Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 7, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:08

20200507_Thu_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to American Countdown.
	This Thursday, May 7, 2020, as we have breaking news that we will cover first and then later on reach into the question of whether or not we're going to have quarantine camps in America, as suggested by some officials out of Ventura County, suggesting that this is in fact been an ongoing conversation with cities, counties and states suggesting that this is in fact been an ongoing conversation with cities, counties and states across the nation to reinstitute some version of Japanese internment camps under the guise
	During the when they occupied Warsaw where they called the ghettos where they isolated people that they did not like or want in civil society including targeting for discrimination and ultimately extermination.
	People of Jewish background they called the ghettos quarantine regions or places you should not go to because of an epidemic.
	And we'll get into that subject as well a little bit later.
	But first, breaking news is finally Attorney General Barr took some constructive action.
	Attorney General Barr has been a lot of talk and not a lot of walk now for a couple of years, but he affirmatively took action today that has meaningful consequence.
	Now, some of the reasoning for that action, some of the predicate causes for that action may not be quite as pristine and pure and intent.
	As the motion to dismiss reflects, but either way it is the right action.
	The United States government filed a motion to dismiss all charges against General Flynn in court today, leading in all likelihood to the termination of those proceedings and full exoneration and vindication of General Flynn.
	One of the topics that I have been discussing concerning General Flynn, and I had conversations with his family and his team and other people throughout this process over the last year and a half or so, And at one time was considering being counsel for him if that opportunity presented itself and I had the time available to do the case.
	The reason why it always interested me and the reason why I made a lot of public commentary about the case was because it was such a clear example of egregious misuse and abuse of prosecutorial power.
	That is, in fact, what this motion to dismiss reflects.
	Now, when his counsel, Sidney Powell, made efforts to expose the misconduct and malfeasance, she was attacked by both the court, the prosecutors, and by members of the press and legal schools.
	But, in fact, she turned out to be vindicated as well today.
	So, we're going to go through one of the key anomalies of the Flynn case.
	And there are two principal ones.
	And the first one was that somehow the Logan Act was any basis to do any kind of criminal investigation into General Flynn, when the Logan Act has never been used to prosecute anyone ever in the United States.
	It is a law that was put on the books, intended to deal with a different situation, a different set of circumstances, a different concern and problem area, all the way back to 1799.
	It is something that is not reflective of our contemporary legal and political environment and in any instance would never be applicable to someone who is a recognized transition official during a transition between an elected president and the prior president.
	So the Logan Act never made any sense at all in terms of any pretext to or predicate to investigate General Flynn.
	The second giveaway that this case was always bogus Was that they claim that General Flynn lied to them about something that he had no incentive or motivation to lie to them about.
	Nor could his lie have had any impact or effect on any actual investigation.
	For example, sometimes you'll hear people say that lying to the FBI is always a crime.
	Well, that's the case if someone lied to their wife or their spouse, and their spouse happened to be an FBI agent, it would magically become a federal crime.
	That's not the case, is it?
	No.
	And in fact, in order to prevent misrecollections and other forms of communications from being labeled a crime simply because a participant in the conversation happens to be an FBI agent, our criminal law requires that any false statement be knowing, be willful, be intentional, be volitional, and most importantly, be material.
	This is why a judge who once made false statements to FBI agents was found that he could not be convicted of obstruction of justice of a grand jury by a decision of the United States Supreme Court because his misrepresentations could not have been material to the grand jury.
	This nexus requirement of materiality is critical and essential.
	This is why, for example, when Arthur Anderson decided to take all of their documents related to Enron and shred them right on the eve of receiving a subpoena, could not be criminally prosecuted.
	As was unanimously determined by the United States Supreme Court because there was no pending existing criminal proceeding or civil proceeding that they had any obligation to maintain documents and records.
	So obstruction of justice is necessarily limited.
	Otherwise, various legal remedies, such as suing someone who is causing you difficulty, would all of a sudden be called a crime if that person also happens to be trying to instigate a criminal case against you.
	So we're going to go through a word tonight called materiality.
	It was always the big issue and the big problem with the Flynn prosecution.
	And tonight, the Justice Department recognized that, admitted that, acknowledged that.
	And that is why General Flynn has now been exonerated, soon to be fully vindicated, and back to being a free man, maybe even back to full employment in the White House with President Trump.
	So here is the motion to dismiss.
	I've seen, filed, read, reviewed, received a lot of motions just like this.
	It's a familiar format in terms of its structure, in terms of its template, in terms of its captions.
	And this is from the government's motion to dismiss the criminal information against the defendant Michael Flynn.
	That was a criminal information because General Flynn originally pled guilty By the coercion of the government's conduct, by the coercion of his own defense team at the time, what was filed never went through a grand jury.
	It simply went through what's called a criminal information in lieu of an indictment.
	And that is filed by agreement and consent of the defendant to waive the grand jury process.
	That's why what was here was a criminal information as opposed to a criminal indictment.
	The government's motion to dismiss the criminal information against defendant Michael Flynn filed today, May 7, 2020, a 20-page motion.
	I'm going to read from key components of the motion.
	This crime, talking about what General Flynn pled guilty to, requires a statement to not simply be false, but materially false, with respect to a matter under investigation.
	That's what's key.
	Simply making false statements to the FBI is not a crime.
	Contrary to what they would like you to believe.
	Contrary to what some of the press would like you to believe.
	Contrary to what some of the lawyers and ex-prosecutors would have you believe.
	Indeed, if it was a crime, there's plenty of prosecutors that belong in prison.
	But that's another story for another day.
	So what is required is materiality.
	You have to be lying about something, knowing, intending, and believing it will prevent the government from doing its job as to a particular matter.
	So that's what materiality is all about.
	It's about the government not being able to function because someone has put deception into the system that prevents the machine of government from operating.
	And you have to lie knowing that it will have that impact and its effect, but also it might also have to cause that effect.
	Now you don't always have to achieve materiality, you don't always have to achieve the objective of interfering with the case, but at least you have to have the capacity to do so.
	The statement has to be something that, if believed, will prevent the government from performing some task.
	So in the case of obstruction of justice of Congress, it has to prevent Congress from being able to perform its task.
	In terms of obstruction of a grand jury, it has to prevent the grand jury from performing its task.
	In order to obstruct an administrative proceeding, it has to prevent the administrative proceeding from being able to perform its task, discharge its duties, significantly.
	Similarly, in the same way with an FBI investigation, there has to be a legitimate investigation, a legitimate criminal investigation, and the statement has to be not only false, but material, material to that investigation, meaning it must have the capacity to prevent that investigation from reaching its lawful fruition.
	That's what's key.
	That's what the crime was that was charged in the information.
	And there are people who believe they have committed a crime who have not.
	There are people who have been tricked into believing they've committed a crime who have not.
	There are people who have been gaslit into believing they committed a crime who have not.
	Indeed, the most unreliable form of evidence in our criminal justice system today that goes across all the cases that turned out to be of innocent people, as we found out from DNA testing or other facts later, Number one most unreliable form of evidence, confessions.
	There'll be a movie we'll talk about called Under Suspicion with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman which leads you to believe throughout the case that a particular person is guilty only to uncover and discover that they were innocent all along.
	It is the nature of confessions that they are unreliable and untrustworthy.
	Particularly when they are coerced, as this one does.
	So here they convinced General Flynn that he had made some inaccurate statement that was material to the investigation, primarily by withholding from him the actual pertinent material information.
	Namely, that there was no meaningful investigation that had any legitimate legal bearings or foundation, and that he had not made any material misrepresentation that could have impacted that investigation.
	Indeed, as the motion to dismiss goes on, materiality is an essential element of the offense.
	That's fancy legal phraseology for meaning to say that you don't have a crime unless that aspect is met.
	So typically elements are what are given to the jury in a jury instruction.
	And they'll say you, the jury, have to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of these different facts are true.
	Fact one, fact two, fact three, fact four.
	It depends.
	Sometimes there's two elements, sometimes three, sometimes four, sometimes five, sometimes six.
	But you have to find all of these facts are true or there is no crime.
	So an element is a fact that must be proven true in order for the crime to be committed.
	Here, that fact has a legal terminology called materiality.
	And that's what the Department of Justice means when they say materiality is an essential element of the offense.
	Materiality, moreover, as the brief goes on to state, requires more than mere relevance or relatedness to the matter being investigated.
	It requires probative weight, whereby the statement is, quote, reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a decision required to be made.
	So, for example, if you lie about something that has no particular consequence, then that lie is not material.
	If you have a lie that is not likely to influence the decision maker, adjudicator or investigator, then it cannot be material as a matter of law.
	It must be both likely to influence and reasonably likely to influence.
	So effectively, you have three different subcomponents of materiality.
	Was it something that was capable of influencing the relevant or pertinent decision maker in being able to process the government action or function at issue?
	Second, was it likely to influence that person?
	And third, was it reasonably likely to influence that person?
	And the reasonableness is an objective standard, not subject to the whims of the individual decision-maker, as the case may be.
	Indeed, that's the established case law in the D.C.
	Circuit since 1956.
	So this is something that has been around for more than six decades as the established, clear precedent.
	As the motion to dismiss moves forward, it makes clear why it is that General Flynn's statements could not have been material.
	Now, put at the outset, the one that was obvious to me three years ago, almost three years and three months ago, was from day one, when I heard about this, I was like, one, General Flynn had no motivation to misrepresent anything because General Flynn knew they had the transcripts of the conversation.
	So remember they're asking General Flynn to recall on the fly a conversation he had had months before with an official from Russia where he knew and they knew that transcripts existed and that they had access to those transcripts.
