talk about the issues that people care about.
	Let's not get too distracted by these prosecutions.
	People have already factored that in.
	They already know it's rigged.
	They already know he's being abused.
	And all we need to do is just remind other voters that every time they go to the grocery store, they're facing ginormous prices because of Joe Biden.
	And so that's the political pushback on the hyper-focus politically on these trials and tribulations of Trump.
	But, you know, it's politics.
	So, you know, people can honorably disagree about it.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I think legally, you know, from Judicial Watch's perspective, it's the worst case of government corruption I've ever seen.
	I've been doing working at Judicial Watch for 26 years.
	I've never thought we'd be in the position we are in.
	I think we're in a crisis in terms of constitutional Republican form of government and that those in the responsibility who have the responsibility or in the positions of responsibility need to use every tool available to them under the law and the Constitution to protect the Republic.
	Amen.
	Yeah.
	And so, and by the way, the people I'm talking to and challenging in my messaging isn't the Republican Party.
	I'm not waiting for those guys.
	They're not going to do it because they're too worried about, you know, the people they're working with in D.C. Most of them are part of the same community.
	Many of them half want Trump to lose.
	That's right.
	I mean, they don't, you know, you think Republicans hate being in the majority.
	Not as many as you might think.
	They don't disagree.
	Yeah, they don't mind just showing up and cutting ribbons.
	But guess what?
	That's the job of the MACA community to take the lead on this.
	So let me give you a lineup.
	You ready?
	Here's a lineup.
	Dana White, 50 Cent.
	Shamat, the guy that just gave $300,000.
	My lineup is not going to be the usual suspect.
	I don't want the usual suspect.
	I want the people to be like, wait a minute, who is this guy?
	This is the actor Tim Robbins?
	Wait, who, what?
	Clint.
	Seriously?
	Yeah.
	That's a kind of weird lineup.
	Yeah.
	So you're getting NBA players, NFL players, UFC fighters, you know, Hollywood.
	You're getting the regular mom who just went and says, look, let me tell you who I am.
	I got six kids.
	My husband and I got two jobs.
	He drives Uber at night.
	In 2019, this was my bill.
	Here's how much we spent on bills.
	Here's how much we're spending right now.
	I'm just a regular person.
	I'm not a famous person.
	You don't know who I am.
	My name is Mary.
	This is where I live.
	I live in this.
	But I'm here to tell you, I can't afford this.
	And for the basic thing, if we were to categorize a group of 20 people to hit different audiences, 5 million live on Twitter spaces, on whatever these platforms played on Twitter spaces, on YouTube, raise money.
	Next speaker, raise money.
	Drive to Twitter.
	You create all that protesting online.
	The biggest online protesting of all time.
	You can call it historical protesting.
	Record-breaking.
	Guinness book of world record.
	5.2 million people live watching.
	What?
	So, I mean, that's a collaboration with Ilan.
	And Trump could get that on Twitter.
	And Trump could get that.
	There is no problem he could get that.
	So I think that's the part where, you know, that's what I mean, where I'm not waiting on Republicans to do it.
	I'm not waiting for traditional people.
	I'm waiting for, you want to disrupt?
	Go ahead and do this.
	See what happens.
	See what happens.
	See how the market reacts to it.
	I think it would be shocking to the other side, and it would scare the shit out of them to say, if you even think about July 11th announcing this as this, let me tell you, here's what's going to happen.
	If you even, so you're forcing them to sentence him.
	You're forcing, go ahead and sentence him.
	See what happens.
	Go ahead and sentence him.
	You're playing offense the same way they are.
	Because the way they do it is they play offense to make everybody walk on eggshells.
	I think Trump's prepared to go to jail.
	I mean, he's said it repeatedly in the last few days, just reading between the lines.
	And he doesn't say he's ready to go to jail because he doesn't think he's going to go to jail.
	I think he thinks he's going to get sentenced.
	He's fearless.
	He's fearless.
	But I think he thinks he's going to get sentenced to jail.
	Remember, he's seen Merchant up close for six weeks, so he knows what he's about.
	Yeah, let's go to the next one.
	So story comes out today.
	Judge ordered Steve Bannon to report to prison on July 1st for contempt of Congress sentence.
	Former Trump advisor sentenced to four months in prison for refusing to comply with January 6th Committee subpoenas.
	But it happened put on hold while he appealed.
	What do you think about this story?
	Well, it's a perfect example of the left punishing its enemies while protecting their friends.
	And it kind of right now, there's a debate in the House about whether they're going to find Attorney General Garland, Merrick Garland, in contempt for withholding those audio tapes.
