Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 29, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:04

20200429_Wed_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	In ways that notably conflicted and contrasted with how he has handled other potential things.
	Therapy drugs and therapeutic drugs for COVID-19 previously.
	Why is that?
	How it's connected potentially to Duke University.
	How there's sort of a big pharma medical political complex of the kind there is a military industrial complex.
	Duke University sits often at the center of it.
	And we'll get into further details about that a little bit later in the show.
	We'll also be interviewing Tracy Beans, who does a wide range of investigative research on her own accord, both with her podcast, Dark and Light, but also with her publication that she launched and with research investigative work that she has done over the last several years, including on the General Flynn case.
	But first, we'll start off and lead off with the General Flynn case.
	What many of us said at the time when the General Flynn case was not even a case yet, when as soon as it was clear there was a PR campaign against him, people like Mike Cernovich, people like myself, people like Jack Masovic and a few others were pointing out that this was the hallmark of a setup, that this was the hallmark of an entrapment, that this was a hallmark of a political assassination campaign against a key individual, an individual that frankly President Trump underappreciated his importance.
	But the Deep State actors did not underappreciate his importance.
	The people that had institutional power in the State Department, in the military, in the national security apparatus, at the highest rankings of the politically motivated 7th floor of the FBI, at the Justice Department, they understood just how essential and critical General Flynn was to President Trump.
	So we're going to discuss at the beginning of the show tonight both how they took him out and why they took him out.
	But first, as to the why.
	The why was that General Flynn was critical and essential to someone like President Trump who was a complete political novice and outsider.
	President Trump's political instincts are unparalleled and arguably unprecedented in the modern era.
	But he is also not a creature of Washington.
	He's a creature of New York.
	He's a creature of real estate.
	He's a creature of television.
	He's a creature of public rallies.
	He's someone who had a deep instinctive understanding of the American public.
	And the American populace and of the mindset of the American people.
	But where he was limited, where he was constricted, where he was potentially vulnerable, was his lack of understanding of institutional Washington.
	With whom and with which he had no meaningful familiarity.
	With the sort of deep state apparatus that has entrenched and effectively pulled down the democratic levers of government to their own control.
	Indeed, this sort of octopus-like entity derived from a concept of the dual state that originated in the late 19th century by a publisher at The Economist.
	His point was that increasingly there was an administrative state within government that was completely impervious and immune to the democratic wishes of the people.
	And his way of explaining that was that it was a separate state.
	It was a state within a state.
	It was thus a dual state.
	This concept met new meaning when German refugees, intellectuals and scholars tried to understand the rise of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and throughout Europe, as well to a certain degree of communism throughout the rest of Eastern Europe and later Asia.
	And they understood it as one of the core problems that allowed that to happen.
	was a dual state within their own governments that was immune and impervious to democratic impulse that could act without regard to what the public or populace wanted, often relying, in the case of Weimar Republic, on emergency powers to do so.
	Well, and that same dual state construct became later the deep state when people mostly on the ideological left in the 1950s and 1960s said, What happens when the dual state is inside the national security apparatus?
	What happens when the dual state is inside our intelligence branches?
	What happens when the dual state is with the highest ranking political decision makers of our military infrastructure, our law enforcement infrastructure?
	What happens then?
	Anyway, the argument was, well, then they become truly a deep state.
	And that deep state has tentacles of power throughout the entire process, manipulating politicians.
	Thus, you have someone like J. Edgar Hoover, who can maintain constant power, even though nobody in elected office wants him to have that power, because he's able to build extortion and blackmail files on politicians and the press and public figures and do COINTELPRO and other activities like that.
	Indeed, Mark Felt, deep throat who overthrew Nixon, was a longtime COINTELPRO Hoover operative.
	So that gives you a sense of they're so powerful they could take out a president of the United States and arguably try it again in the latest in Russiagate 2 and Ukrainegate in the coup attempt with the impeachment.
	So in that context, you understand the deep state apparatus and the deep state officers.
	There was one person in Trump's new administration who was a serious threat to the deep state.
	They did not see Trump as such a deep threat.
	They had tried to take him out during the election.
	They were continuing to sort of attempt to blackmail him through extortionate investigations in Russiagate and Mueller.
	But they considered their real adversary to be Trump's key advisor, national security advisor, General Flynn.
	General Flynn was bringing together, General Flynn knew where all the white hats were in the intelligence infrastructure.
	General Flynn knew where all the white hats were in the law enforcement infrastructure.
	General Flynn, for example, went to bat for my client Robin Gritz, a high-ranking FBI agent who had blown the whistle on Andrew McCabe and others for their illicit activities while she was there.
	So General Flynn knew who was a white hat that should be in power in the FBI, who was a white hat that should be in power in the National Security Agency, who's a white hat that should be in power at the CIA, who's a white hat that should be in power within key military, industrial, national security infrastructure locations.
	The Office of National Intelligence.
	The National Security Agency.
	Who should be there?
	General Flynn knew who the White Hats were.
	In fact, he was putting the group of White Hats together.
	And to align behind the President.
	To give the President institutional depth for his instinctual populist politics.
	In essence, to give it not only an intellectual architecture but an intellectual infrastructure that could make sure the policies of the populist instincts of the president were actually reflected and represented in the public will and in what institutional government did.
	That is why General Flynn was such a threat to the institutional deep state actors.
	And it's why immediately, as soon as the president took power, I mean, literally the day after he was inaugurated, the plot to entrap him began.
	Indeed, parts of that plot were commenced just during the pre before President Trump was inaugurated, just after his election.
	Indeed, there was a they were spying on General Flynn's phone calls.
	They were intercepting those phone calls, recording those phone calls, sharing them with Obama officials that wanted General Flynn out, and then leaking those confidential phone calls to the press at selective times where it served their purpose.
	Of course, then Attorney General Sessions promised to get to the bottom of that illicit leak, just as Attorney General Barr has promised to get to the bottom of that leak.
	Somehow, they just haven't got around to it yet.
	They keep saying, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming, just never seems to get there.
	Well, in that context, they knew it was critical to entrap Flynn.
	So what they did, and this is, let's go to the, we understand the why, now let's go to the how.
	The how was the Trump administration made the mistake of allowing a bunch of Obama appointees in a sort of a shadow government reflective of deep state priorities and Obama political allies to stay in positions of power after President Trump was inaugurated.
	The net effect of that was that people like Sally Yates were in key positions of power.
	I have personal, professional experience with Sally Yates.
	When she was the U.S.
	attorney in the northern district of georgia she and her allies launched a completely fraudulent corrupt investigation against an italian american businessman smeared him left and right used the various labor unions to help facilitate it rogue irs agents to help facilitate it rogue fbi agents to help facilitate it intercepting mail illicitly doing spying activities illicitly doing illicit forms of discovery doctoring documents to the point where they actually put pages together
	so one page they would take page one and two of one report and attach page three and four of a different report and that's what they produced in discovery fake reports doctored reports counterfeit reports of high-ranking agents in the irs and homeland security that's how far she was willing to go that's how far her allies were willing to go they even threatened the united states congressmen and united states senators if they said anything about it in the
	Indeed, ultimately the court set aside the cases and the Department of Justice recognized the egregious misconduct that had taken place in that case and dismissed all charges against my client.
	But it took almost 10 years for him to clear his name.
	And that only happened because, and you only had to do so in the first place, because of how rogue Sally Yates was.
	Well, here she was in a key position of power, while other people, names that would become familiar to us in Spygate, names that would become familiar to us in Russiagate, names that would become familiar to us in Mueller's fake cases against a range of people and politically motivated prosecutions.
	And those names would be exposed later, but they weren't known then.
	They knew General Flynn was the threat that could prevent their deep state institutional policies from continuing to operate underneath and outside of the president's purview and the president's power.
	Indeed, these were the people who would later on help lead the Mueller coup attempt against the president.
	coup attempt against the president.
	These are the same people who would help instigate and publicly support the Ukraine gate impeachment attempts against the president.
	These are the same people who would help instigate and publicly support the Ukraine gate impeachment attempts against the president.
	Neither one of those coup attempts likely succeed or even get off the ground if General Flynn stays in power, if General Flynn is able to put his key people in other positions of power, if General Flynn is there to be the Doberman protecting the president and making sure the elected president has if General Flynn is there to be the Doberman protecting the president and making sure the elected president has his will And so that's why they had to take him out.
	The how first was Sally Yates helping to orchestrate a completely bogus investigation, doing so with the help of Andrew McCabe and other connected corrupt actors in the seventh floor of the FBI.
	People like Peter Strozik's name will pop up.
	Other names like that will pop up.
	The same names will pop up later in the inspector general's report about illicit activities involving the FISA investigations and warrants that were illicitly obtained on Carter Page and the other entrapment attempts against others.
	But they decided to target General Flynn and their goal and their methodology and what some of us were saying all the way back then before today when the documents came out that proved it.
	Back then we were saying what you will find if you dig into the data, if you dig into the documents, if you dig into the information, if you do a real true investigation, you will find that they were coordinating an entrapment effort against General Flynn.
	The The way they were going to do so is under the pretext that they were just doing a national security meeting.
	Understand that for General Flynn he is constantly working with the counter espionage unit at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in his duties and tasks as a national security advisor.
	So he would have no reason to suspect that department walking in the door.
	Indeed, there would be no reason, frankly, for the Counter Espionage Unit to be the one conducting any investigation of General Flynn.
	So there was no reason for him to be concerned.
	Indeed, they told him no reason for a lawyer, nothing else.
	They were just going to stop by and ask a few questions.
	They stopped by and asked a few questions and then later on leaked to the press that they think General Flynn lied to them knowing that they caught him in a moment in which they could induce him to make statements that they later could misportray and misrepresent.
	Own internal FBI memorandums would later confirm the FBI agents at the interview did not believe General Flynn lied to them.
	There was no compelling evidence that General Flynn lied to him.
	There was no reason for General Flynn to lie to them.
	General Flynn knew they had the correspondents they'd been recording his conversations.
	So all they're really doing is, let's see if you have a perfect memory when you're not really paying attention to the kind of question I'm asking.
	It's like, you know, when your wife wants to ask some, like, trick question and buries it between five different questions.
	Not really a sincere question.
	It's a trick and a trap question.
	But that's what they were doing to General Flynn.