	So why is he going to misrepresent what he told them when he knows that the conversation was taped, recorded, and transcribed in live time and is accessible to anybody in the room?
	This was basically a memory test.
	So the question had no bearing to him and no reason for him to lie about anything in it.
	By definition, it could never be material.
	Because how could you falsely influence a FBI agent into believing some part of the conversation did not happen, that's already been recorded as actually happening, that's already there, that's already documented, that's already transcribed, that's already kept in audio form?
	This case never made any sense from a federal criminal prosecutorial perspective, aside from political prejudice, aside from a witch hunt.
	And that is what, in part, they will go into detail, as well as other components to that, in the motion to dismiss.
	The government concluded that the interview of General Flynn was, and this is from the Department of Justice, the interview of General Flynn was untethered to, and I like the use of the word untethered, by the way, it's kind of an above-average IQ prosecutor, untethered to and unjustified by the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into General Flynn.
	So what they're starting out right away is they're pointing out a second component of materiality, a component that had been withheld from Flynn's defense team during this whole time period, which is there could not have been any statement that could have been material to the investigation because there was no legitimate investigation.
	You can't mislead someone that interferes with an investigation that does not legally exist.
	That is in fact one of the key things that the FBI has been hiding this whole time.
	Indeed, as they go into the Department of Justice memorandum, there was quote, no longer a justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, which the Bureau admitted in their own words.
	Prior to conducting that investigation, their full-scale, macroscopic, microscopic inquiry into General Flynn had yielded, quote, an absence of any derogatory information.
	And derogatory is very broad and generic.
	It's not, hey, here's some evidence of criminality, here's some evidence of unethical, unprofessional conduct.
	Here's evidence of anything that could lead you to have any second guessing or second doubts about General Flynn.
	This is someone that is as impeccable in his integrity as could be conceivably true when an FBI has conducted a macroscopic, microscopic inquiry into you prior to that interview ever taking place.
	So the FBI's own internal records show that they had closed what they called Operation Razor.
	That they had recommended its closure, that there was no derogatory information that could predicate a further investigation, such that the interview of him was not part of a legitimate criminal investigation.
	It was simply like a couple of people chatting in a room.
	As such, it could never be criminalized, period.
	Every conversation that ever happens between government officials does not magically make any inaccurate statement a crime.
	If it did, every United States Senator would be in prison.
	Every United States Congress member would be in prison.
	Almost all of these talking heads that used to be prosecutors and high-ranking Obama officials would definitely be in prison.
	So the idea that any inaccurate statement is magically a federal crime, just because it's an FBI person in the room, is simply never been the law.
	What's required is that you lie with the intentionality to interfere with the capacity of the Justice Department conducting a lawful investigation or proceeding.
	As the memorandum goes on, the government is not persuaded that the January 24th, 2017 interview with General Flynn was conducted with any legitimate investigative basis.
	This is the government talking.
	Normally, this is the defense trying to use inflammatory rhetoric and try to get some attention to the case and the issues.
	This is the government saying there wasn't any legitimate investigation to be done here.
	This wasn't a legitimate investigation at all from its inception.
	So there could be nothing said that could be a crime period as a matter of law.
	As the memorandum goes on, the government therefore does not believe that General Flynn's statements were material, even if he was wrong.
	Even if the statements were untrue, they could not be legally material.
	And that's what's required for it to be a crime.
	That's what separates making a mistake, failing to recall something, not getting everything precisely correct, not passing the memory test.
	from doing something that materially impacts and influences and impairs the ability of a Department of Justice investigation to be properly conducted.
	The latter is a crime.
	The former ain't.
	As the case, as they go on, moreover, we, the government believes, and they actually make a little typo in their thing.
	They say we not believe.
	Everybody makes typos, but it's always nice when you see the government make them because they always whine if you do.
	Moreover, we not believe that the government cannot, we believe the government cannot prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.
	So they're saying the investigation was bogus.
	It's not even clear he made any false statements at all.
	And we do not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that his statements were material, could have been material, or even if they were, they were false in a material way.
	Indeed, as the Justice Department goes forward, They mention a ethical requirement that the courts often cite that actually motivated me when I was a young lawyer, and that is that the only obligation of a government prosecutor is to do justice.
	They are not a lawyer for the government.
	That is a misunderstanding and misapprehension.
	They are a lawyer whose only ethical obligation, only ethical proscription, is do justice.
	When I was a kid, a law student, I wanted to be a prosecutor for that precise reason.
	The idea that I could go out there and just do justice.
	That was it.
	I was under no other restriction, no other restraint, no other limitation, no other constraint.
	My only obligation, do justice.
	Now of course, me and several others of us who had done very well in law school on either law review or moot court, winning awards, winning recognition, mock trial provisions, finishing towards the top of our class, at the top of our class, as the case may be, also had the same ambition for the same aspirational purpose and for the same reasoning.
	However, none of us could get even an interview in a small county.
	Uh, for a prosecutorial position, least of all actually obtain employment.
	Years later, I went back and talked to a law professor, great law professor, recently retired, uh, who understood criminal law, who was closely connected with all the prosecutors in the state, who despite his, uh, appreciation of the group of us, uh, the, was not able to get us employed anywhere.
	And I asked him in the prosecutorial depart, uh, branches, and I asked him, why is it we couldn't get a job?
	Why isn't, we couldn't, I couldn't even get an interview.
	How could this be?
	Uh, it's like, how is it people that are finishing at the bottom of our class with zero awards are getting jobs and those of us finishing at the top of our class with a long litany of awards can't even get an interview?
	And he was, uh, he loosely and he was trying to be delicate and how he diplomatic and how he said it.
	He thought he was going to about to tell me something that would be upsetting or offensive.
	In fact, it was quite complimentary as it turned out.
	What he said is he said, well, you know, Robert, uh, they're not really looking for lawyers, uh, like you.
	What do you mean?
	You know, they're not looking for people that are too independent.
	And then he started to explain a little more and what he meant was they deliberately screen out anybody they think is reflective, anybody they think will step back and look at whether what they're doing is right, anybody that will step back and second-guess their superiors, second-guess their political agenda, second-guess whether this is in fact justice.
	They don't want prosecutors who are committed to doing justice.
	They want prosecutors who are committed to doing their boss's orders.
	They want prosecutors who are committed to meeting the political narrative of the day.
	They want prosecutors who are willing to railroad people on command.
	What they don't want is a bunch of little Ed Snowdens running around who might be willing to second-guess what their superiors request.
	And in my personal political history, my biography screamed independence, screamed someone who would engage in a lot of self-reflection and independent action.
	And consequently, they wanted nothing to do with me at all.
	So it was very educational and edifying as to understanding how prosecutors' offices really work.
	But this is their ethical duty and mandate.
	And at least somebody in Attorney General Barr's office finally decided to take it seriously as applied to General Flynn.
	That is why they say that duty to do justice requires the government respectfully moves to dismiss the criminal information with prejudice against Mr. Flynn.
	In other words, dismissed so that it can never be resuscitated or brought back again.
	Now they note, by the way, some of what the factual and empirical predicate for this is, is that there's been three forms of new information.
	Newly discovered information, newly disclosed information, and newly declassified information.
	So it shows that the coordinated effort by both General Flynn's counsel, Sidney Powell, as well as whatever information the Covington law firm, where Eric Holder has been employed, was sitting on and we'll go through the timeline right here so that you understand what else might have been the motivation for the timing of this motion to dismiss by the government
	remember that the sydney powell was demanding all of the covington firm's files which they have an obligation to turn over to general flynn as their as his former counsel and this would include any of their other communications Communications that might implicate Eric Holder, former Attorney General for President Obama.
	Information that might implicate other high profile.
	People in Washington, D.C.
	The prosecutor assigned to this case withdrew earlier today, a sign that something big was happening.
	Well, yesterday was the first step in the time frame.
	The court ordered Judge Sullivan required that the Covington law firm sit down with Sidney Powell and have a conversation about getting all of these files to her.
	So all of these files that might have had something really embarrassing in them for the government's perspectives was right on the cusp of being forced to be turned over.
	Right after that, all of a sudden the prosecutor who engineered this whole case under Robert Mueller suddenly decides to not only withdraw but resign from the Department of Justice.
	Not long after that, this motion came in demanding dismissal to try to moot those other discovery issues that might be embarrassing other powerful people in Washington.
	As the motion goes on to explain, it goes to the entire factual background, goes to where that factual background came from.
	And here's an important part as to the Logan Act component, aside from the fact that Logan Act has never been used to prosecute anybody ever.
	It notes that by the time of both the discussion with the ambassador and the conversation that led to this investigation.
	Quote, by this time, Mr. Flynn had already been named by President-elect Trump as his incoming National Security Advisor.
	So that's significant because the Logan Act was intended to deal with a scenario where someone pretends in the young America to be representing America.
	But doesn't really have that authority, but effectively binds or contaminates America's diplomatic policy overseas.
	They create the Logan Act to try to preclude that.
	It is a problem of a young country.
	It is not a problem of America today, of a contemporary America.
	That's why it's never been used as a prosecutorial tool.
	On top of the fact there are severe First Amendment problems with trying to criminalize people simply for having a different policy prescription with the US and the rest of the world.
	But in particular here it made no sense because General Flynn was already part of the transition team.
	And there's already under the law the transition team has certain legally recognized powers and abilities to make sure there's a smooth and fluid transition from President Obama to President Trump.
	As such, he could not have been falsely representing U.S.
	policy because he is part of future U.S.
	policy.
	So, by definition, there was never a legitimate factual predicate or legal basis for any Logan Act case.
	That's part of why they mention in here he was already part of the transition team, already going to be part of the new cabinet.