	And they found him in contempt at the committee level, but it's been weeks.
	There's been no vote.
	And I think there's been, because I understand it's a close, it's a close, you know, it's a small majority in the House, but you don't get a majority in the House by being silent about the issues you want that close majority, that small majority to vote on.
	And it's been silence.
	And frankly, it was Judicial Watch, our litigation that forced the Justice Department to admit that the transcripts of the audio interviews with Joe Biden were messed with.
	They didn't reflect what actually he said.
	And now they're telling us we can't get them because AI might be used to deepfake them.
	So Bannon's going to jail.
	Trump's going to jail potentially.
	And so you've got, they can't manage to impeach Biden.
	Garland is ignoring brazenly a subpoena.
	And they can't manage to find him in contempt.
	And by the way, the House constitutionally has the ability to detain someone who's in contempt of Congress directly.
	They don't have to rely on the Justice Department to prosecute.
	So there's no consequence.
	And I don't know how much more divergent example could you get the way that Trump has been treated and Bannon's been treated, Peter Navarro, another Trump aide who's in jail over disputes about executive privilege and contempt for Congress, rushed to be prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department.
	And the House is nominally controlled by Republicans.
	They haven't figured out a way to impeach Biden.
	And they have the Attorney General literally coming in under oath saying, you want to find me in contempt?
	Go ahead.
	And they still haven't figured out what to do about it.
	Tom, how can they do this?
	Because what's the real reason for it?
	This is Steve Bannon was just ordered to prison for ignoring a congressional subpoena, right?
	But play this clip rop.
	Do you remember this?
	Go to play this clip the way you had it.
	So this is Hunter Biden.
	Just gets up and walks out.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Excuse me, Hunter.
	Apparently, you're afraid of my words.
	Why are you?
	I like to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
	What's the difference?
	There isn't any difference.
	They gave Hunter another chance to respond, and they let that, and he finally caved after a few weeks.
	But they could have found him in contempt immediately, and they didn't.
	They didn't.
	So what's the difference between what Hunter did versus what Bannon did?
	Well, Bannon was relying on the advice of his lawyer.
	The courts wouldn't give him any benefit of the doubt there.
	He was raising issues about executive privilege.
	Typically, that is a significant issue.
	All of that was just run over by the Biden Justice Department.
	All of the privileges and protections that presidents and their close advisors typically get are denied Trump.
	Even when he was president, he wasn't allowed to do things that presidents are supposed to be able to do.
	Fire people, negotiate with foreign leaders, exercise control over our military.
	All of that was denied for Trump.
	Every time Trump tried to assert his constitutional authorities as president, they thought it a reason to attack him and or impeach him.
	And in the case of Steve Bannon, there's arguments about whether he told what his communications with the president were, whether that was protected or not under the Constitution.
	And, you know, so to me, that's like a good faith reason not to throw someone in jail for months.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm watching this, and you say four months.
	What a perfect amount of time.
	What's so special about four months?
	What's in four months?
	You got July, August, September, October.
	Great timing, guys.
	To keep one of the most effective voices, one of those outside voices who aren't Republican, keep them off the table for the election season.
	And please note that he's given 30 days to report.
	So he's not being taken straight to prison.
	He's got 30 days to report.
	And that is the way it works on white-collar criminals, regardless of whether the rest of the Bannon case is a sham.
	And it is.
	And what you have here in Hunter Biden, I read a legal analysis that said that the reason the Republicans have next to no balls on a Hunter Biden case, Pat, is if they went all the way to the wall, they need a couple dems to kind of go with them.
	And if they go all the way to the wall, you're just going to put the president in a position that he pardons him.
	Because that's it.
	Do you think Hunter Biden's going to do time?
	If he was actually convicted, Pat, and he's getting ready to be sentenced, what do you think Biden does?
	He picks up his pen and he pardons him.
	That's it.
	You know, he's not going to let, he's not going to let Hunter go to prison.
	And there's this gilding week response on the Republican side to push this.
	And now we're finally in court with the gun charge.
	But that was contempt of Congress.
	You're subpoenaed to come before Congress in a hearing, and you and your lawyers have said, okay, we showed up, we were here, but we've had enough of this crap.
	We're just leaving.
	That's ridiculous.
	You're in contempt at that moment.
	And it highlights the way these issues are usually resolved through negotiations.
	And Hunter eventually showed up.
	It's amazing that Democrats can figure out a way to resolve through negotiations Bannon's testimony.
	Obviously, they could have figured out a way to get him to testify.