	And then they used that to leak it to the press, create a storm around him, get Vice President Pence to panic.
	And there's a lot of people in Vice President Pence's organization that are deep state institutional actors that hate President Trump.
	Remember when President Trump, then candidate Trump, was in trouble, Vice President Pence hid out in Indiana.
	He didn't come to the public's defense.
	There's no reason to trust Vice President Pence at all.
	So this was the nature, so it was easy to get Vice President Pence to be part of this coup attempt against General Flynn, knowing if they could remove General Flynn, then the President would have no protection inside the White House, no protection inside the National Security Agency, no protection inside the national security infrastructure, no protection within the Pentagon, no protection within the intelligence infrastructure, no protection within the law enforcement infrastructure.
	All they had to do was take out Flynn, and that would make Trump completely vulnerable, as it proved to be the case over the next three years.
	Where large numbers of President Trump's policies were never enforced.
	Where large numbers of President Trump's policies were deliberately undermined.
	Where a large number of President Trump's policies have been countermanded.
	Where every time President Trump tries to get us out of Syria or out of Afghanistan, somehow they entrap us back in there.
	So the entire goal and objective was to remove him.
	The way they did so was by using the counterintelligence units at the FBI and Sally Yates at the Department of Justice to help coordinate the effort, go behind the scenes and do a media campaign against him, while simultaneously going to Vice President Pence to whisper things into President Trump's ears, in part because of Vice President Pence's while simultaneously going to Vice President Pence to whisper things into President Trump's ears, in part because of Vice President Pence's naivete and also because a lot of his key people are Trump haters and never Trumpers and have deeper allies
	So they were able to align those components with that to come after him and trap him in a meeting that he has no idea has any consequence or significance, has no motivation or reason to make any misrepresentation, and they just trick him with memory.
	So then they take it to the second step, and then they get into the Mueller part of the investigations.
	So first they panic the president into letting Flynn go, which in part, which has the net effect, has a domino set of effects.
	I can tell you what, from personal professional experience, that Mueller's team targeted everybody that was connected to General Flynn.
	I'm talking high-ranking, well-regarded, well-respected military, law enforcement, national security officials.
	How do I know?
	Because some of those officials reached out to me for potential representation if the case accelerated.
	That's how it is.
	If you know anything about Robert Mueller, you would know Steve Bannon is a moron to think that Robert Mueller is anything other than a deep state hack.
	The way Mueller played Steve Bannon like a violin is evidence of Steve Bannon's weakness and why in part the president could be so easily trapped is because Steve Bannon does not understand the institutional deep state nature of American politics.
	General Flynn did.
	That's why General Flynn was the target and not Steve Bannon.
	Steve Bannon was just a bug on the windshield of the deep state establishment.
	General Flynn was a threat to its heart and to its core.
	And that is why they went after him.
	And they went after everybody associated and affiliated with him.
	What did it do?
	It created the tar and feather effect that scared and terrified anybody who was connected or had institutional influence.
	Basically, any of the white hats were terrified from trying to even get involved at all.
	They receded.
	They took steps back.
	I had friends who were in key ranking positions who decided they weren't interested in a promotion anymore.
	They weren't interested in having real institutional influence anymore.
	Many of them got out as soon and as quickly as they could or have been seeking to do so because of their lack of confidence in the administration once General Flynn was removed.
	Once the King of the White Hats was out, the rest of the White Hats scattered and it had the necessary effect.
	But in order to do so, they had to entrap him.
	In order to do so, they then needed Mueller to do a second level of entrapment.
	And that second level of entrapment was to go through all of General Flynn's history about any organization he had ever worked for and represented.
	And try to reinterpret the Foreign Agency Registration Act in a way that it had never been constructed before.
	And to interpret it, because if it was interpreted honestly, if anybody who ever received money from anyone that's overseas, 99% of Washington D.C.
	would be in prison today.
	Because DC is entirely built, is awash in foreign funds.
	So the idea that you could, that that was somehow a crime, it was ridiculous at the time period.
	The only issue was regulatory compliance.
	And in fact, when you dug in with the actual records would ultimately show was that General Flynn completely complied regulatorily.
	But how did they set him up?
	How did they entrap him?
	Well, they went at it two ways.
	First, General Flynn made one mistake in this whole process.
	And it's a mistake that many innocent individuals make.
	He hired a big corporate institutional defense firm.
	And as I said at the time, as a few others of us said at the time, that was a major mistake and it would backfire and it would not serve his purposes.
	The reason is that essentially the way the federal criminal process often works, Is that your big white shoe firms have people that are former prosecutors who, if you cut them, they still bleed government blue.
	That basically they are star chamber inquisitors.
	You never hire an ex-inquisitor to defend you against the Inquisition because down deep they still believe in the Inquisition.
	And their real goal and objective, aside from getting you to pay them lots of money first, will be to force you or coerce your confession to the system.
	They work for the system at heart.
	They don't work for you at heart.
	That's the reality.
	That's been my practical professional experience with almost every former federal prosecutor I've ever seen in the criminal defense arena.
	That's why if you study, you'll find these former federal prosecutors have an extraordinarily big L rate in their federal criminal cases.
	They lose at an extraordinary rate and they often betray key political people who they're supposed to be defending and representing.
	Well, that's what happened in General Flynn's case.
	He hired the Covington defense firm.
	A firm where people like Attorney General, ex-Attorney General Eric Holder works.
	So that gives you an idea for their ethical compass.
	That gives you an idea for their moral sensibilities.
	That gives you a sense of their institutional direction.
	And what happened, in fact, that law firm had issues with how they had complied with various regulatory aspects.
	And by shifting that blame to General Flynn, They could in turn help him immunize themselves.
	So in the process, they withheld all kinds of key information.
	They tried to induce him to plea.
	They tried to induce him to give false testimony against the president.
	They did not fully defend him.
	They did not aggressively defend him.
	They did not aptly defend him.
	And then it just turned out that they had been hiding documents and information for years from his defense.
	So he finally gets to terminate them and hires an exceptional defense counsel, a former federal appellate lawyer who has been on the defense side of the aisle for a long time, wrote books like Licensed to Lie about the corrupt nature of the Enron prosecution.
	A friend of mine was a co-defense counsel in that case and witnessed that corruption firsthand.
	And though I had forecasted for her Months, actually years before the case fully went to trial, she was still shocked at the scope and scale of it.
	I'll never forget she thought that I was cynical in my perceptions and I just tried to explain it was nothing about cynicism.
	It was about reality and you have to be prepared for that reality and you have to plan for it accordingly.
	There's a lot of corruption in our federal criminal process by federal prosecutors, by federal law enforcement agents.
	I've witnessed it over and over and over again and exposed it over and over and over again.
	And in that context, General Flynn was clearly going to be targeted.
	There was going to be a lot of misconduct and malfeasance.
	There was.
	His own lawyers were working to undermine his own defense, betrayed him by failing to provide material information that could have been exculpatory.
	And what the ultimate entrapment method and mechanism was, was they decided to threaten his son with whether or not his son had done the proper paperwork.
	That's what all this was.
	This is not about any illicit activities.
	This is not about bribery.
	This was not about some sort of mail fraud or wire fraud.
	There was nothing here that was truly criminal at all.
	This was did you cross all your T's and dot all your I's on every tiny little form that ever got submitted to any little agency anywhere.
	And the law firm often responsible for it is the law firm that actually messed up.
	And that law firm is the one defending you.
	And so on a they decided to do it off the books.
	agreement that they would not prosecute his son if he would agree to plead guilty, needing that plea to trigger a domino of public perception against others and to remove him permanently as a threat politically if he is to ever obtain institutional influence again.
	And that is what happened.
	But there wasn't the proof of it.
	There wasn't the full evidence of it.
	Those of us who have experience in the criminal defense world could see it.
	Those of us who have had success defending politically charged criminal cases in the past recognized it right away.
	Key political allies who understood how institutional Washington works, how the media narrative is structured, how the political actors behave, how the Justice Department truly operates, people like Mike Cernovich, people like Jack Posobiec and others, recognize the problems with this right away.
	Not only how essential General Flynn was, but also that this was a political prosecution, not a legitimate prosecution.
	Now, today, the evidence comes out.
	Not only this week has thousands of documents that were previously hidden by the Covington law firm been released and revealed to the favor of General Flynn, but in addition to that, it turns out the FBI agents actually kept notes of their criminality.
	It goes back to an old Earl Long lesson that apparently the FBI agents who are rogue in this regard had failed to remember, which is always in cash and never in writing.
	Well, they apparently did it all in detail in writing.
	Writing things like, oh, we believe that we should, what's our goal here?
	Is our goal just entrapment for prosecution?
	Or is it entrapment just to get him fired?
	Or is it entrapment just to get him, have his reputation tarred and feathered?
	They actually wrote effects of this down.
	They said, is our goal to get him to lie?
	Is our goal to get him fired?
	Is our goal to set him up?
	What is our objective?
	These are in fact the notes that were released and revealed.
	These are the FBI notes that they've been hiding for years.
	And remember, the federal government has a duty and what's called exculpatory evidence under the case of Brady versus the United States.
	Any evidence in the government's file that could be helpful to the defendant for any reason, not just whether it'd be helpful to him at trial.
	Would it be helpful for him at sentencing?
	Would it be helpful for him for plea negotiation?
	Would it be helpful to him at all?
	Would it be material?
	And material is any legal benefit that could acquire from that evidence and information.
	Well, they've been hiding it now for years.
	Including, frankly, Director Wray has been hiding it now for years.
	Including, frankly, Attorney General Barr.
	Why hasn't he already dismissed this case?
	If he actually means any of his rhetoric, this case should have been dismissed yesterday.
	But what the evidence shows is they do an afterwards, they talk about an interview, and he said, I urged yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn this.
	Basically, we're gonna withhold information from him so he doesn't know what we're doing.
	And not only that, what is our goal here?
	Is it truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
	Get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.
	In other words, truth was not an objective.
	Honesty was not an objective.
	The only objective was to entrap the president of General Flynn so they could remove the key president's allies.
	This is the FBI's own written notes that they have hid now for, what, three years?
	Going on four years?
	That's how long they have hid this critical, essential, material evidence that showed that General Flynn was in fact entrapped, that General Flynn was in fact set up, that their whole goal was to induce him to make an inaccurate statement or a statement they could label inaccurate.