	In addition, as they note prior to the interviews, The FBI already had in their possession transcripts of all the relevant calls.
	In other words, they don't need to talk to General Flynn about what's in the calls.
	They already have a transcript of what's in the calls.
	So then he'd say, OK, you remember what you said at 2.27 a.m.
	in response to question number four or comment number three?
	That's ridiculous.
	That's a memory recall test for something that happened months before.
	It's absurd.
	The whole pretext was nuts.
	It has no legal basis whatsoever when it comes to the issue of materiality.
	They go through the factual basis of this and note a key legal issue.
	They note in the government's motion to dismiss, the FBI never opened an independent FBI criminal investigation into General Flynn at that time.
	So there was no legitimate investigation.
	Not only could there be no legitimate investigation, there factually wasn't.
	It didn't exist.
	Indeed, as they mentioned, that the entire conversation was solely about General Flynn's calls with the Russian ambassador and that there was no reason to ask about that because they already had the transcripts.
	As the memorandum goes on, it goes through all the factual details, includes lots of exhibits with notes and relevant pertinent information.
	It notes how the FBI, the key FBI agents were clearly doing this as pretext and admitted it in their own internal correspondence and communications.
	Indeed, they noted that Mr. Flynn was unguarded in the interview and clearly viewed the agents as allies.
	As the FBI itself internally recorded, this is how they entrapped him.
	This is how they set him up.
	Indeed, as the notes document, quote, what's our goal?
	Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.
	As they note, this would look like playing games if anybody ever got a hold of these notes.
	Indeed, after the interview, the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Flynn got anything wrong, whether he even properly remembered the transcript or not, or whether his interpretation is a fair and reasoned interpretation of the transcript.
	Of note, at the interview, they didn't give him copies of the transcript.
	Again, they're asking him questions about stuff they already know.
	There's no reason to ask him these questions, and then they withhold from him the key pertinent information to make sure he's accurate in whatever he tells them.
	Notably, they note that the FBI agents failed to warn that any false statement could be considered a crime, did not tell him there was any investigation pending, and that in fact most of his conversation was things were possible but he didn't recall.
	There was no lie.
	General Flynn didn't lie.
	Period.
	It was all one big fat brawl.
	And luckily today, General Flynn is on the verge of going home innocent.
	But there's more people that need to be going home innocent and more people that need to start facing the firing line of federal prosecutions and investigations.
	We'll come back to that and with our guest after the break.
	Come back and join us for a little more discussion and conversation about pertinent matters today.
	Thank you.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We do have a little video clip from the FBI agents whose notes helped unravel the remainder of the General Flynn case.
	Let's show a little video clip 15 about advice you should make when you're taking notes about your own criminal conspiracy.
	Nigga, is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?
	What the fuck is you thinking, man?
	Yes, indeed.
	That was wise wisdom from The Wire Show.
	You don't take notes of your own criminal conspiracy.
	Unfortunately, apparently, Peter Strzok and others didn't quite learn that lesson well.
	And it's good news for General Flynn that that has led to vindication and exoneration for him.
	Whether it leads to more and others is an open question.
	For a conversation about all of the topics of markets and money, of politics and power, we're going to have with us the editor, the founder of People's Pundit Daily, Richard Beres.
	You can find him at www.peoplespunditdaily.com.
	He has a subscription service I've long been a member of.
	You can get economic news.
	You can get news about polling and opinion data.
	There's also BigDataPoll.com.
	There's also, you can follow him at Twitter, at People's Pundit, and on YouTube, where he's put up a YouTube show each day, relatively daily, called Inside the Numbers, that goes into inside some of the numbers, including some of the creative modeling that has been taking place in our pandemic politics in particular.
	It had some good intel on the difference between weather forecasters and pandemic modelers, and weather forecasters actually turned out much, much better.
	It's quite derogatory and defamatory of them to say the other.
	So Richard, glad you could be with us tonight.
	Are we able to hear him?
	I can't hear him.
	Do we have the volume?
	All right, no problem.
	Hey, yeah, just see if we got your audio fix, Richard.
	All right, it might have been on my end.
	There it is.
	Thanks for having me back.
	Hey, no problem, man.
	So it's been very interesting times the last several months, not only on the legal, political front and everything that's been happening there, not only this context, but the civil rights context.
	But in particular, the bad use and bad understanding and bad analysis of data, not only the data that's available, but the methodology that was employed for that data.
	The difference between good models and bad models.
	The problems of straight line thinking.
	And you made a good point about that when you have people like Professor Murray from the IHME, which is a Bill Gates funded institution, and Gates clearly has a very particular political agenda about this.
	Whatever else one thinks about Bill Gates, he has not been bashful about what he believes should happen as it relates to public policy in light of a pandemic.
	And whatever the deal is, the nature of what the people at IHME have been propagating has been in alignment with Bill Gates' own political agenda.
	But even putting that aside, of motivations and whether there's been a corruption of the academy institutionally or individually in this instance, He was sitting there defending himself saying that he was like a weather forecaster.
	And you had a good rant on one of your shows about the problems with using these kind of, that in fact that's really derogatory and defamatory towards weather forecasters.
	Could you explain the difference between the problems with the models that he was using and propagating that has incredibly informed massive public policy of radical actions versus what actually happens with real hurricane forecasting?
	Right.
	So that must've been, that was after, it must've been the second or third time I heard him on Martha McAllen and she was pretty hard on him.
	And she says, you know, Trump said this about the models, they're wrong.
	And he starts to jump on Johns Hopkins and he says, I think the president was talking about Johns Hopkins.
	Nah, the president was talking about you too.
	You're a fraud and so was your model.
	Weather forecasters at least know what troughs or, uh, you know, pressure changes in the system are going to do to that storm.
	It's an insult to weather forecasters, to meteorologists, to compare what Murray does with what they do.
	Those are the variables of their model.
	That's how they create the cone.
	And the only reason why I know this is because we cover that on People's Pundit Daily.
	We run every model that they have out there.
	And we put them together to show people the various paths that storms can take.
	We're in Florida and North Carolina.
	It's pretty pertinent to the people that read our site, right?
	So, you know, talking to these people, everyone gives it to meteorologists for getting those storms wrong, but at least they know what those variables will do to their model, Robert, right?
	Murray never had enough data to even put a model together.
	It was not just, well, it's only as good as the data you put into it.
	That's really half the story.
	He didn't have enough data to put into it.
	And then what he did do with the model, the assumptions he made, he took cases from countries that supported what his view was, and he excluded others.
	And then all of this was supposed to be measured and really gauged by something called social distancing and mitigation, something they never knew how to measure to begin with.
	So the whole thing was just a complete fraud.
	The least weather forecasters know What variables go into their model?
	And when, you know, the data changes with those variables, what will happen to that model?
	He never had a clue.
	That was always, it was always a complete fraud.
	And, you know, the thing is, it always fits their view, Robert.
	So how else, what other conclusion are we supposed to draw here?
	Look at Neil Ferguson.
	He just had to resign.
	Because he broke his own rules that he wanted to impose on the rest of us by sleeping with a married woman who happens to be a climate change activist.
	Yes, no doubt about that whatsoever.
	What's extraordinary about all of this is it reminds me a lot of the polling debate of 2016, which is where you had people deliberately changing how they were weighting certain information, changing the way that polls were happening.
	And some of those changes were not of their doing.
	But the fact that some changes were happening institutionally in the observed environment, so to speak, should have led them to be more skeptical of their own results.
	And the interesting thing is it's led to an indictment and impeachment of the mere idea of using models when really the problem here isn't data.
	The problem here isn't how to develop that data.
	The problem isn't whether or not you can predict or forecast from data.
	It's what they're doing with the data.
	It's their methodological measurements, their choices about what information goes in, what information does not, and in the end, unwillingness to recognize limits of the data and to, in real time, adjust their assumptions when it's clearly being refuted in multiple examples.
	So in that context, like I remember going back and like if you going through all of the polling analysis in 2016 for me was I remember telling someone in August, I said, if my bet on Trump, there's only one big risk factor out there.
	And that's the polls are telling me I'm wrong.
	And so I got to really dig into polling because I had only done a little bit of it, but not in great deal at that point for about a decade.
	I used to do political consulting back in the day, but had not done it recently.
	And I was startled digging into the polls.
	I remember the very first thing I was ever told by a pollster.
	It was a university pollster.
	I was 16 at the time.
	I was like, how does this polling work?
	How do you talk to 100 people, 1,000 people, and somehow you know what 300,000 are going to do?
	And his first response was a bit sardonic because he had a very sort of skeptical view of his own work.
	He was like, this is difficult work.
	He said, well, Bobby, the poll tells you who you talk to.
	That's what it tells you.
	And there's ways to adjust that.
	But in the process, what was fascinating is I started digging into polling data.
	I find that, in fact, that most people no longer answer their phones.
	We no longer have a landline base.
	We're trying to incorporate multiple modes.
	We don't know what kind of self-selection bias that creates.
	And to give an example, just we'll focus on one illustration of this.
	I was stunned to hear people complaining about self-selection bias in serology studies.
	So as soon as we had like the Santa Clara study like oh you can't trust that there's a lot of self-selection that goes on with the way that thing worked and I was like in what world is that not the case anymore with almost any form of survey we do.
	Almost every form of online polling is self-selected.
	You can try to do what you can to mitigate its effect.
	But the reality is, you have self-selected polling in almost every form of study or survey, and yet people acted like this made it totally unscientific, what the Stanford folks were doing at Santa Clara.
	And of course the Santa Clara results were then replicated almost everywhere else around the world.
	So we haven't heard those people complain as much, but we've seen a lot of pseudoscience, not only in what was being promoted and propounded and propagated to us, but also pseudoscience in some of the criticisms.