	And, you know, he could have asserted certain privileges and there would have been fights about it.
	But it was a setup.
	It was a setup.
	This was a political prosecution.
	I tell you something.
	There's not a darn thing this Justice Department does in terms of prosecuting any politically sensitive case that should be trusted.
	It's my position, every January 6th defendant, every single one should be pardoned or commuted, have their sentences commuted.
	Every prosecution of every politician by the Justice Department, we should presume, is political in a way you can't trust it.
	Senator Menendez, I have sympathy for.
	Even Hunter, I have sympathy for.
	I mean, you could run an argument that Hunter's being thrown under bus by the Biden Justice Department.
	They're doing these de minimis investigations, prosecutions.
	He could result in jail time, maybe, maybe not, all to protect Joe.
	And so there's nothing honest this Justice Department leadership does.
	And it's been compromised, and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
	I agree with you.
	And Menendez, you bring up something very, very interesting.
	I have always felt that Menendez, what they wanted to get him to is resign so that they could get somebody else appointed to a seat.
	That was my gut.
	Why?
	And I never thought that they actually wanted to put him on trial and create the precedent.
	Because think about it, if you prosecute successfully Menendez for all the things that he's been accused of, do you know what happens?
	You now have case law precedent that's going to apply to 537 other people in Washington that do the same thing before lunch every day.
	Well, and this is not accepting gifts and doing all of that.
	It's the same thing.
	Putting the gifts in the name of your kids or in the wife's trust or then trading on the information.
	The same thing happens before lunch every day with everybody else there.
	And Menendez was particularly flamboyant on it and had a little bit of a big mouth and was a bit of an ass with his staff.
	And so enough people percolated up that it just ended up in plain sight and they did something with it.
	But overall, the same thing.
	I don't think they wanted, I didn't think they wanted the precedent of this, Tom, because that precedent will kind of hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of everybody else.
	But here we are.
	I'm not saying Menendez is an innocent man.
	I'm just saying the Justice Department can't be trusted to fairly prosecute him.
	I just don't trust the Justice Department.
	I agree with you.
	If I were the president coming in, I'd have a clean team look at all these political prosecutions in the least, especially for folks like Menendez, where there might be some evident guilt or criminality.
	But, you know, who knows?
	Maybe they've denied him access to all the information he deserved as a defendant in the case.
	This Justice Department, as a matter of course, engages in unethical conduct time and time again.
	I mean, just look how Trump's been treated.
	Just look how Trump's been treated.
	Why would we presume they're treating people with less power any better?
	No, by the way, I think Menendez has some guilt.
	But my point is, I don't think what he's doing is any different from what the vast majority of the rest members of Congress are doing.
	Well, if he did what they say he did, I pray.
	Not everyone's putting gold bars in their closet or wherever the heck is going to be.
	Well, I'll use the Gordon gold bar as a metaphor, but are there gifts from foreign lobbyists that aren't gold bars but are basically of the same value?
	Yeah, come on.
	Well, certainly Joe Biden is Senator Menendez, and he's a version of Menendez sitting there in the Oval Office, given all the evidence we have as to what he and his family was up to.
	Through 11 LLCs and sequential family gifts.
	So let me ask you this.
	You've sued Clintons a few times.
	Right?
	Hillary Clinton Judicial Watch, you guys have.
	How come with them nothing happens?
	They're round.
	There's no trouble.
	There is no scrutiny with the levels of pressures or anything that happened.
	They just keep going on.
	Everybody says, oh my gosh, you know, all this stuff.
	But there's so many rumors about what they did and this and this and that.
	But what happened?
	They're innocent.
	How come?
	Even with all the laws and the lawyers and everything that we have, nothing's happened to the Clintons.
	It's a challenge because I think the Justice Department ⁇ look, the Justice Department is not run by a disinterested civil service that's there just to enforce the law and apply the law.
	Are there people who believe that at the Justice Department?
	Of course, they're good lord.
	Yeah, that goes without saying.
	But in terms of the general direction of the Justice Department, it is run by Democrat liberals who place partisanship and ideology above the rule of law.
	And so it results in their friends being protected in most cases.
	It's not a perfect analysis, and their enemies being targeted.
	It's the Obama way.
	I don't say there's a double standard of justice.
	I kind of jokingly say there's not a double standard of justice.
	I said there's one standard of justice.
	Go after your enemies and protect your friends.
	They're being perfectly consistent when they target Trump while protecting Hillary.