	That's why they made sure it was hasty, done in a casual format, done so he isn't on high alert, done by the counterintelligence unit, by the counterespionage unit, so it's not someone that he has any reason to suspect would be coming at him, someone who he thinks is allied with him, someone who he thinks is working with him, working for him to protect the country.
	That's why they don't give him the documents and information so he could know what the accurate information was.
	So they make it casual, they make it rushed, they make it with no lawyer, they make it with people he's familiar with, they make it with people he thinks are allied with him, all for the purpose of what they now admit in writing was to get him to lie or get him to say something they could use against him for the purposes of setting up a criminal prosecution, creating a criminal prosecution, in order to get him fired and removed and disregarded publicly.
	In other words, that's what entrapment is.
	Entrapment is where the government gets you to commit a crime you otherwise were not in the process of committing.
	That is precisely what they did here.
	This is the classic legal definition of entrapment.
	When the feds come in and you haven't done anything wrong, they weren't investigating a crime here.
	There was nothing to investigate here.
	There was no crime that took place here.
	In fact, and they admit that.
	They're not saying, hey, we're following up on an investigation into this issue.
	Indeed, the Logan Act allegation was always pretextual.
	No one in the history of the country has been prosecuted for a Logan Act violation.
	The Logan Act is known by almost every respected constitutional and criminal defense lawyer to be unconstitutional.
	It's a joke!
	It means nothing at all.
	They knew that.
	That was just Sally Yates' cover to be able to sell this as something other than what it was.
	They had to come up with a retrospective narrative, a kind of parallel construction, but done retroactively in order to justify the fact that this was just one big fat entrapment.
	It was a Rosie O'Donnell-sized entrapment.
	That's what this was.
	It was not a legitimate investigation.
	It was not an honest inquiry.
	It was entirely done to set up General Flynn solely for the purposes of removing him from power, from removing him from having influence with the President, and in the process, destroying his life.
	And while they were doing that, They ended up bankrupting him by the law firm that was betraying him, apparently charging him millions of dollars for a defense they failed to mount.
	For a defense they helped undermine his ability to defend himself, to coerce a plea of a crime he was not guilty of, and in this time frame, and in this process, hid the evidence of it.
	Not only did the law firm hide the evidence, the FBI hid the evidence.
	Today it came out.
	Today there's no doubt.
	This was purely an entrapment of General Flynn.
	This was purely illicit and unconstitutional.
	And if Attorney General Barr means any of his words, he should argue and move to dismiss the charges against General Flynn tomorrow.
	When we come back, we'll discuss more of this and other matters with trade.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown here on April 29, 2008.
	Day 25, 29, 45, 50, depending where you are in the country or the world in terms of your civil rights being suspended.
	Effectively, maybe what we could call getting flimmed is what's happened to a lot of people around the world over the past 30 days.
	We have with us Tracy Beans, an excellent investigative reporter, grassroots reporter.
	You can find her as the Editor-in-Chief at uncoverdc.com.
	You can follow her podcast, Dark and Light.
	You can also follow her on Twitter at Tracy Beanz, B-E-A-N-Z.
	She's done great work on behalf of General Flynn, has done great work on these pandemic-related issues, helped design a bunch of charts that we're going to get into in a little bit later.
	But first, I wanted to say thanks, Tracy, for being on, and we'll probably jump into General Flynn up front.
	Yeah, great to be here.
	Definitely General Flynn up front.
	This is something else.
	You know, Judicial Watch came out with a drop of information last week.
	Peter Strzok and Lisa Page emailing each other on January 4, 2017, a paper from the Congressional Research Service entitled, Conducting Foreign Relations Without Authority, the Logan Act.
	The bulk of that email is redacted, but you can only imagine what they were saying in there on January 4th of 2017.
	Exactly.
	I mean, it was clear that the insurance ticket that they planned on cashing after President Trump got elected was not just Mueller and Russiagate and Spygate and his correlated activities.
	but it was the takeout of General Flynn.
	Indeed, they arguably put in more effort up front to General Flynn than they did anybody or anything.
	Russiagate really took off a little bit later.
	Mueller took off a little bit later.
	Their target right out of the gate was General Flynn.
	General Flynn is whose conversations they're eavesdropping on.
	General Flynn is the one they're setting up for interviews.
	And as you pointed out, that's who they're talking about coordinating.
	They had to be reading articles about how to use the Logan Act because the Logan Act has never been used in American legal, criminal, prosecutorial history.
	I mean, that's what made this a joke from the inception.
	And then as soon as I saw my dear friend Sally Yates, that statement's made ironically for those who may be late appearing, involved and I knew that the sort of corrupt scheme that I'd seen before was taking place again.
	And I think only that what I've often told people is that the reason why innocent people often look guilty is because innocent people are not prepared for how guilty the criminal justice process can be, particularly in politically motivated, politically tainted prosecutions and investigations.
	The naive, innocent person doesn't think like a criminal like Peter Strzok really is, like James Comey really is, like some of these others, like Andrew McKay really is.
	They don't have that criminal mindset or mentality.
	So they don't have a defensive protectiveness.
	So they're easy to entrap.
	They're easy to set up.
	And then when they're defending themselves, they usually think, oh, I'll just, you know, hire the big name lawyers.
	And surely once people see what the truth is, they'll recognize this is crazy.
	And General Flynn had no reason to think anything else because, at least in his experience within government, that was the way the process was supposed to work.
	He had never witnessed this ugly underbelly of this scale and scope, at least not in the criminal justice side of the equation.
	But clearly what was revealed today reflects a lot of the work and reporting that you've been doing, that other people have been doing.
	What's disconcerting to a certain degree, what's encouraging, It is mass grassroots reporting of the kind that you do.
	I encourage everybody to follow your podcast, go to Uncover DC, follow you on Twitter.
	All fantastic.
	It's been wonderful seeing what I call little d democratic resurgence of independent grassroots journalism, a resurgence of populist politics, but in a different vein, reflected in independent investigative research, people doing their own data research, people doing their own investigative research, people doing massive numbers of people using people doing their own investigative research, people doing massive numbers of people using the Freedom of Information Act, people diving in and digesting publicly released materials like what you did with judicial watches reporting, all
	On the downside, it's been a little bit unsettling and disturbing that the institutional media has mostly failed in this arena.
	They should have been coming to General Flynn's defense right away.
	It's a little bit terrifying that here you have one of the most well-regarded, well-respected men who has served this country with honor and without question for decades could be railroaded within days.
	What was it?
	What's your thoughts on that?
	Well, they had no problem coming to the rescue of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, right?
	I mean, you know, the parallels between those two scenarios to me were just absolutely mind-blowing.
	Here you have somebody who's basically conspiring to impeach the President in numerous different ways.
	They're holding him up on a pedestal.
	You can't question his service.
	You can't say anything bad about him.
	He served his country.
	And on the other hand, you take a look at what they did to General Flynn.
	And we're all sitting here looking around.
	But listen, this is just the way they've been.
	This is the way they're going to continue to be.
	And it's why people like me are able to start their own media company and replace these folks slowly but surely with the help of folks like you.
	So I think we're doing a good job so far.
	What do you say?
	Yeah, I mean, so far so good, particularly if we see full vindication for General Flynn.
	And I understand Sidney Powell's position.
	I know Sidney, a great lawyer, have come to her public defense when she was attacked by Judge Sullivan unfairly earlier last year.
	I do not have, I understand people have confidence in Judge Sullivan.
	I won't give all of my thoughts on Judge Sullivan because some of them are not necessarily for public consumption.
	But leave it to say this, Judge Sullivan has, like Attorney General Barr, has often talked a good game about enforcing discovery obligations, about punishing prosecutors if they go rogue, particularly because he was the one who was successfully set up in the Senator Stevens prosecution.
	Uh, where they basically hid almost all the key evidence.
	They created a completely bogus case.
	They basically framed him.
	Uh, but people forget is the judge let all that happen.
	And the judge was not, uh, aware enough or conscientious enough to stop it while it was occurring.
	It was only much later when an FBI agent came forward and other agents came forward and said, by the way, here's what happened, that frankly he was almost forced to take action.
	So while a lot of people have given him credit for that.
	I've been watching him for a long time since then and I have not seen compelling evidence that he'll take action.
	Also, some of my what people would call cynicism is rooted in witnessing it in the federal judicial process now for two decades.
	That most federal judges come from U.S.
	attorney's offices, have close friends and allies in the U.S.
	attorney's offices, particularly amongst career prosecutors, career agents, and they will go out of their way to cover up rather than expose government corruption and misconduct and often when I get a resolution from government misconduct it's so that the judges and the prosecutors and the agents don't let the public see it in public limelight not because they really want to publicly smack the prosecutors or agents for doing something rogue or wayward
	I also have further doubts because over the past decade, a lot of these judges, particularly in the federal court systems, rely upon their law clerks.
	Their law clerks are overwhelmingly liberal, and I've seen judge after judge, even judges who wanted to dismiss, who talked about dismissing on the bench, reverse themselves three months later because their liberal law clerk, who reads the New York Times and watches Rachel Maddow every night, isn't going to let them do it because that's who they rely upon for the crafting and drafting of almost all major orders.
	It's a barely kept secret in our federal criminal process.
	There's a lot of cases where judges are not the ones writing those orders.
	So, while I'm hopeful and optimistic that Judge Sullivan will live up to his reputation, I can't be confident of it, particularly when he went out of his way to make, in my view, ridiculous comments attacking Sidney Powell earlier this year.
	So, what's your thoughts from watching what the judge did?
	The other aspect of that is, Why isn't Attorney General Barr dismissing this case tomorrow?
	And I get where Sidney Powell is.
	Sidney cannot come out and attack Attorney General Barr, not right now, for obvious reasons.
	She has to represent General Flynn.
	She has to say nice things about him publicly.
	I've been in that position and have said wonderful things about people I may not have held in the highest esteem.
	Given that, what do you think Judge Sullivan will do?
	Do you think it would be smart policy for either Trump or Barr to wait on Judge Sullivan?
	And do you think Attorney General Barr will act or will he not act?
	And I guess it goes to the third question, which we'll get to a little bit later.
	What should the president do if neither one of those people take timely action?
	So, a couple things there.
	Number one, we're seeing...