	Have you been startled at the degree to which basic statistical analysis has been thrown out the door or selectively utilized purely for a select political narrative?
	Yeah.
	And, you know, rule of thumbs, you know, they just got, that is true in the era of Trump with a lot of things, you know, something that is the rule of thumb, you know, just goes out the window.
	It was the rule of thumb that it's hard for a party to keep the White House for three consecutive terms after a two-term president.
	Yet, for some reason, you know, they never gave the guy better than a 50-50 chance.
	It was always true that it's hard for an incumbent president to keep the House in the first year.
	You know, certain things like that.
	But with polling specifically, the online polling, well, let's opt in.
	What are you doing to mitigate some of the sample bias, the response bias, or whatever it may be?
	As if cell phone collection or phone polling doesn't come with its own inherent artifacts and biases.
	You know, so it's just it gets skewed with however they want it to be.
	And with 2012, you were talking about the difference in 2016.
	In 2012, most of the Republicans were complaining that there were too many Democrats in the polls.
	And they didn't they wanted to wait for it.
	But by the time we got to 2016, people were waiting for party.
	They were intentionally kicking, you know, overrepresenting, which is really the correct word.
	I always hear oversampling, but it's overrepresenting Democrats in their samples.
	So it just seems to change whatever their views are, right?
	And in truth, you know, we don't wait for party ID.
	We never did.
	That's not our philosophy.
	I know some people do.
	If you're getting the correct sample, Robert, and you're reaching the right people, the electorate will tell you the correct partisan ID of who is going to go and vote.
	That is the problem.
	That is one of the big reasons, you know, not to give away the goose here, but they just weren't waiting for region correctly and not even waiting, but they weren't gathering enough responses.
	And a lot of that was because they didn't care.
	The results were showing what they wanted them to show.
	So they were just like, this is good enough, even though they know that's not true.
	You know, so it's just the way it is.
	Well, it's how they doctored the data here.
	They've sort of replicated the way they've manipulated public opinion polling over the past five to six years, especially in an environment where it's both more susceptible to manipulation and and less inherently reliable because you don't have natural samples.
	Most people no longer answer their calls.
	You don't have people communicating by one mode, such as landline phones.
	So the combination of that is if you want to manipulate a poll, you can really manipulate a poll in the modern environment.
	If you want to get an accurate poll, you need to be really diligent to do so.
	And frequently the objective has been to get a result from a poll, not be to find out what a public opinion actually is.
	And we've seen some of that same kind of manipulative tactics and techniques used with the modelers and how the modelers have been interpreted, as well as how anybody skeptical or critical of the models has been shouted out or shouted down.
	shut down not only that we saw of course with the santa clara study initially they're trying to pretend that they're and like going back to rule of thumb a rule of thumb is that an influenza type virus will be present by at least a ratio of 10 times more than the confirmed test in a community
	the flu on average the cdc has estimated for every year for the last 60 years that there are are on average a hundred times more people who get the flu than test for the flu and yet they were all pretending somehow that covid19 was totally unique and that in fact that there only a small number of And what's been fascinating is watching New York.
	They go in and they do real serology studies, and they, unfortunately for them, I guess they had an honest surveyor, because they were hoping to get back data that was supposed to show, you know, this wasn't a big problem.
	This wasn't, you know, we were right about our calculation of mortality rates and ICU rates and ventilator rates, even though it was clearly that they weren't, because all of Cuomo's charts just vanished over time, because none of the doom and gloom came true.
	But they were still hoping for that.
	They're hoping that the infection rate would come back at like three to four percent if New York City had it.
	And then they were hoping as well that they were going to be able to prove that their shutdown worked.
	And even though the shutdown was completely ahistorical.
	And that historically being inside bad, being outside good.
	That's why we call it the seasonal flu.
	That's why the flu tends to be worse in the Northeast than it is in the Southwest.
	So for all of those that we've known for now for 40 or 50 years.
	And yet this time we totally reversed that.
	We said, no, whatever you do, don't go outdoors.
	You swim, you're getting arrested.
	You surf, you're going to jail.
	You go paddle boarding, we're sending the little police boats after you.
	Don't open your salon.
	Exactly.
	Don't open your salon.
	Don't do that.
	Don't do anything that has... Don't open your doors at home.
	Don't open your windows at home.
	So this whole pitch of it, so they thought they were going to be able to show that the people that were really good people, Well, the good citizens who totally complied, who stayed all indoors, kept the doors locked, kept the windows locked, didn't go outside, didn't travel, didn't do any transit, didn't do anything like that, didn't go jogging, didn't go walking, didn't go running, that those people would have much lower rates of the virus.
	And that those who went outdoors, those who are essential employees, so they had to work, your grocery workers, your restaurant delivery folks, all these folks that were still within an environment where they're close to other people, particularly also outdoors, would have a much higher infection rate.
	Well, the data comes back and not only is the infection rate 20 to 25% in New York City, which means they were way wrong as to the date of the virus, way wrong about the mortality rate, hospitalization rate, and all the rest.
	But they were also, it turns out, completely wrong about who got it while the shutdown was taking place because what they're finding is the people who were infected after the shutdown were disproportionately the people complying and staying at home and staying indoors.
	Two-thirds of the people that ended up being hospitalized after the shutdown went into effect Got it by being at home rather than being outdoors.
	That the rate between the two was twice as high was your risk if you stayed indoors versus staying employed and being frequently outdoors.
	So it's a sign that honest data, honest analysis could have given us good public policy but we didn't get it because so much of the data class within certain communities has been corrupted in such a way that they are not giving honest and accurate information.
	Yeah, we could have.
	We had that too.
	They muted those voices.
	It's there.
	It's been there for other severe respiratory diseases like other SARS, and it's there for COVID-19.
	And the first one was a large study that we reported on.
	It was over 1,200 people.
	And now there's another one out there.
	I think it's close to 2,000.
	But the bottom line is the top category for infections were indoor transmissions, people who stayed home.
	And the least likely to be infected were people who were outdoors in spaces that they are telling people not to do now.
	So kayaking presents almost no risk to infections.
	And then the second highest category was mass transit, particularly underground, Robert, on a subway.
	Boxed in together with each other.
	And so that's why some of New York's problems are New York specific.
	But Cuomo knew that.
	Weeks ago, he made a comment.
	I've been watching his press conferences just because I want to see his evolution here.
	But weeks ago, he even admitted, you know what?
	Maybe staying inside wasn't such a great idea.
	So obviously somebody had gotten into his ear.
	It's just that the media and people that have the ears of policymakers The ones who had sound data and sound device got muted and the fear porn people got elevated.
	There's just no other way to put it.
	I mean really, there's no other way to put it.
	And it's sad because here we are and watching Cuomo kind of come to grips with it now.
	Yesterday we watched his press conference and he's like trying to Exactly.
	these numbers some of which you were talking about and he's doing it in this very delicate way to try to massage the public because if anyone was paying attention they would mean it didn't work or at least it had little impact Robert really exactly it was like one of the accidental results when they started doing an excess mortality results analysis right and exactly they And the New York Times ended up publishing, starting with the Financial Times, it was fascinating, the Financial Times came up with the wackiest interpretation of the data.
	They were still pushing the fear porn narrative.
	But when you looked at the actual data, what stood out to me was like, wow, all the countries with the harshest, longest shutdown are showing the highest excess mortality rates, whereas Sweden, Denmark reopened quickly once they got back up and going.
	I mean, I think schools are back open in Denmark.
	Those are the places experiencing the lowest level of excess mortality rate.
	New York City has a much higher excess mortality rate.
	The country as a whole is likely to have a below average excess mortality rate in terms of all causes of death once this is all said and done by month's end.
	And it was evidence that was like, wow, you know, there's more and more evidence.
	And then we started seeing the anecdotal stories.
	You know, people not getting heart treatment, people not getting cancer treatment.
	Yeah.
	Nursing homes.
	And then they clearly inflated it at nursing homes by what they did.
	It was the worst possible strategy.
	I remember we were talking about it back in March on Twitter.
	I was like, how are they not focusing on nursing homes?
	This is clearly an incubator center to spread this virus to its most vulnerable citizens.
	And yet they put it this way, if Trump had done this, they would have already charged him with murder.
	I was just playing the imagine if game, right?
	Imagine the media coverage if Donald Trump issued an executive order forcing nursing homes to take infected people.
	Imagine.
	And it resulted in more than half of all COVID-19 deaths around the country.
	And increasingly, in Pennsylvania, over 80% of the recent deaths are all nursing home deaths.
	So it's a nursing home epidemic.
	And we knew that going in.
	We knew that from Italy.
	We knew that from the data.
	We knew that from history.
	And yet we did everything possible to make the numbers worse.
	And then we did everything possible to literally make the numbers worse by inflating the numbers.
	You have people like Elon Musk talking today at Joe Rogan, talking about what everyone is talking about, who looked at the numbers.
	If you're a hospital administrator, you're put under massive pressure.
	To say someone died of COVID-19.
	Because if you're a hospital administrator and you've lost 40 to 50 percent of your revenue, you're having to furlough nurses, you're now getting to the point where you're having to furlough doctors, where you may not be able to survive in the next month.
	People forget hospitals, you know, whatever the left thinks about medical care.
	You can talk about insurance companies, Big Pharma, those are fair targets.
	Hospitals barely survive financially.
	They often provide free care to people.
	They're often required to under various emergency room rules for whom they never recover money.
	And to be honest, for the most part, hospitals are pretty good about not going after people who don't have the means to pay back their hospital bill.
	They cannot afford a month of no money.