	Heck, the Hillary and the FBI, at the time they were targeting, you know, at the time Hillary was supposedly under investigation for the emails and materials that Judicial Watch uncovered, they were collaborating on ways to destroy Trump, literally partnering.
	Her campaign was paying Chris Steele at the same time Chris Steele was getting paid by the FBI.
	It was a joint effort.
	And we're supposed to believe that the investigation into Hillary was legit.
	I don't even believe, you know, people talk about retribution.
	I just want the government to work the way it's supposed to work.
	Doesn't mean that all these politicians that I think are corrupt get thrown away in jail.
	No, but it does mean that there's a serious criminal investigation of what they did.
	And we can't even get to that relatively low benchmark in the way the Justice Department has done.
	And this is what, Pat, he should do if he gets elected Trump.
	He should appoint a special counsel, not allow the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, because the Justice Department's got to be the target of a special counsel.
	Situate the person down here in Florida, give them all the resources that a special counsel needs through other agencies, and investigate the deprivation of his civil rights and the civil rights of other Americans under color of law by this collusive conspiracy involving the Biden administration, the Justice Department, the FBI, Fannie Willis, and all the rest up in New York.
	He should have special counsels that report to him doing these investigations, targeting the Justice Department to figure out their abuses and their collusion, the FBI, find out who approved of and targeted him, make sure they're not in a position of public trust anymore, whether they be in the FBI or Justice Department.
	They need to radically rethink the existence of the FBI, the power and reach of the Justice Department.
	I remember talking to a senior official at the White House during the Trump administration.
	And the person isn't who you might think he is.
	It's in the terms of where he is politically with Trump.
	He's now known as an anti-Trumper.
	And he said to me, Tom, he goes, after this is all over, we've got to think of a way to bring the Justice Department back into our government.
	Because they were seeing that the Justice Department thought they didn't really report to the president.
	Even his own appointees over there didn't think they reported to him.
	In the sense they would withhold information, refuse to do what they wanted them to do, even though it was lawful.
	And so we've got this kind of rule of law crisis that is pretty grave.
	It goes beyond just the president, you know, Trump being abused.
	We've got this bureaucracy that thinks it answers to nobody other than their Democratic friends and left-wing ideological allies.
	How long has it been like this?
	Well, if you asked Richard Nixon, he'd say since World War II.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you know, one of my favorite guys, Stan Evans, a conservative activist, he's long passed away.
	His standard joke was he didn't like Nixon until Watergate.
	And, you know, to me, you know, if you're Richard Nixon, you know, he saw what Democrats were up to in the 60s with Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedy administration and the casual corruption.
	And he ends up getting impeached and removed and forced to resign from office.
	I don't know, he wasn't technically impeached, but he was about to be impeached, I guess.
	But, you know, it's been a problem for a while.
	It's metastasized and metastasized under Obama.
	It really did.
	Because they got these real hardcore leftists in positions of power in the Justice Department.
	And, you know, I think Trump tried, I think Obama rigged the election in 2012 against Romney by getting the IRS to suppress the Tea Party.
	You know, you can steal elections in plain sight other than through ballot stuffing.
	You can do it by suppressing stories like the Hunter Biden case or suppressing an entire political movement.
	The most important political movement of the recent decades, the Tea Party movement.
	People say, what happened to the Tea Party movement 2012?
	Because it had been merged in 2010, helped the Republicans take over Congress, and it disappeared in 2012.
	People say, well, what happened to it?
	Well, it was suppressed by Obama's IRS.
	Jack Smith and his gang were thinking of ways to prosecute those Tea Party groups.
	Same old, same old in terms of the groups who are in these positions of power.
	And it's no surprise Jack Smith is back.
	That's wild.
	This is what?
	This is the Michelle Bachman days, right?
	Herman Kaine, the 999, that's the era.
	I remember that.
	Let me go to the next story here.
	So as a person leading judicial watch since 98, one of the challenges that happened the last few years is with China.
	Who files a lawsuit?
	Is it the international criminal court to sue China to hold them accountable with COVID?
	You're not hearing neither side talk too much about it.
	The only person that does is really RFK.
	This isn't something that neither Trump nor Biden are speaking too much about.
	Is it because maybe we could be held accountable for the way Fauci handled things?
	So maybe it may be a bad look for America because when you're going through discovery, the world may see that U.S. Fauci was actually directly involved with the help or gain of function.
	But what do you think is going to happen with us getting to the bottom of what the hell happened with COVID, which caused 200,000 businesses in America to shut down, which caused $13 trillion of wealth to be lost during that time in America?
	What do you think is going to happen with that?