	If it were up to the government, the former Mueller special counsel, you know, prosecutors, Van Grack, we would have had a sentencing already and this would have been water under the bridge and nobody would know any better.
	But General Flynn fought back, brought on Sidney Powell and decided he was going to fight this, right?
	So now we have, in the beginning of the year, Attorney General Barr assigning a special prosecutor to take a look at the case and see what's going on.
	If there were no intention for this to come out, if there were no intention for this to be made public, that never would have happened.
	That's a step in the right direction, right?
	I think that it's better, in my opinion, now you're the lawyer not me so you can correct me if I'm wrong, it's better for the judge to dismiss this case on egregious government misconduct from a civil perspective so that General Flynn has that ammo to then go ahead and file a civil suit and recoup some damages in some way.
	However, if I'm not mistaken, there's criminality here as well.
	So I think that this needs to be two-pronged.
	And if the judge doesn't act correctly, the government at any time can pull back on this.
	So I think that there's a wait and see going on, but there's a good chance that Judge Sullivan, who's been very strongly wording his motions and his minute orders lately, will possibly do the right thing here.
	One can hope and pray.
	What do you think about that?
	I mean, you're the attorney.
	Yeah, I think it's sort of a political strategy.
	A lot of high-profile cases, I always say, are really tried in two different courts.
	There's the Court of Law and there's the Court of Public Opinion, and they often have parallel influence.
	And it's clearly true to me.
	I think Judge Sullivan has good instincts.
	I think his law clerks have bad instincts and bad ideology.
	And evidence of that, and a lot of judges like Sullivan, he's on the older side of the equation, tend to not want to challenge or contest their clerks on issues of law, unless they really know that area of law.
	For a range of reasons.
	That will sound counterintuitive to a lot of people, but I've run into it many, many times.
	Where a judge says one thing on the bench, their clerk writes a different opinion.
	There's even cases where I got the judge to make mistakes because he relied upon his clerks, and when he was without his clerks, he would screw up in ways that helped me.
	So, the politics of it is really what it comes down to, and some of it's timing and some of it's weighting.
	And so I agree, and the original instinctual response would be wait for Judge Sullivan and afford him at least an opportunity to dismiss the charges because of the legal benefit that provides, but also the political benefit that it provides.
	Judge Sullivan is an African-American judge, seen as a more Democratic-oriented judge, generally has ruled against the president in a whole bunch of other cases.
	Arguably in dubious ways.
	So you couldn't really accuse him of being a Fox News judge.
	So if he ruled in your favor and you had great confidence that that would happen, that would definitely be the way to go.
	The risk factor is that he goes and he covers up for them.
	And all of a sudden that factual political basis that you have is sort of watered down because the judge says no, none of this is misconduct.
	How do you even, I mean, going to trial on that, how does Sidney Powell not have a slam dunk if they decide to accept the motion to revoke the plea deal, or not accept it, I'm sorry, and they go to trial, I'm sorry, accept it, and they go to trial?
	How does a jury, even in D.C., see this evidence and what's forthcoming and convict this man of lying to investigators after seeing that in black and white?
	I don't see how there's a case.
	There's not a case from a fairness perspective.
	There's not a case from an objective jury perspective.
	Your risk is twofold.
	That the judge excludes the evidence.
	In a lot of cases, government misconduct evidence, they find a hundred different excuses as to why it can't come in.
	The other is, so that's one risk is the judge will keep the evidence out.
	The other risk is, as you mentioned, the DC jury pool.
	So you're talking about the most anti-Trump jury pull in the world?
	I've described it to people as an African Martin Luther King would have got a fairer jury trial in an all white jury in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 than a Trump supporter is going to get in Washington, D.C.
	Best evidence of this they've been doing.
	The media has been keeping a lid on it, but they've been doing jury nullification in Washington, D.C. and Antifa cases, cases where they're obviously guilty.
	So I think the great concern is that he cannot get a fair trial in the District of Columbia.
	And then there's the expense and the time of a trial if the judge doesn't dismiss the case because the judge could say, yes, I'm going to let him withdraw his plea, but I'm going to require him to go to trial.
	There's the expense of that.
	There's the emotional burden of it.
	They will likely try to stack charges against him.
	Now, again, their Attorney General Barr can intervene at any time and prevent that from occurring.
	But that's essentially the risk.
	In other words, there's benefit to the judge doing something favorable.
	The risk is that you have this story narrative that you could act on now that removes the judge from being able to negatively interfere.
	So what you're really trying to do is weigh what's the probability he takes positive action versus what's the probability he undermines our public narrative in getting these charges dismissed.
	I think what is the case is between this and Stone, and Roger Stone I think is set to go to jail this week or next to report, there's maximum political pressure on Trump to act.
	And I don't see, because that takes us to the next question.
	So one is, but before we get to that, let me ask you about Barr.
	I have been gone back and forth on Barr.
	At times, Barr talks a great game.
	And in his interviews, he seems to really understand that it's not just about what's happening in the country sort of writ large, but that the institutional actors have abused their powers so badly that they're endangering the institution credibility itself, the institutional credibility of the FBI.
	There's people like, you know, usually it was leftists and people who've experienced police abuse, which is maybe one in 20 in the country that would be pro-defense jurors.
	In the next five years, half of your Trump supporters are going to be pro-defense government skeptical jurors.
	Someone like Barr has an appreciation and understanding that that makes the FBI, you can't have it look like Hoover's FBI of 1976 in terms of how it was perceived, how Hoover's FBI was perceived at that time.
	Too late.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, I think a lot of it is too late.
	But do you think he'll take action?
	Because for the most part, my other side of Barr is I see a guy that's a long-time institutional player, long-time establishment friends and allies, a guy who keeps talking and talking and talking, and maybe action will happen, but I've been through this.
	I have more confidence that Barr has the capacity to do this than I ever did with Sessions, because Sessions was just a true believer in the system.
	To his core.
	I think he's a well-meaning man.
	But he was just... I knew him from his prosecutorial days.
	I knew people who knew him.
	Who dealt with him and worked with him.
	And he's just a guy who the government just couldn't do something bad.
	He's like a Catholic that can't imagine any priest ever misbehaving.
	That's just impossible.
	That's who Sessions was.
	He wasn't so much a malevolent malicious actor, I don't think.
	I think it was simply rooted in a deep-seated naivete.
	But with Barr, at times, I'm wondering, is he just trying to convince Trump with good rhetoric?
	Or is he sincerely going to take action?
	What do you think?
	I think he's going to take action.
	It was actually Sessions that appointed Durham.
	Not many people realize this, but in October of 2018, Sessions appointed John Durham to look into leaks between Baker, James Baker, and David Corn.
	And from there, he continued on.
	He's been working on this for years.
	And Barr took over and kind of gave him a greater scope.
	You know better than anybody, you're not supposed to hear about these investigations as they're ongoing.
	But the actions that Barr's taken, we wouldn't be sitting here right now if Barr didn't assign a special prosecutor to take a look at what they did in the Flint and Stone and other cases.
	And, you know, if they weren't, if they weren't doing anything, we wouldn't be hearing any of this.
	We wouldn't, we wouldn't be, you know, about, I don't know, three or four months away from some sort of a conclusion or some beginning of some action with grand jury seated.
	We wouldn't be seeing Brennan squirm.
	We wouldn't be getting these declassifications of the FISA warrant.
	This would all be covered up.
	You know, if you're going to be an institutional guy and try to protect the reputation, you act like Ray.
	You don't act like Barr.
	So I really do think he's taking action.
	And do you think that if, for whatever reason, the judge is not providing remedy and there's a lack of confidence that the jury will provide remedy, do you think he will intervene and not sort of put the pressure on the president to pardon, but instead simply move to dismiss the charges himself?
	Yes, because pardoning is admission of some sort of guilt.
	General Flynn doesn't deserve a pardon.
	He deserves to be exonerated of this.
	He deserves for the world to know that he didn't do anything that they said he did.
	And a pardon doesn't do that.
	A pardon becomes overly political in the opposite direction.
	It's used as fodder for the guys that put him in this position as it were.
	And so I can't see any situation unless there's a super last resort where a pardon from President Trump No, I don't think it would.
	For people who have followed this, for people who understand General Flynn's significance, for people who understand the significance of the Wayward Road prosecution against him, the precedent that it sets is perilous for anybody who wants to support the president.
	I think the president still doesn't fully appreciate the degree to which The targeting of General Flynn has undermined the ability of a lot of people who might otherwise would like to be his allies from being his allies and stepping up.
	I know people who have positions of institutional influence who could have a lot more institutional influence who after General Flynn decided they weren't going to seek it for a while because they didn't want to fight that kind of battle.
	They didn't want to have to look over their back and see who is trying to sabotage them, who is trying to knife them in the back.
	In that same capacity, one person whose actions I have not had confidence in is FBI Director Wray.
	Horrible.
	What do you think should happen with Wray and what do you think in general how Wray has handled this case?
	A couple times this week I've said I feel like it's my opinion that Ray is sort of like a figurehead FBI director right now because it's clear that none of this is coming from him.
	We just looked at a letter that Grassley wrote over to the FBI a few years ago about this case and Ray wrote back saying, In essence, there's public information that makes it clear that General Flynn lied to the FBI.
	That's not the kind of response you want.
	Besides that, they've been sitting on this.
	This is something that Sidney Powell has asked for over and over and over again.
	They sat on it, said it didn't exist, and then made the argument that they didn't even have to give it to him if it did exist, which is disgusting in my opinion.
	And so Ray, to be honest, I just don't like him.
	I think that he speaks out of one side of his mouth and he's doing something else out of the other side.
	I just don't see how he makes it through.
	I don't see how he can make it through this.
	I don't think that he is a good leader and I don't think he has the confidence of the American people for the most part.
	I really don't.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I think definitely Trump's base increasingly is cognizant.
	I think a lot of those people that are institutional actors have been depending on the same thing that Hoover's FBI depended on in the late 60s, early 70s.
	That even as they started to get publicly exposed with the church committee and whatnot after 1974, After they effectively took out the President of the United States.
	Richard Nixon was a target of the Hoover aspects of the FBI.
	Deep Throat was not some innocent, independent guy.
	I had this discussion actually with Bradley and with Woodward years ago, before it was publicly known that Deep Throat was actually Mark Felton, who was the head of COINTELPRO, one of the most corrupt agents within the FBI.