	And yet that is exactly what they were forced to do.
	And then all of a sudden the government comes in and says, you know what, if you put them on a ventilator for five minutes, we'll give you 39 grand per patient.
	And if you say it's COVID, and we'll even say, and they immunized them from, like there are people, Jack Posobiec, some other people thought, well they can't falsify those numbers because that will be Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
	Not when the CDC says, gives you a green light.
	They're telling them to do it.
	Just so, yeah, that should be cleared up.
	They're telling people to do it.
	There are doctors who are pushing back on this.
	Folks, where did the pneumonia deaths go?
	Where did even, this is supposed to be, it was anticipated to be a bad flu season.
	But you don't get paid for flu and pneumonia deaths, really.
	And if, you know what, one of the categories where you can still see this though, Robert, is in the younger categories, 25 and younger.
	And we've been hammering away at this because of the school closures.
	We are going to do damage to our children if this is going to be the way we react every time China, whoever, releases some kind of pathogen on the rest of the world.
	The fact of the matter is, this disease is less likely to kill somebody under the age of 25 than pneumonia or the flu.
	And we've beaten away at this.
	And now serology testing coming out of Switzerland, children aren't carrying high enough viral loads to be able to even infect adults at high rates.
	So adults are infecting children.
	It's the other way around.
	So the Petri dish You know, theory.
	That closed schools.
	It's done.
	But we reacted before we had good, sound data.
	And now it's too late.
	It's just too late to salvage the school year.
	And people are still talking about fall.
	Closing fall.
	It's crazy.
	I mean, it's completely insane at this point to close fall.
	They're talking about closing all the summer camps for kids.
	That makes no sense at all.
	I mean, the summer camps are a defining experience for kids.
	And it's not like you can go back and get that.
	It's not like you can go back and be 12.
	I mean, you can't recreate that.
	It's lost, it's gone.
	Just like labor value is lost when it can't be expended, even more so childhood experiences cannot be recovered from.
	Now you have kids of your own.
	How have they handled all of this insanity?
	So it's tough.
	We're in Florida, so the school year ends early.
	And you know what the worst part is?
	They were busting their humps.
	They really were.
	To get great grades.
	They had goals for the next year.
	And they feel like it's been robbed and it's hard to explain that to them.
	And we're doing something called distance learning down here.
	They're not, we get a packet, right?
	We got to ride the kids to do the packet because it's a joke.
	And then they hand it in at the end of the week and they're not even allowed to grade them because they're afraid touching the packets will spread the infection.
	You know, as sound as it may be or not.
	So everyone is basically getting graded.
	On the same scale.
	And then you do like a Google Classroom or something, right?
	It's hard to tell kids to explain this to kids because they know who was doing their work in their class and who wasn't.
	So they were working hard and it teaches them a terrible lesson.
	Not to mention, by the way, I mean, we've reported about this ad nauseum.
	Kids need exercise.
	They need to get out.
	They need to be sociable.
	And I understand the conservatives.
	They always fire back at me with, well, it's better to have kids homeschooled.
	This wasn't a plan shift to homeschooling.
	This was, you know, basically dumping kids in the laps of parents who are just trying to survive.
	Oh, exactly.
	It's a very different situation.
	Completely.
	We'll be right back after the break with Richard to discuss both the economic and potential political fallout from pandemic politics gone mad.
	So join us right back, right after the break.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're going to be discussing with Richard both the economic and political fallout from the pandemic politics, and particularly the panic from the pandemic that led to the mass shutdowns across the Western world.
	As just a few examples, we'll look at a few charts.
	Look at chart number one, which shows the decline in total travelers throughout the United States, which has fallen off the cliff since the shutdowns were announced.
	And the panic has seized the minds.
	It's just all the way down here, where almost 90% of it is gone and no signs it's coming back soon.
	Airlines talking about permanent layoffs, people talking about tourist season never happening in their part of the country or their part of the world.
	That has a wide range of ripple effects in the economy.
	The same vein, if we look at chart number two, we will see what the central bank balance sheets are as a percentage of GDP.
	And all they're doing is going up, up and up across the Western world, including Japan and European countries, and particularly the United States, where they've spent, the Fed has already added trillions to its balance sheet.
	Then if we take a look at chart number three and we see what consumer confidence is doing in an economy that is 70% consumer confidence, it has fallen off the cliff since this began in ways that the president was magical at improving it.
	Now it's facing one of its most dramatic declines in American economic history.
	And then if we look at chart number four, we see that in a wide range of macroeconomic indicators over the last four-week change, they all have these kind of numbers that just sudden drop-offs.
	Drop-offs like we've never seen in size and scale.
	We normally see just this kind of activity close, and now it's just going boom!
	That red on the bottom at the end all the way down.
	So, Richard, there was, I think, a great underestimation as to the economic effect that these policies would impose.
	I think some of the Trump haters did not care because they're willing to crash the economy just to see President Trump out of office.
	I think they wouldn't mind if we look like Escape from L.A.
	in 2021, like the movie, as long as Donald Trump wasn't El Jefe.
	So I think that that's the mindset that a lot of them have.
	And then I think there are others that are hopefully hopelessly naive.
	about the nature of how our economy works.
	The Fed just doesn't do a couple of buttons and magically all our problems disappear.
	The economy is not like a car engine.
	You can't just turn it off and then go back on in four weeks.
	It shows how much our pampered privileged classes are completely out of touch with the real world economy.
	It's the way we feed each other, house each other, take care of each other.
	They appear to have no cognizant recognition of this.
	And then, of course, and we're seeing now the ripple effects.
	And to be honest, I think at times the president has been a little bit idealistic about how easy it would be.
	I think Mnuchin and others have been telling him, don't worry, you'll get it back going.
	By summer, it'll be fine.
	By fall, it will be just where you were before, maybe even better.
	And I think maybe he's starting to slowly see maybe not.
	But what do you think the economic fallout is going to be near short term and then over the next year or two in terms of what the effects of this shutdown, this unparalleled precedent is on our economy?
	Yeah.
	So I, I, I think a number of things happened here that it's just typical crisis and Leviathan kind of scenario where, you know, you have people who wanted to support him and his decision, no matter really what he did.
	You had people who do support him that just got kind of stuffed in the back, you know, we're, we're, we're definitely warning that this might not be a good, good idea at this point, Robert.
	I mean, it's getting really depressing to report some of this stuff.
	You know, we just had the, um, unemployment claims numbers.
	Yeah, they were a little bit more than consensus.
	But now we're at around or a little above 30 million jobs since this started for initial claims.
	15.5% insured unemployment.
	You were talking about some of those confidence numbers.
	That was another indicator where Trump was just magical.
	It fell to 1.1% for the first time in history.
	And since 2018, That number held at 1.2.
	The only time it moved was a few times that it dipped back down to the all-time low of 1.1.
	And I've just been watching it over the weeks.
	You know, it's like a canary in the coal mine, this indicator.
	15.5 we're at now, and that lags the insurance claims themselves, the unemployment insurance claims.
	That's for April 25th.
	So I think, you know, you really nailed it before that there was just too much overly optimistic.
	And on the show, we debate about it on our YouTube show.
	You know, I'm more pessimistic.
	I don't, you cannot turn the economy on and off like this.
	And I was talking to one of the larger grocery store supply chain people yesterday, and he was, he's really getting nervous now about the food supply chains.
	And there's only so much that the president can do to jump in and fix this.
	This is something that will take time.
	It took time to hurt and it will take time to fix.
	And unfortunately, no matter what Trump does moving forward, he's not going to get any kind of positive GDP number before voters go to the ballot box.
	So if come, you know, the end of summer, early fall, we're not doubling Reagan's numbers, his best numbers, then that's a hard argument to make.
	It just is.
	That's the reality of the situation.
	I do see it bouncing back.
	I just don't see us bouncing back that quickly, Robert.
	I don't.
	Exactly.
	Especially when I see a lot of people, and I get what Steve Bannon's pitch is, and I agree with it as a long-term public policy, in terms of bringing back supply chains from China to the United States.
	It's a good opportunity.
	Absolutely.
	What I think he under-appreciates is that's a several years project.
	In fact, not only that, it's a near short-term disaster because we have so many critical components of the supply chain made in China and elsewhere.
	If we don't just turn back on that spigot, then the problem is we have a bunch of internal domestic problems that maybe we put ourselves in a much more economically secure and richer position three years from now when we now have all of those supply chains.
	But as should have been seen with the ventilators and protective physical equipment, even some of the more simpler things to make, it took us several months and a whole bunch of pressure to do.
	It's not easy to simply to supplant what China has done.
	China has deliberately made sure they are part of key components in our entire supply chain to where replacing them is brutally difficult to accomplish.
	And while I hope he does go that path, One, I'm still not fully convinced he's going to because of the amount of economic ties between big financial interests in the United States and China.
	That's a large part of the reason why China has had the development success that it has had, is internal U.S.
	allies, unfortunately.
	But even if he did, that doesn't necessarily solve the short-term economic problem.
	And it seemed like everybody on, a lot of the people that I would call on the populist side of the Trumpist equation, who were still gung-ho with these shutdowns, seem to have very high naivete about what the political fallout would be for the president.
	And there's the additional problem.
	The people the president's listening to in the White House really could care less whether he wins.
	And many of them would be happy if he loses.
	I have no doubt that Birx and Fauci are in the hope Trump loses category.
	So why you would listen to those people, I don't know.
	I still have second.
	I know why he did, but it was a bad idea to do so, in my opinion.
	But get into what the political fallout is, because the way I've been responding to people, and I get a lot of Trump supporters get mad if you suggest, hey, by the way, maybe he's in a little bit of trouble.