	I think it's going to be found that our intelligence operations were very much aware of what the Chinese were doing with biological weapons research.
	And rather than shut it down, they thought one way to figure out what they were up to and manage it was to fund it and have a hand in what they were doing almost financially and literally.
	People don't understand.
	You know, Fauci had a person representing him in China.
	I mean, the NIAID had a woman, I think it was Dr. Ping Chen, who went around, visited the Wuhan lab.
	I mean, she was doing all this work.
	They all generally knew.
	And she was acting as a spy, it looked like, based on the documents we've uncovered.
	So there's little doubt that we should have known what the Chinese were up to.
	I mean, Fauci, one of these documents we just uncovered last year, I couldn't believe it.
	So the initial grant EcoHealth had for their China work, we want to create mutant coronaviruses.
	Mutant.
	It never occurred to me to call gain of function viruses mutant.
	But they did.
	They put it in the darn grant application materials.
	And so, you know, the consequence of that is that it was Fauci's agency that either maybe had provided money that directly resulted in the creation of coronavirus through this gain of function research or gave them the expertise, which is gain of function research, to create other viruses.
	And I'm, you know, and this is just rabbit speculation.
	I think it was, I don't think there's anything natural about COVID.
	I got it.
	There's nothing I've, no one, if you've ever had COVID, no one's had anything like it before.
	There's nothing natural about it.
	And I think it got out in China.
	And the Chinese, you know, the Intel people, their military people, thought it was a happy accident.
	Let's see what happens.
	Let's see what happens.
	And the Chinese had an in with Fauci.
	We had documents.
	WHO, we're going to praise everyone for responding to COVID.
	Please take note of the special praise for China.
	Fauci says, okay.
	China, we send people over.
	We only did it contingent on agreeing to their confidentiality terms.
	That's a document we uncovered at Judicial Watch.
	So we're sending our people over, and the Chinese are dictating U.S. government officials what they can tell us as citizens.
	It's just public info that Fauci said, okay?
	Yeah, he said, you know, the WHO said, let's take it.
	We're going to praise China specifically, and Fauci said, okay.
	Praise P-R-A-I-S-E.
	Yes.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	So again, going back to it, where's the level of accountability?
	What do you think will happen?
	Trump's in.
	Let's say Trump is in.
	Okay.
	Is there going to be anything that you think will be followed up on this case on what happened in 2020 with China?
	I don't.
	I think because of the Intel side of it, I think there'll be some hesitancy on the people who would be doing it to actually ask those tough questions.
	Because we presume it's just Wuhan.
	They have all these other – one of the craziest things we got was the head of the Wuhan, top official Wuhan, sending an email asking for help on how to disinfect tabletops.
	They didn't know how to disinfect the lab.
	And it wasn't like biosafety.
	It was like, what disinfectants do you use to clean the floor?
	I'm exaggerating slightly, but not by much.
	We knew what was going on over there.
	And we have those types of labs in operation here in the United States.
	I mean, just because the government isn't funding gain of function, as we've learned recently, doesn't mean it's not happening.
	And of course, it's not banned as a matter of law.
	I mean, we found out, you know, all this controversy about anthrax, we found we're still supporting investigations into anthrax in Ukraine.
	Now, we were told, well, we just wanted to secure those facilities in the breakup of the Soviet Union.
	Why on earth do we allow anthrax to be present in Ukraine at all?
	Shouldn't we be spending money eliminating anthrax in those labs in Ukraine as opposed to allowing them to continue to study them?
	Now you point that out, you're a Russian plant, as opposed to an American who's concerned about, you know, dangerous bioweapons being funded by the U.S. government.
	Yeah, my position with this is I just want to know.
	I just want to know.
	And in an ideal world, if Trump wins and he gives this responsibility to special counsel, I don't know, RFK, lead this to find out what you're going to do with it, because he's the guy that's going to be the true believer, and maybe that could be the way to bring him in.
	And I don't know.
	I don't even know if Trump wants this.
	You saw yesterday or two days ago when he was asked, Mr. President, if you become president, what are you going to do with John F. Kennedy?
	Are you going to release the JFK file?
	I did.
	I don't know if you saw.
	I did a lot of it, but I will.
	Yes.
	How about 9-11?
	Yes.
	How about Epstein?
	Yes.
	Right?
	I mean, I don't know if you saw that or not.
	I didn't.
	I didn't.
	Yeah, go ahead and play this cliprod.
	This is it.
	Would you declassify the 9-11 files?
	Yeah.
	Would you declassify JFK files?
	Yeah.