	Somehow that never shows up in the films about all this.
	The that in fact that the real reason why they had protected him, why Ben Bradley had protected him, who had a long history of protecting some rogue actors connected to CIA activities, going back to John Kennedy's days.
	And the reason why Bob Woodward protected him was not because he was a sincere whistleblower, but because he was a deep state motivated, corrupt law enforcement agent who wanted to show how powerful he was that he could take out the president of the United States.
	that he could take out the president of the United States.
	And a lot of things that they've relied upon.
	And a lot of things that they've relied upon.
	It's been fascinating watching them replicate a lot of the tactics that he utilized.
	It's been fascinating watching them replicate a lot of the tactics that he utilized.
	It's been a preview of the old Shakespearean statement that the past is prologue has been definitely true in aspects and prescient in this case.
	But in the same vein, they relied heavily on old school law enforcement deference amongst a lot of your people who would otherwise were Richard Nixon supporters so that these folks would not second guess and question and doubt what was going on.
	And I think Ray thought he had the institutional benefit of that, but he has shown no willingness to make meaningful reforms.
	We saw what happened with FISA.
	He was resistant to the problems that got continued to be detailed.
	Lots of training.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, exactly.
	This was deliberate manipulation.
	And for people to understand, FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
	It was designed in 1976 to stop the FBI from doing this kind of illicit activity.
	It was because the FBI thought they had an out and an exception if they were recording foreign conversations.
	And the goal was, no, no, we're going to pass a statute that says, no, you can't do that anymore.
	You're going to have to go through a court and get something equivalent to probable cause.
	What happened over time was those courts became very deferential to whatever the FBI and the Justice Department requested because they assumed, heck, they would never request this unless this is a, you know, from the show 24 emergency terrorist event that they were That's the only reason why.
	The FBI began to realize that they could get away with whatever they wanted, could slip things underneath, and a couple of times the FISA court caught them doing in 2005 and again in 2012.
	But they didn't take a lot of remedial action.
	They thought it was just a rogue action of a couple of people.
	Here we discover it's completely institutional.
	I've met, talked to Carter Page.
	You can't talk to him for more than five minutes without realizing the guy can't be guilty of anything.
	It's just, I mean, for one, he smiles too much, as Scott Adams points out.
	And he weirdly looks like Scott Adams.
	But there's nothing about him that you could think is criminal.
	As soon as I talked to him, I was like, this was insane.
	They knew exactly what they were doing.
	Totally protected.
	Yeah, he was a CIA asset for years and years and years.
	Good CIA guy, huh?
	Absolutely.
	I mean, he was another law-abiding guy who believed in the system, believed deeply in America, and volunteered information at personal risk, at professional risk to himself.
	So he's the kind of guy who's so wide-eyed, idealistic.
	That's what made him such an easy target.
	In the same way that General Flynn's naivete about the criminal justice system made him a potential target, the sort of idealism of Carter Page made him an easy target for corrupt rogue actors like the Halpern crowd and the rest.
	And the fact that our government was neck deep with these guys.
	I've been telling people that if you want to understand Steele, and you want to understand where that comes from, go back and read Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana, or watch the movie, which is fantastic.
	Go read John LaCar's Taylor in Panama, or the movie, which is fantastic, and we'll preview a lot of it.
	We come back after the break.
	We'll ask Tracy the question about what should the president do next, both regarding this and the pandemic.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	As we discuss the breaking news of General Flynn's case that provides irrefutable evidence by any objective viewer that the General Flynn was entrapped, that he was set up.
	You don't have to doubt your question because they wrote it in their own little notes in the FBI agent's handwritten notes that they managed to hide for the last several years.
	By the way, Tracy, do we know whose notes those were?
	Yes, Bill Priestap.
	You know, there were a lot of people trying to tell me Bill Priestap was a white hat, and I had my reasons for doubts from other cases.
	That would seem to be kind of strong evidence of it, unless the theory would be that he's documenting the bad acts so they would be available for people's future reference.
	Yeah, that's an argument that I consider because he's done some, you know, there's been some fence walking there with him.
	So I'm not sure yet either.
	I'm kind of on the fence with it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It would be three steps ahead chess style playing to document the illicit activities that are taking place.
	Well, I mean, you said it.
	So, I mean, you said how outrageous it is that they had the cojones to write it down.
	So, I mean, it makes sense.
	I mean, usually if you're going to extort someone, you don't write down the notes.
	If you're going to trap someone, you don't say, do I entrap them in strategy A or do I entrap them in strategy B?
	The only flip side to all of that is it's very Nazi Germany, Stasi Eastern Germany, Soviet style, this bureaucratic mindset where they document everything.
	I've dealt with it in a range of cases.
	In the case I dealt with with Sally Yates out of Atlanta.
	They documented it differently.
	They documented it by trying to doctor documents and doctor information and the rest.
	But the scope and scale of this, that they got prosecutors to play ball, FBI agents to play ball, other FBI agents to turn a blind eye to it, is really terrifying.
	If they could do this to General Flynn, they could do this to anybody.
	And it shows why this case and watching this case and seeing what happens with this case is so critical for everybody's freedom and liberty moving forward.
	Isn't the argument always that, you know, there's no way the government could ever pull this off because too many people would know about it?
	I think this is clearly demonstrating it's possible because this is pretty bad.
	Oh, exactly.
	It's what I tell people is like, first of all, go back and look at Soviet Russia.
	They managed mostly to cover up Chernobyl.
	I mean, one of the most incredible I mean, how do you cover up most people in your country knowing about a massive nuclear explosion of a reactor?
	The same thing with, of course, the United States.
	We were able to cover up all kinds of things.
	The Tuskegee Airmen Experiment was covered up for 30, 40 years completely successfully.
	MKUltra was mostly successfully covered up.
	There's people who still don't know that Ted Kaczynski was a victim of MKUltra, of what they were doing up at Harvard.
	I mean, they were basically torturing a young kid's mind that had Asperger's probably.
	In big shock, it turns out he becomes violent and wants to blow up universities.
	There might have been a correlation between those two.
	It's probably why, like in his case, there was a very questionable search warrant.
	I told people in advance courts are not going to do anything with it because he's the Unabomber.
	They have a Unabomber exception to the Fourth Amendment, whether it should be there or not.
	But another reason was they wanted to keep a lid on what may have created Ted Kaczynski.
	So our court systems have been notorious in this regard in political cases.
	It's just the ordinary person sees the law and order version of our criminal justice process on TV every night, and the other prosecutors are hardworking, compassionate people, and the police officer are sincere and well-meaning.
	They don't see the Peter Strozics of the world.
	Definitely, I think it's a great idea.
	I think maybe the best thing the President could do to send a signal, given that there are some arguments for letting the judge have a shot at this, there are arguments for letting Barr do what Barr is up to, is the President could send the appropriate message by asking for the resignation of Wray.
	What do you think about that?
	I think that should happen yesterday.
	I would be very much on board with that.
	But who would he put in his place?
	I think he should hire General Flynn.
	Ah, that'd be fantastic.
	No doubt about it.
	General Flynn was running the FBI.
	I would actually have confidence for the FBI in the first time, really in the whole history of the FBI.
	Because I have a lot of confidence in lying FBI agents.
	I've met a lot of everyday FBI agents that are straight shooters, honest people.
	I've dealt with a whole bunch of rogue ones too.
	That's just the nature of doing political representation.
	You end up seeing the uglier underbelly of the FBI, not the everyday, nice, straightforward guy just trying to protect the country.
	But it would be nice to have someone at the seventh floor that actually cared for the country, that actually believed in integrity, that actually believed in the legal process, because we definitely never had that during J. Edgar Hoover's reign.
	And the reality is guys like James Comey idolized J Edgar Hoover.
	That told you all you really needed to know about James Comey.
	Aside from his Mueller connections, Robert Mueller was a debacle 10 ways to Sunday.
	There's a lot of things to discuss there for those of us who ever had to deal with him.
	He was skilled at what he did, but honor and honesty were not his top priorities, as got revealed in the Trump investigative case.
	So aside from some of the issues involving General Flynn, the other big news and big story of the past month and a half has been this pandemic, the policy response to the pandemic.
	You put out a lot of charts that were great.
	That was basically every state and tracking what those charts were.
	Before I point out a few of them, could you just describe to the audience what those were?
	Sure, absolutely.
	Every year, in a normal year, they track influenza-like illness at the CDC.
	So you go to the doctor, you don't feel good, you fit a certain few criteria, fever, sore throat, headache.
	They do a flu test at the doctor's office, it goes to the lab, and then the lab reports the results to the doctor and to the state, and then the states report their results to the CDC.
	And with all the talk of people having this, you know, Horrible sickness back in November, December.
	I wanted to start looking at the ILI track at the CDC and see what the influenza-like illness looked like back in November, December of 2019.
	Sure enough, Clear as day, you can see it, Robert, in the charts.
	It was ridiculously high as compared to any other flu season that we've had in five years.
	I mean, it was off the charts.
	The only couple places where it weren't were in the Northeast.
	Their early flu season, if that's what you want to call it, started in early March, their flu season.
	flu season kicked off.
	So that's why we're seeing what we're seeing in New York now, whereas the rest of the country, in my opinion, we're not seeing this ridiculous, overwhelming illness.
	They already did it.
	They already went through it with no intervention.
	Yeah, what's extraordinary is I've had friends of mine that live in Las Vegas that believe they had it back in November and December, friends in California.
	One of the friends in Nevada recently went in, he got, once the serology testing was out there, and for those who may not know, serology testing tests whether you ever had it.
	It tests whether you have the antibodies in it.
	It's not a perfect test.
	There's going to be people who had it who will not test positive for the serology for a range of reasons, both as issues of testing and as issues of biology.
	But it's generally a good test.
	And he went in and he had had no symptoms since then.
	He only had them back in December and he tested positive that his serology showed he had had coronavirus, COVID-19.
	Then there's other people that are testing that are showing that they may have actually been immune from it.
	Because they were immune from other coronaviruses they've had in the past, so that it may explain the degree of prevalence that we're seeing.
	The Swedish epidemiologists have been saying now for months that they believe that when they do the full serology testing ability, they're gonna find a third to half the population will have it by May or June.