	The reality is Trump needs pushback so that he knows from his audience, OK, like the whole Dallas incident with that salon barber was great for Texas Republican politics.
	Because the governor and the attorney general have been sort of back and forth.
	All of a sudden they see the outrage and they're like, we're not going to let anybody get arrested for complying with our own governor's orders, which is great.
	I'm glad to see that.
	But the president needs more pushback on risk quick.
	I mean, as quickly and as continuously as possible, because he needs to not allow these shutdowns to continue to the degree he can have any influence.
	But get into the political fallout.
	The best example I always give people is Winston Churchill.
	And it's Winston Churchill, no less.
	Everybody points and talks about him all the time.
	Beat Adolf Hitler, probably the worst person in the world from a political, geopolitical perspective.
	Maybe didn't kill anybody near as Mao or Stalin.
	But in historical perspective, he's your classic boogeyman is Adolf Hitler.
	He beats Adolf Hitler, who was bombing London on a daily basis and making their lives nightmares.
	And yet within months after he beat Hitler, they throw him out in a landslide because the economy wasn't doing well.
	How much risk is Trump facing from this?
	And what do you think his chances are in the near short term as it currently stands?
	There are two things I'm going to look at.
	The indicator on who do you trust more on the economy, and that with Biden has got to remain wide.
	It has narrowed, but then he widens it out again.
	And then the coronavirus issue.
	So if Biden really doesn't have an edge on either one of them, because he's going to have health care, Robert, he's got all Democrats typically have that edge on health care.
	But Trump His supporters do get mad when you kind of throw some reality into the mix.
	Show me a president who's won during a recession.
	And I will concede only this, that Trump is the ahistorical president.
	He was the ahistorical candidate.
	He did things, he's a first timer.
	You know, there's a first time for everything.
	This breaks conventional wisdom.
	This breaks that.
	He's good at that.
	And we've never had an intended shutdown like this.
	So I'll grant people that.
	But come the end of this summer and in the fall, if people are looking for someone to blame, it will be the president they blame.
	The buck stops with the president always.
	What he needs to do is get, like you were just talking about with Texas, he needs to immediately position himself like Paxton did, like Abbott did.
	He needs to be the voice who puts, there's no other way to put this.
	He's got to put the blame on the Democratic governors and he's got to become the voice of the economic point of view because these people eventually, the rest of the country is going to come around.
	You know, I watch all of these poll readers on Twitter.
	It doesn't take a genius, a political genius, to look at the polls going on right now, the snapshots in time, and then to decide what, you know, what fence you want to fall, what side of the fence you want to fall on.
	Someone who is politically astute and really has a gift knows what they're going to say weeks, months from now.
	And people will be pissed if this continues and the economic condition does not get better.
	He needs to put himself firmly on the side of, I wanted to get us back to work.
	I'm doing everything I can to get us back to work.
	We had a great economy.
	We can get there before.
	If it wasn't for them, by the way, we'd have been there by now.
	That's what he's going to have to do.
	Because the only other person you can compare this to, really FDR, of course, the depression happened before him.
	So the problems that we had under him during wartime, everything, they didn't blame him for that.
	He needs to be in a position where when you poll people and you ask, Who do you trust more to handle the economy?
	And the Reuters poll, even though I'm not a fan of them, the Reuters poll tailored that question correctly.
	Who's best to lead us back?
	And Trump clobbered him on it.
	If he can hold that, he'll be not all right.
	He'll, you know, he'll be competitive.
	But if he doesn't, then it's reality will set in, folks.
	People blame the president.
	I'm not saying he's done, but I'm saying there's a lot of danger here.
	Exactly.
	I think one of the things that's saving him right now, aside from his being an ahistorical presidency, as you mentioned, so all the bets are off.
	You know, he's just one of those.
	He is a white swan to the black swan of the pandemic policy response.
	But the flip side to that also component is I think the key for Democrats, what I've been telling people is if you're in the political betting markets, I would not bet on Trump right now.
	And I've been telling people to bet on Trump since 2015.
	I've always thought he was good value up until he did not push back against the shutdowns.
	And then I told people lay off for now to see how all this filters out.
	Because as you know, no president has won re-election when the economy went down under their watch.
	Roosevelt, the economy was still going up.
	It wasn't back to where people wanted it to be, but it was still much further up compared to when he got elected.
	Right now, Trump's in a position where when you have 30 million plus people ask for unemployment benefits in a month period, and that number is already deflated arbitrarily by all the Paycheck Protection Program and other cash they flooded into the system to say, please just keep people employed, and if you do, we're giving you free money.
	That wasn't even loans.
	But for that, we're probably looking at maybe 45 million, 50 million unemployed.
	So they've kept people on the books to reduce that number politically, and even then it's a horrendous number.
	But I think the one counter to all of this, I think for Trump – Or the one risk factor for him, and what I've told people is, I wouldn't bet on or against Trump right now.
	I can't bet on Joe Biden.
	He's the worst nominee I've ever seen in the history of nominees.
	I mean, you know, I didn't see everybody from the 19-teens, so maybe there's somebody back there worse.
	But this guy is literally, you know, he's debilitated.
	He doesn't, he can't even talk.
	He can't even, even when he's on a script where somebody's feeding him something right in front of him, he falls asleep when he's talking to, you know, Hillary.
	I think it's key both who his vice presidential choice is, but if I was on the Democratic side and I'm assessing this as a betting perspective, Trump's great risk is they replace Biden.
	They start to think, you know, Trump is so dead, we don't have to worry about him anymore.
	What do you think the chances are that they do replace Biden?
	I think it would actually be easy if they wanted to.
	Biden's the kind of guy you can blow over with a flower.
	But he's as strong as Bernie Sanders, that's the way I'll put it.
	And if not, what do you think his choice or chances of a vice president that would be a de facto president?
	Like, I mean, there's talk now of Hillary Clinton being on the ticket.
	I mean, technically he did say a woman, but I don't think there's anybody who would see that ticket as anything other than Clinton-Biden, not Biden-Clinton, if she was on there.
	What do you think the chances they replace him or chance they put a vice president that's a de facto replacement?
	Well, this is one year where, and I'll make the argument all day long that VPs don't matter.
	Traditionally, that's been true.
	But because Biden is so historic, there are legitimate questions about his mental state of mind.
	I mean, the guy's senile.
	I mean, I'll call him senile right now.
	He's degenerating as this goes on, too, which is an incentive, by the way, for the Democrats to keep this going.
	Because if we continue in this state, then we can have this weird kind of quasi election where nobody campaigns.
	Joe Biden's not really out in front and the media can tell the story about them that they want to tell about him instead of the American public seeing the state that he's in.
	And of course, he himself said that he will not serve for president for long, two terms.
	So his VP does really matter.
	Every day, it seems like there's somebody new.
	The effort to draft Michelle Obama, it's real, actually.
	That effort's real.
	And there was a lot of talk about Warren today.
	I think that, honestly, whoever he picks, it can't be-- I know that they really-- and this might shock people, but Stacey Abrams was up there for a while.
	They can't go with a pick like that because this election, people will ask about that person who is a heartbeat away.
	It'll be different than that, you know, old saying, a heartbeat away from the presidency.
	It's going to be a Biden heartbeat away from the presidency, which is something different altogether, right?
	So it's going to have to be somebody strong.
	Warren, I don't know.
	Right now, I don't want to say it, but somebody like a Michelle Obama would be somebody, you know, I don't think they would be able to replace him with her.
	That would be more likely a Cuomo would do something like that.
	But I know that there's an appetite for it.
	I don't know who it is.
	You know, I really don't.
	I can't, you know, pretend like I do, but there's an appetite for it.
	You know, about 30% of the Democratic Party right now wants another nominee.
	So it's definitely open to the idea of replacing Joe Biden.
	And I agree, he could be pushed over.
	He could, easily.
	But it would be a disaster for Donald Trump if in the end he is replaced, because all of these historical firsts that we're talking about really could go out the window because of Joe Biden.
	So Joe Biden may end up beating Joe Biden.
	All right?
	I know that may sound a little bit weird, but every time the guy speaks, it's a train wreck.
	That interview with Mika Brzezinski, Over the Tara Reid allegations.
	That was supposed to put that down.
	And that was supposed to be the interview with the campaign, put the question to rest, did a pivot and got back on track.
	He couldn't even do that interview.
	If you can't handle an MSNBC interview, and I know she was on the surface hard, Robert, but we don't know.
	They could have went over those questions.
	Anybody read WikiLeaks?
	They forwarded their questions all the time.
	Didn't matter how hard they sounded, but he still couldn't even do that correctly.
	So if I were Trump, I'd want to keep him on the ticket.
	I would.
	No doubt about that.
	Biden was always the ticket to a Trump re-election.
	And he fits a pattern.
	The historical betting analysis I always did was, if the incumbent party is strong and doesn't face meaningful division within the party, the party in opposition will look at their candidates and say, who reminds me the most of a politician?
	That's right.
	Because they're obsessed with trying to win rather than pick the best actual candidate.
	The best actual candidate is who they would look at and say who would make the best president.
	The biggest trouble for Trump will be if they start meaningfully looking at replacing Biden or putting a vice president on the ticket that is the de facto presidential candidate.
	But particularly if they replace him.
	And I mean, if I was the Democratic Party, I'd pick the Democratic governor of Montana.
	I mean, it would have been someone like that.
	Yeah, someone from a red state with some populist instincts who doesn't come across as crazy or coastal.
	It's not a problem.
	Instead of postal, coastal is the new definition of crazy in modern political life.
	So we'll see how it goes.
	So what do you think President Trump needs to do in the near short term to shore up his re-election possibilities moving forward?