	I did.
	I did a lot of it.
	Would you declassify the Epstein files?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I would.
	I guess I would.
	I think that less so because, you know, you don't know.
	You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
	But I think I would.
	Yeah.
	So to me.
	Well, you know, he's been president, so he knows the objections that are raised when these file classification issues come up.
	Privacy, there's national security issues still with the JFK files.
	We've done some litigation on that.
	What's the national security on that?
	Is it just the fact that we did it?
	As if we don't know.
	Sources and methods.
	Who cares if we know?
	We already know.
	It's a long ball game for foreign intelligence services.
	If a person was a source in 1960 and their family is still around in the country which we were targeting, they don't see a distinction just because the person passed away.
	The source.
	Got it.
	So the fear is that if we have, wait, let me understand what you just said.
	Are you saying if we have informants that gave us the information that their family is still around, you're worried about the world's going to find out about that family and that family may be at risk?
	In countries that are.
	And plus, we have current informants who rely on protection as well, and you don't want to diminish their confidence that they'll be protected and names won't be disclosed.
	So that's the arguments.
	I'm not saying it's necessarily persuasive, but it's one that has to be taken seriously.
	Yeah, I would add one more to it.
	I would add actually two more to it.
	One of them would be China.
	If you become president, are you committing to creating a, you know, similar to a warrant commission to go and find out what the hell happened with China?
	Well, he classified, for instance, the end of his term.
	He can declassify stuff.
	But the problem was during his term is that they would derail his declassification efforts.
	He was trying to declassify the targeting information, the abusing of him on Russia.
	He did it at the end of his administration.
	They derailed it at the end.
	And there was a dispute about where those records were.
	I mean, we've been asking for him because he declassified them, but they weren't released.
	And many people, I think, including Kash Patel, I don't know if he's been on the show.
	He's talking about it.
	I've always thought the raid wasn't about his home, wasn't about what Trump had.
	They wanted to know what Trump had on them and the cleanup and vacuum documents that they were concerned he might have had that would expose their criminality against him.
	Yeah, I mean, listen, we'll find out.
	All I'm saying is that's something that I'm interested in.
	Last story before we wrap up here.
	The story comes out about DOJ can't release Biden's communication with her, the audio, because they're worried about deep fake.
	How much do you know about this story and what's your position on it?
	Well, that came up in our legal case.
	We've got the FOIA lawsuit for those actual audio files.
	Now, I'm not a lawyer.
	I've been doing FOIA for 30 years at Judicial Watch or 26 years.
	I've never seen an argument like that.
	I mean, the idea that you can't get a government document or an audio or a video because a third party somewhere down the line might mess with it would end FOIA.
	It would mean that no document in theory could be released because it could be manipulated.
	Ever.
	Right.
	You can use that as a.
	And it's such an absurd legal theory.
	I was thinking, I've been trying to kind of think, why were they pushing?
	Why would they even say this?
	Because it's just so absurd and there's no lawful basis for it.
	And I think they're kind of running these arguments because they really are obsessed with controlling AI, the left is, and censoring it.
	And to me, this is kind of some sort of ideological throwaway where they're throwing it into this case because they want to regulate AI and control AI outputs.
	There's a whole story in the Washington Post today complaining about how the federal government may not move fast enough to restrict speech related to, you know, to restrict AI-related speech on the campaign.
	They don't want AI to be used on the campaigns without disclosures and regulation.
	They're desperate to regulate AI, and I think this argument is part of it.
	And also, they're also desperate to keep these audios away because it's the why bill.
	Why?
	Because they will demonstrate the transcript, which has been, they admitted in our filing, was manipulated.
	They've dropped words like III or stutters or things like that, and, and or something like that, or us or A's.
	The sort of thing, if you heard in an audio, would suggest falsehoods, memory lapses, anxiety, mental incompetence.
	All of that is lost in the transcript when you edit it that way, but would obviously come through in the audio.
	And they've got this political challenge with people's concerns about his cognitive issues.
	And we had a special counsel who used his cognitive issues that were present during these interviews as an excuse not to prosecute him.
	And it's going to be proven right with the release of these audios.
	I mean, that's the conclusion I draw because they're just making up new, just crazy reasons to withhold the information.
	They're not legal reasons.
	It sounds like some crazy politico said, say you say whatever it is you need to say to delay the release of these records.
	So I think we're eventually going to get the audios.
	You think we are.
	But not at the timeframe people want.
	By the time we get it, it's going to be too late.
	It's not like you can do anything about it.
	Tom.
	And I think there's a proxy out there.