	Either had it or will have it.
	That was one of the big reasons for why they reacted the way they did.
	Just from the study, what's fascinating is the Swedish epidemiologists and virologists, one, they have deep history in microbiology.
	So unlike someone like Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, their actual history and background is in this area across the board.
	And in fact, the guy who trained the current head of the Swedish department was himself the head of the entire European department just a few years ago.
	So that's why they're so confident.
	And these are people that have been at the very, they've been the Fauci's of Europe, but with better history and better pedigree, frankly.
	And so when they came along, they said, the history of this is it's probably been here for several months.
	It will probably reach a herd level immunity, which doesn't require 70, 80 percent.
	It just requires enough to repress a massive, you just need enough prevalence so that you're not going to have a massive replication problem.
	So that you're not going to have, if I infect this person, it's going to infect three more people right away.
	If two of those people, if one of those three has already got it, then it has an exponential reduction in the effect of the spread of the disease.
	So exactly, when I was looking through this, there was two things that stood out.
	One was How many states, if you measure this over time, that COVID-19 corresponds to their influenza outbreak?
	In other words, when we're looking at a lot of the, and what I mean by that is, that if you look at when they've had a flu outbreak in the past, that's when they say the COVID-19 hit them to certain degrees.
	In other words, if you look at influenza-like illnesses, if COVID-19 was here all the way back in November, December, it tracks like influenza.
	In other words, the, go ahead.
	Can you pull up Washington State?
	Yes, I think we can.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	This is where the first reports of coronavirus came, COVID-19 came from, right?
	Look at that line.
	You see that yellow line there?
	Yep.
	Do you see 2017, which was the last kind of jutting blue season they had?
	Yes.
	It's orange.
	And then it picks up again on the left side in blue, the chart.
	It is overwhelming.
	There.
	That is not a flu.
	It's just not.
	Exactly.
	In other words, it corresponds in a way that when we look at this data and information, it's that the most logical explanation is that people got COVID-19 at different times.
	They got them at different times within the country.
	That probably the prevalence is going to vary depending on when and where they got it to a certain extent.
	That it explains in part why it spread, the way it spread, and where it spread.
	And in that process, It would explain why we're getting serology studies that even in places that have not had quote-unquote recent outbreaks, we're seeing double-digit levels of infection ratio.
	What's fascinating is these doctors took all this criticism for saying, well, we're going to extrapolate from the testing data.
	And while there's arguments about whether you can extrapolate from the testing data and the rest, when you look at the independent serology studies, there's a lot more reason to believe them than believe what the modelers put out there.
	If we even pretend that they're wrong about their numbers to some extent, right?
	What's the difference, really, given where we're at right now?
	You know, the reason why they took those videos down, I had it removed from my channel today, too.
	The reason why they took that down wasn't because, oh my gosh, they're wrong with their numbers.
	It was because they were saying, guys, you know, we're doctors, we're seeing this now, it's about time this is over with.
	And they don't want the American people, by the millions, to hear that because then they lose their power and control over the American people, plain and simple.
	So, that's the reason why they're going after these doctors.
	I have no time or patience for hoity-toity, you know, nonsense with these guys.
	These guys are using their own numbers, they're seeing what they're seeing, they know what's going on in their community.
	The attack on them has been disgusting, in my opinion, and it's telling who's doing the attacking.
	You know, who on the left is doing the attacking?
	Did you hear the reporter?
	Exactly.
	Not only that, that the institutional medical, you know, what I call the white lab coat crowd, came out and attacked him, but did not give any factual specifics whatsoever in that regard.
	No, right.
	Instead, it was all adjectives.
	They projected, they attacked their motives.
	It was not a, hey, we see this extrapolation, here's where we disagree with it.
	It was literally, you guys are businessmen, you're only in this for yourselves.
	And then, you know, the argument that they made, are you trying to say that your data is better than the government's?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it is.
	Because I don't even know if the government's telling me the truth anymore at this point, to be fair.
	Well exactly, because not only that, I mean he goes through and documents, I mean what was unique with him was two things.
	One is those doctors had unique levels of access to empirical data from their own testing facilities.
	The second part that was unique with them is they had access to medical care professionals all across the nation because of the business they happen to be in.
	And so when they go out there in their scrubs, And have the authority of their life experience and their learned education combined with their knowledge of other people and actual empirical data to look at.
	They are undermining the institutional narrative which is all about obey us because we're in white lab coats.
	Not obey us because the data says this.
	Not obey us because history supports what we're doing.
	Not obey us because here's the consensual process that we've gone through in terms of legislative approval, administrative approval, judicial approval for all these politicians' actions.
	It's all been about a power play.
	And these guys come along and say, by the way, we're doctors too, and the power play is wrong.
	And that's why they go ballistic, and that's why they go berserk, and that's why the attacks are so over the top.
	And now they're even building a mantra of the discredited doctors, the discredited doctors.
	It's all about a narrative.
	I know, and you know, there have been doctors who have been brave enough to step out against the grain and say, we're doing this wrong.
	We're doing this wrong.
	And they've all been summarily destroyed by the same people who like to destroy anyone who speaks out against, you know, this sort of overwhelming power grab that we see coming from lots of different places.
	And it scares other people from speaking out.
	And I keep on, today I finally said, you know, the only way that we're going to get out of this is if everybody collectively in a critical mass just disobeys what the government's, that you're, you know, if your Democrat governor is telling you you can't go to work, go open your store.
	If everyone went and opened their store, what are they going to do to you?
	They can't arrest, you know, 50 business owners on Main Street and their 100,000 patrons that are now getting their hair cut for the first time in two months.
	Oh, exactly.
	What I've told people before is that the government's done studies on this.
	If there's even more than 20% civil disobedience, they've done this extensively in the tax context, but they've done it in other regulatory predictive components, which is if more than 20% of the people refuse to obey whatever their mandate or dictate is, That as a general rule, that dictate or rule will fall apart and collapse on its own accord.
	And there's no question that large aspects of that are true.
	So one last question to let you go.
	In terms of both what the president should do in terms of General Flynn, what the president should do as to the pandemic, because I see these as sort of two of the same accord.
	In both cases, in one case you have the national security law enforcement infrastructure industrial complex involving sort of deep state actors trying to take out General Flynn and trying to dictate public policy against the elected president's will.
	And I see aspects of the white lab coats and the big pharma industrial complex trying to accomplish the same objective, undermine the president's re-election opportunities by sinking the economy.
	A power grab that makes the Milgram experiment look like small change in terms of what they were able to do and achieve.
	So what should the president do?
	Even though these are really, while they're both different, they're really both of the same kind.
	What should the president do in your mind as to both?
	I think he's done a great job doing all the decisions he's made thus far.
	He's pushing the responsibility onto the people where the responsibility should fall.
	In other words, he's not intervening in what states are trying to do.
	This authoritarian dictator, Robert, is really behaving himself in this situation, wouldn't you say?
	I mean, if anything, he's showing the American people he's giving states the right to make the decisions for themselves with some guidance if necessary.
	And in terms of the he's been hands off on the Spygate stuff, too.
	He's letting the process play out.
	He said his piece.
	And I think he's confident that the people that he's put in place to do the right thing are going to do the right thing.
	He needs to just keep on encouraging people that this isn't going to last forever.
	And I wouldn't mind a few more liberate tweets either, to be fair.
	But, you know, I think he's doing the right thing.
	Keep doing what he's doing, but be a little bit more strong about opening up, because enough is enough already on this.
	Enough.
	I'm done.
	I'm star crazy.
	I've been looking at these four walls for way too long, and I need to get the hell out of here.
	Exactly.
	He needs to use the power of the presidency.
	And for now, he can use the power of the bully pulpit.
	See how far that gets him.
	And if it doesn't get him enough places, then use whatever powers of the presidency are available to him.
	If he has to use pardon powers, then do so.
	If he has to use firing powers, hopefully he doesn't have to send his private security guard over to get the FBI director dismissed if it has to go that route.
	But use the power of the presidency as needed, but wait to use those powers until he has to.
	And otherwise, use the bully pulpit to achieve it.
	So thanks for joining us.
	I recommend everybody, you can follow her at Tracy Beans with a Z on Twitter.
	You can go to Uncover DC and follow the news stories that are breaking all the time.
	And also listen to Dark and Light podcast.
	And all of its good information, continuously insightful and investigative inquiries of the kind we used to get from the institutional press.
	But these days, fortunately, we have people like Tracy to do it for us.
	So thanks for coming on.
	Thanks, Robert.
	It was great.
	Thanks so much.
	There's no question that the president can, should, and must take necessary action to protect General Flynn, and hopefully he'll do so.
	And let's look at a Sidney Powell going into the discussion recently about General Flynn, about his case, and we'll, after we come back from the video, we'll discuss what the president can and should do regarding it.
	So let's take a look at video clip number seven.
	Joining us tonight is General Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell.
	She's also a former federal prosecutor, author of the new book, Conviction Machine, Standing Up to Federal Prosecutorial Abuse.
	Available everywhere, we recommend it to you highly.
	Sidney, great to have you with us, straightforwardly.
	Did the government, and most specifically the FBI officials and Justice Department officials under the Obama administration, did they frame General Flynn?
	Yes, sir, they did.
	There's no doubt about it.
	August 15, Strzok and Page texted each other about the insurance policy they discussed in McCabe's office.
	The very next day, they opened the, quote, investigation, end quote, on General Flynn.
	And the day after that, as we just learned from the IG report in December, they sent an agent into what was supposed to be a trusted presidential briefing Solely because General Flynn was going to be there and they wanted to collect information on him, gauge his mannerisms, in the event they needed to interview him later, i.e.
	as Trump was elected to the presidency and Flynn wound up in the White House.
	It's stunning what we're learning three, more than three years now, distant from these events, these criminal acts and the subsequent cover-ups that persist to this very day because you're just now receiving evidence and documents that some had told you didn't exist and that apparently no one else believed existed either.
	Your thoughts?
	No one but me apparently.
	I've known the whole time they were hiding any number of things and they had even produced summaries of documents they admitted were exculpatory to General Flynn but only gave us three or four line summaries and inexplicably Judge Sullivan would not order them to produce the whole documents.
	You can't rely on a summary by the government on any document whatsoever.
	It doesn't even meet the qualifications of exculpatory evidence because a summary isn't evidence.