	Every successful president has a justification.
	What made them, the man or woman, whatever it is, for the moment to run.
	And why did the American people say, this is the guy we need right now to do this job?
	If you like him or you hate him, it doesn't really matter.
	It's easy to see what his justification was.
	Even Barack Obama, it was still easy to see his justification.
	People, Americans, they want to look forward.
	They're like progressive, but not in the sense that Democrats use it.
	They're forward thinking.
	So they always want to, Americans are always looking to the future.
	Biden is the past.
	He needs to cast Biden as the past.
	And he needs to get on the right side of this economic issue.
	Every time his instincts come out, they're right.
	Like he held that town hall the other day and he was talking about how the economy has to get going.
	There really needs to be a lot more of that.
	And I would drop, I mean, honestly, Robert, I would drop the, well, if I didn't do anything, 2 million people were going to die.
	That's going to be borne out to be untrue.
	So in two months, it's just going to sound like he's being a politician.
	Authenticity and his ultimate justification have always been his strongest suit.
	He can't give away that authenticity.
	He's got to get on the right side of this economy.
	People trust him to get it back.
	He needs to paint Biden as the past and tell people to move forward and stay on message, of course.
	But, you know, do your thing.
	Do what he does best.
	Do not let these people convince him to be that other guy that he's not.
	Exactly.
	Like with the 2016, the best message he received was, let Trump be Trump.
	And that is when he is the strongest.
	So thanks Richard for being with us.
	You can follow and track Richard at People's Pundit daily.
	There's a YouTube channel you can follow for daily news reports.
	You can follow him on Twitter, People's Pundit.
	And you get data, you get models, you get forecasts.
	You get models that work a lot better than some of the ones the pandemic politicians have been propagating.
	Thanks for being with us, Richard.
	Alright, all the best, Robert.
	Yep, you do it.
	No question that the president's goal and objective has to be to get back to restoring America, to make America America again.
	Not just to make America great again, but make America America again.
	In that capacity, let's take a look at how the curves have been going.
	And let's take a look at curve number five in terms of a COVID-19 update.
	And what we see is that, in fact, in all of the different countries, including Portugal, Spain and France, no matter what a country did in terms of their mitigation tactics or techniques, they all saw a comparable decline in S-curve growth rate.
	of their daily rates of unique aspects is that even though Portugal when you look here Portugal was there with Spain and France all ended up on an s-curve not an endless exponential curve an s-curve as we forecast and as the model said would never happen the models were dead wrong it ended up being an s-curve with steady decline and this was true no matter the mitigation measurement chosen but what's noted notice how close Portugal and Spain and France is to the
	Now let's go to the next chart and look at chart number six and look at the death rate per million.
	And you notice Portugal's all the way down at the bottom and it's flat.
	Well, it's because Portugal has chosen different medical treatments and allowed different medical therapeutics to be utilized in Spain and France.
	I'll let you research and figure out which ones they are, but I'll give you a hint.
	Portugal has been willing to do the things that Anthony Fauci has told you not to do, while Spain and France has been locked into a Fauci kind of agenda.
	In the same vein, if we go to other aspects of what's happening economically, if we look at chart number eight, we'll see another Eurozone composite of various forms of economic activity.
	And once again, all it does is just drops off a cliff.
	There's almost not a single chart where you look at something where you want it to be going up, or at least steady or positive, that isn't dropping off a cliff, dropping off a cliff, dropping off a cliff.
	Same is true of chart number nine.
	Another activity of composite PMI in the eurozone again just drops off the cliff.
	So and you're seeing over this is over a 20-year time period.
	Most economic activity here, you see the 2008-2009, this more than almost triples what happened in the financial collapse of 2008-2009.
	The Great Recession, as it was called.
	The Great Recession doesn't come close to the complete debacle that these shutdowns have imposed on the Western world economically.
	Meanwhile, if we take a look at chart number 10, we'll see in fact what the day-to-day change has been in deaths in COVID in the United States.
	And once again, we'll see that early on, it was a high growth rate.
	That was when it was doubling every three days.
	And the modelers said that was just going to keep happening.
	Well, what in fact happened?
	Instead, the growth rate declined and declined and declined and declined.
	And now it's been at a low single-digit flat rate now for weeks and weeks and weeks.
	There was no great endless expansion.
	This expansion up here didn't keep going like this.
	Instead, it went down.
	That is why, in fact, there was no reason for the shutdown panic.
	Not only that, the timing of the decline of the death rate does not correspond with shutdown timing.
	So shutdowns had no evidentiary impact on the death rate in any meaningful manner in the United States.
	And yet, our economy was sunk and our civil rights and liberties lost as part of that process.
	Indeed, if we took a look at the chart number 12, That's from a headline today across many of newspapers and articles and magazines, online and otherwise, about the impact of lost employment.
	Indeed, layoffs are starting to turn from temporary to permanent across the United States.
	The old want-a-job photographs are likely to start coming back pretty soon, if this does not change, and change soon.
	If we look at chart number 13, We're going to look at a chart of the Federal Reserve balance sheet and see how much it's gone up of late.
	And we'll see, and this one goes from 2002 to 2019.
	Look at that.
	We're at a rate we've never been before.
	And look at the chart.
	The chart's never gone like this.
	It had a small rise back in 2008-2009 during the liquidity financial crisis of subprime mortgages.
	Now look at it.
	Boom!
	This just threw the roof.
	This is the amount of money the Fed is printing on a daily basis and putting into the financial markets.
	Just pumping it, pumping it, pumping it, pumping it.
	That's how much money is being spent.
	That's how much money is being risked.
	Similarly, if we look at the initial jobless claims, which we talked about with Richard, we again look at it from a certain historical context going back to 1967.
	We see mostly these kind of little rises, little rises, you know, flat mostly.
	You know, a bad time period was 600,000 during the 2008-2009 financial crash.
	You know, normally, you know, between around 200,000 to 400,000 is the norm.
	And now look at that.
	Just one big chart up.
	We keep breaking records pretty much every week.
	You know, we now have over 30 million people have had to file initial jobless claims in just the last five weeks.
	An average of six million new unemployment claims every single week.
	In the same vein, if we look at the changes in terms of... Meanwhile, we look at the S&P 500, and it actually has done well in April 2020.
	This is what happens when the Fed pumps in a bunch of money to prop up the stock markets.
	But there's increasingly no connection between the stock markets and the real economy.
	That tends to produce problems over time.
	Indeed, if we look at chart number 18, we see another issue with the ability of the economy to even rebound.
	And that is, not only is consumer confidence collapsing, a corollary of that is savings rate is at the highest level in almost 40 years.
	So even with the very limited amounts of money that people are getting as their payrolls shrink, the amount of money they receive shrinks, even the stimulus packages they're getting, they're not going to stimulate anything.
	Because they're sticking them under the mattress.
	This is what happened in the 1930s.
	In the Great Depression, the big problem was that the people quit spending money.
	They lost confidence.
	As George Gammon, a frequent guest of the show, has commented, the economy is built on three things and one of the most critical is confidence.
	Confidence of what the people think psychologically.
	And what we're seeing is they're losing confidence Well, they're saving more in fear of what will happen in the future.
	That usually leads to a deflationary collapse in the economy that can cause problems across the board.
	What happened in the 1930s is we had got both deflation and massive unemployment.
	That may continue to happen as no one has confidence to go out and re-engage in the economic world.
	As we saw at the top of the segment in which people are quitting traveling as well.
	That has a widespread effect.
	It impacts its own form of supply chains of the American economy.
	Meanwhile, we have the New York City leaders.
	If we look at chart 19, this is a quote from the city leaders of New York City.
	They pointed to the need to maintain social distancing.
	And what was their method to do so?
	It was to prevent people from protesting in New York City.
	So the center of America's historic life, New York City, now you can't even express your core First Amendment rights that used to be the center of American liberty.
	So we come back after the break.
	We'll take some of your calls from you, the jury, as we discuss these panic-demic politics, this plan-demic politics, this pandemic politics that is going to ruin the country if we don't restore it quickly and Trump doesn't act soon.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	As always, we request that you support our sponsor, the sponsor that makes this show possible, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can buy products that you like, products that you enjoy, products that are good for you, especially in this time frame when you don't know what products you'll be able to buy tomorrow, the way in which our places are going.
	Indeed, we'll be getting into the question of whether quarantine camps are coming to America.
	We live in that kind of era.
	You should be prepared.
	And being prepared is wise and sage and smart.
	And one way to do so is to go to InfoWarsStore.com to buy the products that you like, sign up for what you want, sign up for any of the items that are listed.
	There's a wide range there.
	There's everything from coffee to storable food to supplements to various forms that are simply good for your health.
	You've heard more and more people identify both vitamin C and vitamin D as particularly good for you in this time frame.
	That is wise always to do and there's a range of products that actually serve that particular purpose.
	You've heard about the benefits of sunlight and there's a various range of products out there that can help bring the same things that sunlight can bring for you.
	So that you don't end up one of the people like Cuomo's victims.
	That you can find ways to prepare and protect your health the best way you know how.
	And to do so accordingly.
	So we encourage you to go to Infowarsstore.com and buy the products that you enjoy, that you like, that give you a healthier, wealthier well-being.
	Moving forward, products at a discount that are much cheaper than they would be in any market competitor with comparable quality.
	So, in that context, we are definitely in unique times.
	The President himself had some comments about what happened to General Flynn.
	Let's take a look at video clip number 16.
	Your reaction to some breaking news?
	The Justice Department has decided to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.
	Are you aware of that?
	I didn't know that was happening at this moment.
	I felt it was going to happen just by watching and seeing like everybody else does.