	First of all, the first part I thought was ridiculous.
	We're not releasing the audios because someone could tamper with them or use them as source material to create deep fakes.
	Well, that's like saying we've decided against issuing paper money because someone might counterfeit it.
	Right?
	It's ludicrous.
	Then you flip it over the other way and you say, okay, what's really going on here?
	Because you get past ludicrous point one and say that's ludicrous.
	So what's really going on?
	And PBD, I was thinking about the TikTok bill.
	Remember the TikTok bill that banned TikTok bill that had nothing to do with TikTok.
	Everything to do with giving new powers to the government over all social media and websites that might otherwise be objectionable.
	And I think that there's a second underlying part here that They are worried about and using it as an opportunity.
	And it occurs to me, I have a little different view on TikTok, but it occurs to me one way to undermine the real audio is to suggest there's a lot of deep fakes and you can't even trust the real audio when it comes out.
	So maybe they're just planning ahead.
	Let me tell you, that is a strategy you're going to hear used by everybody for decades to come.
	Okay.
	Was that you on the phone, babe?
	No, no, that's a deep fake audio.
	That wasn't me.
	That was somebody else.
	Was that you on it?
	No, no.
	That's not me.
	Somebody else did that, right?
	It's not even my recording calling.
	That is kind of.
	You can't believe your own eyes.
	You can't believe your own eyes.
	You ever seen a movie Primal Fear with Edward Norton?
	Yeah.
	With Richard Gere?
	Yeah.
	It's like, you know, there's two guys, there's whatever, the one brother and the other brother.
	What was the brother's name?
	Turns to me.
	Wait a minute.
	Yeah, the kids.
	How did you know?
	He starts clapping the beloved Archbishop Rushman with the video of him and the girl and all this stuff.
	Yeah, he didn't do it.
	The brother did it.
	But to me, that can be used so many times.
	They're going to be using this as well.
	Last but not least, did you see the story about Wall Street Journal, how Biden's seen out the expose on his health and all the reaction and all that?
	And the left being upset saying, this is a MAGA writer writing this, where at the same time, the lady goes on CNN and says, no.
	So it's actually bad when we're seeing how he's behaving, how he's acting.
	How much of an impact does that have at this point of the game?
	You know, I think there's probably some internal Democratic pressure to remove him from the ticket.
	And it kind of reflected in stories like that.
	Time Magazine had similar conclusions about their big interview.
	It wasn't as direct as the Wall Street Journal.
	It was just based on their interaction.
	If I were running the House, I'd be holding hearings on the 25th Amendment.
	I think there are significant cognitive issues for him.
	And I think it's a national security issue.
	It places all at risk.
	Our friends or enemies make calculations based on the perceived strength of the United States.
	And his cognitive challenges make us look weak.
	And I think would encourage our friends and enemies to take steps they might otherwise not take in a way that places our interests at risk.
	Tom.
	Do you think there's also, Tom, I think that is the mature forward-thinking assessment in terms of global position of the United States.
	And I agree with that.
	I also think there's this other myopic, more internal look.
	And I think there's a group of Republicans that don't want to touch the 25th because what they don't want is Kamala Harris, number one.
	But number two, what they don't want is Gavin Newsom to emerge at the convention because he's a more formidable opponent.
	I think they want Biden as the opponent, that they're the ones that are with the more traditionalist Democrats that want to keep Biden, the allies that he does have, because there's certainly the squad and a group in the Democrat Party that are maintaining, they're being sort of muted, but absolutely want it.
	Last week, the story was, everyone calm down.
	You know, we're not going to replace him.
	You remember that?
	It was Dems talking to Dems.
	So I tend to think that there's a group of Republicans in there that don't want the dominoes to fall in such a way that Gavin Newsom shows up at the convention.
	And by the way, that's just my thinking, but I'm impressed with you.
	So do you think I'm wrong?
	That's a fair analysis.
	I think that there are probably a lot of Republicans who want Trump, who want Biden on the ticket because they think he's the most easily beatable.
	I don't know if that's persuasive.
	I always go back.
	I'm a Republican nominally, but I'm not a Republican in my approach on policy.
	My view is what is the right thing to do?
	And we have a crisis with Biden behaving and acting as he is.
	And that's got to be addressed in some way.
	Now, some might say, to be fair, well, the one way to address that is through the election process.
	And this would be too disruptive.
	If you're worried about the way America looks now, you don't want to get into a fight about the 25th Amendment.
	It will make us look even weaker.
	So just wait for the election.