	So they should have given us all those documents and there are more notes and emails that are in our sealed filing last Friday.
	The government has advised now they're working with the FBI to make some redactions on those to protect the names of the guilty and not their words but mine and they should be ready to give us by tomorrow at the latest.
	This is, this is simply awful.
	Because it raises the question, obviously we know what the Justice Department and FBI leaderships were under President Obama and those holdovers that President Trump had the misfortune to inherit.
	But we are talking now about a Justice Department led by William Barr, and there isn't a person I've talked with who, for a moment, thinks Barr should not have thrown this entire matter out and brought some sense of decency to a Justice Department that has lacked it for a very long time.
	Well, he appointed Mr. Jensen from Missouri to review the case file, I believe, in January, and it's just that nobody knew about it.
	And this is a result of him providing adult supervision to what our former members of the Mueller hit squad, i.e.
	Mr. Van Grack in particular, to correct these injustices and produce the actual evidence of what they did.
	What's the next step?
	What in the world is this judge doing?
	The judge himself has the power to end all of this nonsense.
	He's chosen not to, so I don't know what to make of Judge Sullivan.
	What is the next episode in federal court with him at the bench?
	Well, the latest development today is that Covington, Flynn's former law firm, produced to us an additional 17,500 pages from the Flynn file that were not produced back last August when they certified that the entire file had been produced.
	So Judge Sullivan just issued a blistering minute order demanding that Covington go back and do another search of all of its Flynn files to make sure it has given us everything and do another certification by Monday, May 4th.
	So that is in the works now, and he's ordered the government to respond to our motion to unseal by Monday, but they're in the process of doing that hopefully by tomorrow, and then they have to respond to our motion to dismiss by May 11th.
	Surely this judge is, he's a federal judge, he's been on the bench for some time.
	Surely he understands that General Michael Flynn, a patriot, a man who served his nation with distinction, is the victim here, and the perpetrators are...
	Apparently the representative, his representation team that preceded you, the FBI and the Justice Department.
	Why doesn't he just bring the hammer down on this mess and set General Flynn free of this nonsense?
	This is an outrage and it just goes on and on.
	It's as if Whoever is not corrupt in the judicial system apparently is just stupid.
	It is beyond an outrage, Lou.
	It is a travesty of justice.
	It's a blight on the face of our entire country.
	But I do believe the Department of Justice under Bill Barr is going to produce the evidence that we're entitled to.
	And then the only result, the only possible result, is for the entire matter to be dismissed.
	You know, I sympathize and I applaud both your commiseration, your understanding, but frankly, I have to tell you, I have none of it.
	I'm so sick and tired of a judicial system, a justice department, an FBI that thinks nothing of taking up year after year of a man's life.
	And without cause, without so much as apparently any remorse or contrition.
	The hell with them, Sidney.
	That's all I've got to say.
	The hell with them.
	This is just not the way American justice is supposed to work.
	You're right.
	It's been far too long a fight and far too difficult to get to the truth.
	But we will get to the truth and it will set him free.
	Well, a lot of people bear great guilt for not having already achieved that result.
	Sidney Powell, thanks for all you're doing for General Flynn and for justice.
	Sidney, thank you.
	Good to see you.
	Sidney Powell is a great counselor, great lawyer, great appellate advocate, and understood the issues related to discovery and the problems in our criminal justice system, and stayed diligent even though she was initially attacked vociferously, including by the court, in ways that made absolutely no sense.
	Talked about plagiarism and other preposterous suggestions.
	Judge Sullivan embarrassed himself with the kind of things he said in that order.
	Uh should be ashamed of himself as he now recognizes the prosecutors have made a joke out of him.
	They've made a joke out of the justice system.
	They've made a joke out of our criminal process.
	They've made a joke out of law enforcement.
	They've made a mockery of this in a way that the whole world has witnessed.
	A lot of people that have been part of cases that have been similarly comparably corrupt simply did not have the profile to achieve and attain that same public recognition of the problem present.
	But now we have Their own writing and their own letters and their own internal notes, their own prologue, if you will, to this criminal acts that they call the afterwards in the notes.
	And the afterwards were, well, you know, I requested yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn's certain thing that somehow redacted.
	Why is anything redacted at this point?
	If he didn't admit.
	Now what's that?
	In other words, the goal was to set him up.
	To get him to have a memory trap.
	This is what most federal investigations really do.
	It's what most law enforcement really do.
	That's why any capable, competent legal advisor will tell you, always take the fifth.
	It's not the army, you don't have to volunteer.
	You can say you have a right against self-incrimination, not because anything you say is in fact incriminatory, but because they'll use it and try to make it so.
	Because they'll know information you don't.
	They'll have intentions that you don't realize.
	And they will not be pursuing truth in that process, they will be pursuing a political prosecution or persecution, as the case may be.
	So, but as the biggest incriminatory note in this process was, what is our goal?
	Now, the goal should be justice.
	The goal should be truth.
	The goal should be all the things they put on the FBI label that is their oath of office, that they claim they are intending to uphold certain issues of integrity.
	That's what the I is supposed to sort of colloquially stand for in the FBI.
	So the goal should be, why are we investigating someone that we have no evidence or probable cause or even reasonable suspicion has committed any crime in the first place?
	Why are we even talking to this person?
	Why are we trying to entrap them to begin with?
	Why are we trying, at least normally, the feds are trying to entrap someone who is actually, they have reasonably guilty of a crime.
	And yet that's not what happened here.
	So we recommend you go to the sponsor, InfoWarsStore.com, and get things while you still legally can, while the feds haven't been able to shut that down yet.
	You can get the storable food, you can get products that are good for your health, particularly in this time when you've been locked up inside for so long.
	So get it while you still can get it while it's legal and come back after the second half and talk some more.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	In the same way that General Flynn was targeted, there's another sort of big pharma-industrial complex that has ties to Fauci and Birx and Gates and to the recent drug.
	If you saw today, all of a sudden Fauci, who's found every reason in the world to second-guess other drugs, drugs that may be cheaper, more affordable, don't have patents in certain instances, have actually had a longer history of treating malaria or other related items.
	He's been very dismissive of that, even had a Veterans Affairs study that turns out not to be the kind of study that he claimed it was, that was dismissive of alternatives.
	Instead, today he was pushing a different drug which, just coincidentally, is tied to Duke University, who was helping to do the testing for that drug, and to other companies that he also had prior ties to and relationships with, and that Bill Gates had ties to and relationships with.
	Indeed, if you really start to dig in, you will find that there is a common nexus around Duke University when it concerns public policy relating to public health, and that it often involves the interest of Big Pharma, often involves the interest of Bill Gates, and often involves institutional actors like Anthony Fauci.
	Indeed, if you looked up who was the head of the Human Vaccine Institute at Duke University, You would find an individual who was trained and mentored by guess whom?
	Bill Gates.
	If you looked up who was one of the first groups involved in testing for COVID-19 and coronavirus, you'll find it was Duke University.
	If you dig in to find out who was doing the Facebook fact-checking, Criticizing any allegation that the Wuhan lab had any role whatsoever in this virus, you would find someone who works at Duke University.
	If you looked into who is the university that has the deepest, strongest, widest relationship in the area of public health with China, you would find Duke University.
	Indeed, Duke has an alignment With the university located in Wuhan.
	So it's no surprise they have the premier public health related infrastructure and university academic structure we're dealing with and supporting China of any American university by far.
	So it should have been no coincidence that several weeks ago Duke said that they were going to look into the testing.
	For not for the products that the president was talking about, not for these other treatments that are being tested around the world, but for instead the drug that instead Fauci started talking about and praising today.
	The Duke, it was Duke who was involved with the testing with the lab that's connected to it, with a company that has a patent on it, which will be about 10 times more expensive than anything else.
	And you see this common pattern, this central role of Duke.
	And if you go back and look at how HIV vaccine process went through and look at who was involved, how they were involved, What their interactions and interrelationships were, what their political or public policy agenda may have been, who might receive and obtain profits from it, you'll find the same pattern.
	You'll find the same central role of Duke University, the same connected parties of Fauci and Birx, the same constant presence, ever-presence of Bill Gates.
	You'll find the same degree of same big pharma companies often involved and connected, whether it's Jolied or others.
	Indeed, when you dig into those companies, you'll often find those companies executives have long relationships with Swiss companies that are prominently known for their production and promotion of Valium.
	But before that, they were connected to using Nazi labor during the 1930s and 1940s.
	They said, don't worry, it was only the forced detention camps and concentration camps with people from Eastern Europe, not people that were from Germany, as if that was some sort of defense.
	Same companies that if you dig into the files and dig into the records, you'll find them involved in CIA related projects to bail out people connected to the Bay of Pigs.
	You'll find them involved in opium and illicit drug distribution issues in the 1930s.
	You'll find them involved in antitrust investigations around the world for price manipulation and economic cartel activity in the 1960s and 1970s.
	So you'll find them involved in a wide range of questionable illicit activities.
	And those same people are involved, the CEO of the company that's going to be promoting the new drug.
	Uh, was a long-standing employee of those companies with that prior questionable history, uh, and in fact now chances has to make a substantial profit.
	And if you were simply following the news and information, you would have been able to recognize or forecast that this was a good stock to buy.
	The stocks that are making the products that are connected to Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci that are being promoted by Duke University, where Duke is being involved in the clinical trials of those drugs or the testing for those drugs, are going to be the ones that the system promotes.
	And they're going to be the ones that the system promotes at the expense of the public interest often for the personal profit and for the policy gains of those billionaire donors, of those political officials, of those big pharma companies, of those prominent university officials.
	Often who receive large donations from these same connected parties and connected individuals.
	So the companies like Gilead end up profiting and the CEO of Gilead having long-standing ties and a 30-year plus employee before he recently joined Gilead as the CEO of a Swiss company that had all those ties and connections and question marks over the last century.
	So that's the political process that's happening is we're seeing decisions made that appear to be part of A sort of big pharma industrial complex of its own kind and accord, not something that is going and that is rooted in actual public health and little d democratic processes.
	In fact, we likely are seeing policies and political decisions made based on certain political interests, a certain personal profit interest, a certain donor interest, certain university academic interest, and to a certain degree, certain interest in China.
	Rather than the interest of the Democratic American public.