	So, look, these are tactical issues, I understand, but I think we need to acknowledge it's a crisis.
	I won't show you this video and we'll wrap up.
	Watch this video here.
	I agree.
	This is the lady from Wall Street Journal after the claims about Biden's mental fitness on CNN.
	Go forward, Rob.
	Is one of the two reporters on the byline of the story, and she's with us now.
	Siobhan, thank you so much for being with us.
	This story obviously is making a lot of waves, as you know.
	The headline, behind closed doors, Biden showing signs of slipping.
	What does slipping mean?
	And is the picture that is painted here different from what voters are seeing in public?
	The picture that's being painted here is one of a president who, behind closed doors, is very much the same as what you see in public.
	Somebody who has good days, good moments, but also bad days and bad moments.
	And the reason that's significant is the White House position has been that if only you could see the president behind closed doors, if only you could see what we see, he's absolutely sharp as attack.
	And so this aims to find out: well, what is the president like behind closed doors?
	It's what's happening there different from what the public sees?
	And the answer is not very much.
	Siobhan, you're right that most of those who said were Republicans, but you noted that some Democrats said that he showed his age in several exchanges.
	Not to repeat Brianna's question, but I'm wondering what showed his age entails, because there are several instances in the piece where different encounters can be read different ways.
	And people came away from meetings with different impressions of what happened.
	So I'm wondering how you navigated that in your reporting.
	So it's fair.
	That is very, very tricky, Terrain.
	But we focused on three meetings in particular all over the course of the past year.
	And there were things like mumbling, speaking in such a low voice that people could only hear every other word or couldn't understand what he was saying.
	This over-reliance on note cards, using note cards to make what were very obvious points and using them in ways that affected the spontaneity of the conversation, having a loose command of the details.
	Things like in the Ukraine meeting we talked about in January of this year, using note cards to make the point that Ukraine aid needed to be on the table when everybody in that room, by and large, agreed that Ukraine aid needed to pass.
	That wasn't the question.
	The question is, how do we do this quickly?
	And so it is the preponderance of the detail that we gathered that led to that headline.
	Wow.
	Doesn't get worse than that, by the way.
	That's CNN right now.
	That's a pretty wicked answer.
	Yeah, she's wicked.
	I mean, by the way, she seems very reasonable and straight up.
	So we all saw Fauci testify this one.
	Fauci's two years older than Biden.
	Compare and contrast Fauci's confidence with Biden.
	It's not about age.
	He's facing age-related cognitive decline that's readily apparent.
	He's at the D-Day ceremonies this week, further embarrassing the country.
	And, you know, and I keep on saying there's a national security interest in ensuring that the president is up to speed and is capable.
	And, you know, Trump's of a similar age.
	He's not that much younger, but it's clear Trump's with it.
	And by the way, this happened earlier today.
	I don't know if you saw this with the president and Jill, and he was with Matt Cron and his husband.
	I'm sorry, his wife.
	And they're going through the whole thing.
	You're going to watch what happens here, Rob.
	If you can play this clip, he's telling something.
	Distinguished guests, please welcome the honorable Lloyd J. Austin.
	No, but do you have the clip of him walking away, Rob?
	That's the one is he trying to sit down?
	Oh, you have to see what happens right here.
	So he leaves, then Macron is like, Uh, what am I supposed to do?
	And Macron is the one because today's D-Day, right?
	So Macron is going and shaking hands with those who served, and Joe and Jill have walked away from the whole thing.
	Watch this and he walks.
	We can have Bernie's now.
	Watch Macron.
	Macron's like, uh, what do you mean to do?
	Runs up.
	Thank you for being here.
	Thank you for being here.
	Thank you for your service.
	That's supposed to be Joe Biden doing that.
	Those are the Macron's, not our president.
	Those are Americans.
	Look at this.
	They want that from the president.
	This is the last of the D-Day invaders wearing their medals, wearing their hat, certifying their area of service.
	Yeah, they were supposed to have their hands shook by the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, who walked away.
	And the president of France is doing his best with very official music playing to go along and honor them.
	You could do an entire show of videos like that.
	So, I mean, it's not even a controversial point.
	That's just today, though.
	That's today.
	I'm just giving you the latest.
	Anyways, appreciate you for coming out.
	We're going to put the link below for Judicial Watch.
	If you want to go learn more about what Tom does, you'll find all the material on their website.
	It'll be in the chat, the description, all of it for you to learn more.
	Tom, once again, thanks for coming.
	I appreciate your work.
	We appreciate it.
	Yes, thank you.
	Likewise.

▲