	Little d, Democratic American public.
	And the recent efforts to completely demonize certain potential medical treatments while celebrating other medical treatments, when the only thing they have in common is the same set of connected officials in Big Pharma, at Duke University, and in the institutional roles of government, is educational to you as to what is really taking place and transpiring.
	That it's not your health They're looking out for.
	It's their profit.
	It's their political agenda.
	It's their objectives that they're looking out for.
	And that's the sort of dynamic that's taking place.
	And indeed, you're seeing, for example, it's an interesting component.
	You have Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci.
	For a long time, not only affiliated and associated and praising one another, not only supporting the same academic institutions and key promotions of key individuals and sitting on shared committees and shared boards and shared quote unquote charitable activities.
	You have something like Bill Gates connected to entities that are connected to the Wuhan lab.
	You also have Anthony Fauci connected to boards and groups that had the government give millions of dollars to that Wuhan lab.
	That then Duke University key personnel go to try to defend and claim on Facebook fact-checking role that no report even from AP or Reuters or institutional press can come out second-guessing and questioning whether or not that same lab had a role in releasing the virus while you have Duke University with the deepest tentacles and deepest ties to China in its universities and institutions present there.
	Key decision makers, key institutions, key playmakers, key participants, all sharing an agenda and objective that is different and independent from the little d democratic American objective.
	And we should look at it and filter it from that context.
	Then you take it a step back.
	You've had Anthony Fauci now, for the better part of a decade, talking about how dangerous and scary pandemics could be.
	You've had Bill Gates talking about how dangerous and scary pandemics could be.
	Almost as if they were forecasting and foreshadowing its occurrence.
	Then when it does occur, they both utilize the pandemic to promote a panic-based response, and the only treatments they promote, only vaccines they discuss, the only solutions and remedies they propose are such vaccines and treatments, Are connected to their political allies and economic associates and donor based groups across the country and a globe.
	Is that a coincidence?
	Is that your chance?
	Should we trust someone who has the kind of agenda that Bill Gates does in this sort of real live Inferno type project that Bill Gates exemplifies and represents as a potential threat?
	In that regard, it's a reminder of the mindset of the character portrayed in the film Inferno, which is useful to go back to and compare it and parallel it to some of the language and rhetoric of Bill Gates.
	Let's take a look first at clip number two.
	It appears you're out of options.
	Tell me about the threat, Mana's Inferno.
	Professor Langdon, we need your help.
	Three days ago, a man killed himself.
	We think it was part of something much bigger.
	There was a package in his pocket.
	And what was it?
	It's Dante's Inferno.
	Dante defined our modern conception of hell 700 years ago.
	But these circles of hell have been rearranged.
	Why Dante?
	Why this map of hell?
	Dante.
	Dante's death mask.
	Yes!
	We've got to get to Florence.
	I need access to the Dante mask.
	The Dante mask is no longer here.
	It was stolen.
	Here's the security footage.
	Professor?
	That looks like you.
	I have no memory of taking that mask.
	You did.
	I just saw you.
	I want to know what I'm involved with.
	Why was someone shooting at you?
	Everything is out of focus.
	Professor, you are having visions, aren't you?
	The people behind this would do anything to protect the truth.
	You have no idea what they're capable of.
	This is what I have been seeing.
	Look, look, look.
	This is not in the original painting.
	Here's another one.
	It's a prophecy.
	Oh my God.
	Dante's Inferno isn't fiction.
	It's a prophecy.
	Someone created a plague.
	Our population is spiraling out of control.
	Inferno is the cure.
	They're gonna wipe out half the world's population unless we find this virus.
	They left a trail.
	You won't be able to trust your own thoughts for a while.
	Human lives are at stake.
	If a plague exists, you know what government will do to get it.
	The Professor has become a liability.
	Go, go, let's get him!
	Here, here!
	There's always a way out.
	It's nice to have you back, Professor.
	If this plague is real... Then we only have 48 hours to stop an extinction-level event.
	I will do everything I can to find it.
	And what was the character in that movie's obsession?
	Overpopulation.
	So he saw a pandemic as a solution to it.
	And let's take a look at the clip number five.
	Population 100,000 years to reach a billion people.
	And then just 100 more to reach 2 billion.
	And only 50 years to double again to 4 billion people in 1970.
	We're nearly at 8 billion now.
	Bartlett gives the example of a beaker with a single bacterium in it, one that divides and doubles every minute.
	If you place the first bacterium into the beaker at 11 o'clock, and it's completely full by 12, at what time is the beaker still only half full?
	11.59.
	That's what time it is for us.
	You're foolish.
	In 40 years, 32 billion people will fight to survive.
	They'll fail.
	We're a minute to midnight.
	Every single global ill that plagues the Earth can be traced back to human overpopulation.
	But serious birth control measures, they don't stand a chance.
	Outrageous!
	Violation of my rights!
	Invasion of my privacy!
	Don't tell me what to do!
	And still, we keep attacking our own environment!
	There have been five major extinctions in the Earth's history.
	And unless we take bold, immediate action, the sixth extinction will be our own.
	We're a minute to midnight.
	Now who else has been talking about overpopulation, particularly in those poor areas of the world?
	Well let's go to a clip of one of his discussions of this.
	Let's look at clip number four.
	Let's go to a couple questions that we've actually received since we started the webcast.
	The first is on population growth.
	And the question is, one of our most pressing issues is population growth.
	How do you expect this to be addressed?
	Well, the population growth issue at the global level is not that daunting.
	That is, the population, percentage-wise, is growing slower today than in the past, and so it will actually peak out.
	The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it.
	So it's in the very poorest places that you're going to have a tripling in population by 2050.
	And so their ability to feed, educate, provide jobs, stability, protect the environment in those locations mean they're faced with an almost impossible problem.
	Nigeria, Yemen, Chad.
	And so what we need to do is take this aid generosity and this innovation and go into those places, offer the women better tools where they want to space birthing or have a smaller family size and improve health.
	Because it's amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they'll have enough kids to support them in their old age.
	And so they choose to have less children.
	Niger right now, it's still seven children per family, whereas in the richer countries, you're often at a stable point, which is 2.1 or even less.
	And so it's really an acute problem in a certain number of places.
	And we've got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don't have an impossible situation later.
	And what sort of tools does Bill Gates end up obsessing over and concerned about and discussing maybe even intentional actions of pandemics?
	Well, let's take a look at clip number three.
	Please welcome Mr. Bill Gates.
	We also face a new threat that the next epidemic has a good chance of originating on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.
	So the point is that we ignore the strong link between health security and international security at our peril.
	Whether it occurs by the quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.
	And there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
	This is also where we see many epidemics starting.
	For example, Ebola.
	Talks about epidemics, pandemics, maybe an influenza-like pandemic that will suddenly spread throughout the world.
	Who else has been talking about pandemics, and yet didn't appear to have any reasonable actual solution for them, but appears to be connected to a lot of the people doing the testing for it, connecting and trying to defend the lab that may have released it?
	Well, that might be Mr. Anthony Fauci.
	Let's take a look at clip number six.
	a while and have had the opportunity and the privilege and the pleasure of serving in five administrations.
	I thought I would bring that perspective to the topic today is the issue of pandemic preparedness.
	And if there's one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience, and you'll see that in a moment, is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in And we have certainly a large burden of that.
	But also there will be a surprise outbreak.
	There will be a surprise outbreak.
	There will be a surprise outbreak.
	And I hope by the end of my relatively short presentation you'll understand why history, the history of the last 32 years that I've been the director of NIAID, will tell the next administration that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with.
	Indeed, this is a film we've also seen before, other than Inferno.
	Let's take a look at clip number one, as a reminder to how pathogens can be a way, a means, a path to power.
	Let's look at clip number one.
	Came to the Arctic, any of the collywobbles? - Still does.
	That's close enough, Inspector. - I'm damned.
	We're not wired.
	I'm sorry, but a man in my position survives by taking every precaution.
	You've information for us?
	No, you already have the information.
	All the names and dates are inside your head.
	What you want, what you really need, is a story.
	A story can be true or false.
	I leave such judgements to you, Inspector.
	Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician.
	He's a deeply religious man and a member of the Conservative Party.
	He's completely single-minded and has no regard for political process.
	The more power he attains, the more obvious his zealotry and the more aggressive his supporters become.
	Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of national security.
	At first, it's believed to be a search for biological weapons and its pursuit without regard to its cost.
	However, the true goal of this project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination.
	The project, however, ends violently.
	But the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of the victims.
	Imagine a virus, the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure.
	But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon?
	For it's at this point in our story that along comes a spider.
	He is a man seemingly without a conscience, for whom the ends always justify the means, and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country, but rather the country itself.
	Three targets chosen to maximize the effect of the attack.
	A school, a tube station and a water treatment plant.
	Several hundred die within the first few weeks.
	That Three Waters has, in fact, been contaminated.
	Authorities are attempting to control its deadly spread.
	Sent a wave of destruction throughout the underground.
	Fueled by the media, fear and panic spread quickly, fracturing and dividing the country until at last the true goal comes into view.
	Before the St.
	Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the results of the election that year, no one.
	And then not long after the election, lo and behold, a miracle.
	Some believed it was the work of God himself, that it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members that made them all obscenely rich.
	A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty and executed, while a memorial is built to canonize their victims.
	But the end result, the true genius of the plan, was the fear.
	Fear became the ultimate tool of this government, and through it, our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor.
	The rest, as they say, is history.
	Can you prove any of this?
	Why do you think I'm still alive?
	Right.
	We'd like to take you into protective custody, Mr. Rookwood.
	Oh, I'm sure you would.
	But if you want that recording, you'll do what I tell you to do.
	You put Creedy under 24-hour surveillance.
	When I feel safe that he can't pick his nose without you knowing, I'll contact you again.
	Till then, cheerio.
	Rookwood.
	Why didn't you come forward before?
	What were you waiting for?
	Well, for you, Inspector, I needed you.
	Pandemics is a path to power.
	Pathogens is a path to power.
	And what we're seeing, whether there was any sort of role in facilitating the release of the virus, there has clearly been an effort to cover up for the potential involvement and complicity of China.
	Articles like A Bold Choice, which talk about the Duke University head of the global human vaccine project connected to Fauci, Factbook face checkers connected to it, on and on and on it goes.

▲