	He was an innocent man.
	He is a great gentleman.
	He was targeted by the Obama administration, and he was targeted in order to try and take down a president.
	And what they've done is a disgrace, and I hope a big price is going to be paid.
	A big price should be paid.
	There's never been anything like this in the history of our country.
	What they did, what the Obama administration did, is unprecedented.
	It's never happened.
	Never happened.
	A thing like this has never happened before in the history of our country.
	And I hope a lot of people are going to pay a big price, because they're dishonest, crooked people.
	They're scum.
	And I say it a lot.
	They're scum.
	They're human scum.
	This should never have happened in this country.
	A duly elected president.
	And they went after him by going after fine people.
	And those fine people said, no, I'm not going to lie.
	I can't lie.
	He's not the only one.
	There are many of them.
	And they all said, I can't lie.
	They could have said something like, oh, make up a lie.
	Trump loves somebody or something or some country.
	And they said, no, you wouldn't have any problem.
	That's what they were trying to do.
	And it's a disgrace.
	The Obama administration, Justice Department was a disgrace.
	And they got caught.
	They got caught.
	Very dishonest people.
	But much more than dishonest, treason.
	It's treason.
	Treason.
	Human scum.
	Appropriate terminology for what they tried to do to General Flynn and what many of the Mueller-connected parties have done over the many years that they've had positions of power and influence in this country.
	But of course, we are facing additional dangers and threats in our modern age.
	We have some advice from Ventura County, where they appear to be talking about something that sounds an awful lot like a form of quarantine camps.
	As you listen to it, they suggest it so politely, so nicely, so kindly.
	Listen to it as they suggest, well, there might be some people we have to remove from the home, and we'll set them up in these other homes, and we'll have some food for them, and take care of them.
	And there was a history of that.
	It was something called Japanese internment camps.
	But first, let's take a look at clip number 11.
	We are beginning a program today and it's a pilot program which will certainly grow into something larger and larger and that is a community contact tracing program.
	We've done contact tracing all along.
	That a contact is a person who's been exposed to someone that we document to have the COVID infection.
	When we find someone who has a COVID infection, those people are immediately isolated.
	But we also work with them to figure out who their contacts were.
	Luckily, because you have been doing such a great job of cooperating and staying indoors, staying isolated, it used to be there were 10 contacts, at least, for every patient that we would find.
	Now, it looks like there are probably only 2 or 3 or 4 contacts, not surprisingly, because most people have been staying away from others.
	And that's good news.
	But the purpose of this program is to bring on people.
	We're going to start with 10 people.
	We may bring on up to 50 or even more as the program grows and as we see the needs for it.
	As we do more testing, we will find more and more people who have COVID-19.
	And again, we'll isolate every one of them and we will find every one of their contacts and we will make sure that they stay quarantined and we'll check in with them every day.
	In other words, what this program means is that we're going to do a more complete job and we're going to do a more meticulous job of making it less and less possible for others in the county to run into someone with COVID-19 infection.
	There are, it's not just our county that's bringing more people on, there are going to be thousands of people hired who will be these contact investigators throughout the state.
	And this is occurring in many, many other states as well, perhaps all of the states in our country.
	We will be giving intensive training to these people.
	Training not only for identifying and finding contacts, but also in terms of how to be sensitive about doing it.
	We also realize that as we find more contacts, some of the people we find are going to have trouble Being isolated.
	For instance, if they live in a home where there's only one bathroom, and there are three or four other people living there, and those people don't have COVID infection, we're not going to be able to keep the person in that home.
	Every person who we're isolating, for instance, needs to have their own bathroom.
	And so we'll be moving people like this into other kinds of housing.
	So we're going to have to remove some people from their homes and take them to some other housing we have ready for them and we'll take care of the food and see what it is that they'll be eating and we'll control the rest of their lives.
	If that sounds familiar, I mean, Camps sound like concentration camps, detention camps.
	Is there any history of that happening in America?
	Well, let's listen to how the government described the detention camps for the Japanese, where they deprived millions of citizens of their core civil rights and civil liberties back in the 1940s.
	Let's take a look at clip number 10.
	Let's take a look at clip number 10.
	When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, our west coast became a potential combat zone. our west coast became a potential combat zone.
	Living in that zone were more than 100,000 persons of Japanese ancestry.
	Two-thirds of them American citizens.
	One-third, aliens.
	We knew that some among them were potentially dangerous.
	But no one knew what would happen among this concentrated population if Japanese forces should try to invade our shores.
	Military authorities therefore determined that all of them, citizens and aliens alike, would have to move.
	This picture tells how the mass migration was accomplished.
	Neither the Army nor the War Relocation Authority relished the idea of taking men, women, and children from their homes, their shops, and their farms.
	So the military and civilian agencies alike determined to do the job as a democracy should, with real consideration for the people involved.
	First attention was given to the problems of sabotage and espionage.
	Now, here at San Francisco, for example, convoys were being made up within sight of possible Axis agents.
	There were more Japanese in Los Angeles than in any other area.
	In nearby San Pedro, houses and hotels, occupied almost exclusively by Japanese, were within a stone's throw of a naval airbase, shipyards, Oil wells.
	Japanese fishermen had every opportunity to watch the movement of our ships.
	Japanese farmers were living close to vital aircraft plants.
	So as a first step, all Japanese were required to move from critical areas such as these.
	But of course this limited evacuation was a solution to only part of the problem.
	The larger problem, the uncertainty of what would happen among these people in case of a Japanese invasion, still remained.
	That is why the commanding general of the Western Defense Command determined that all Japanese within the coastal area should move inland.
	Immediately the army began mapping evacuation areas and for a time encouraged the Japanese to leave voluntarily.
	The trouble for the voluntary evacuees soon threatened in their new locations.
	So the program was quickly put on a planned and protected basis.
	Thereafter, the American citizen Japanese and Japanese aliens made plans in accordance with orders.
	Notices were posted.
	All persons of Japanese descent were required to register.
	They gathered in their own churches and schools and the Japanese themselves cheerfully handled the enormous paperwork involved in the migration.
	Civilian physicians made preliminary medical examinations.
	Government agencies helped in a hundred ways.
	They helped the evacuees find tenants for their farms.
	They helped businessmen lease, sell, or store their property.
	This aid was financed by the government, but quick disposal of property often involved financial sacrifice for the evacuees.
	Now the actual migration got underway.
	The Army provided fleets of vans to transport household belongings.
	And buses to move the people to assembly centers.
	The evacuees cooperated wholeheartedly.
	The many loyal among them felt that this was a sacrifice they could make in behalf of America's war effort.
	In small towns as well as large, up and down the coast, the moving continued.
	Yes, indeed.
	That was the nature of it.
	Just like the Ventura County.
	For your benefit, we might have to remove you from your home, from your friends, from your family, from your daily lives.
	Put you in some other housing we have for you.
	And don't worry, we'll take care of all those needs you might have.
	Just like they did with the Japanese in ripping them away from their lives, from their churches, from their schools, some cases from their family, and almost all cases from their friends.
	And doing so while stripping them of their property without any form of meaningful compensation.
	Reparations only to come decades later and a penny on the dollar at that.
	And now they're talking about doing it again.
	Quarantine camps in America.
	Clearly there's an attempt to float the idea.
	And as you heard him talk about, maybe he blabbed in ways he wasn't supposed to, about how there's thousands of these people that are going to be participating.
	Cities, counties, and states are also going to be participating.
	So what is really going on in terms of the long-term plan and objective of some of the plannedemic, panicdemic kind of folks?
	Well, remember, all of this is based upon, in large part, a study that was put out by Imperial College in the United Kingdom, and they were hiding the software code that created those models.
	Well, it turned out now that the professor has been fired for violating his own quarantine shutdown order that he got imposed on his own country for cheating with someone else's wife.
	He had to resign.
	They've actually released part of the code.
	In fact, a group at Lockdown Skeptics, Did a review, someone with a 30 year plus history of software code, and what was his conclusion?
	Due to bugs, the code, this was the code from that developed the models, can produce very different results, even with identical inputs.
	Indeed, this problem makes the code unusable for scientific purposes.
	No, it's not even a real, legit scientific code.
	It's simply something designed so that you can manufacture outcomes and call it a scientific model.
	Indeed, instead, what people are pushing and propagating is vaccines is the only solution, particularly from Bill Gates, who helped spend so much money on the Imperial College, helped give so much money to the University of Washington that produced these models.
	Models now not only evidently wrong but also manifestly unscientific in the way in fact they were even approaching their work from the first place.
	Well, let's remember in that context the questionable history of flu vaccines and particularly swine flu and other flu pandemic vaccines since the 1970s.
	There has not been a good track record of these vaccines being successful at any significant substantial rate in a very quick time frame.
	In addition, there is a lot of examples of these vaccines and vaccines like them causing collateral problems and causing harm.
	Whether it's the 1976 swine flu that led to people getting diseases, neurological disorders, and death, as even 60 Minutes featured a year or two after that.
	We see other additional examples of it, from H1N1, that happened in 2009-2010, implicating Mr. Fauci.
	And in that regard, let's remember that Mr. Fauci has previously, most probably, committed perjury concerning the safety of vaccines before.
	Let's take a look at a clip that exposes this, clip number 14.
	Go back and look at the strict safety of the vaccine.
	It's extraordinarily safe.
	Well, look at some of the concerns.
	I've heard some parents claim that measles vaccine can cause brain inflammation known as encephalitis.
	Is that true?
	Is that true?
	Brain inflammation?
	Encephalitis?
	Encephalitis.
	Can measles vaccine cause encephalitis?
	The vaccine?
	The vaccine, no.
	There's no cases of it?
	There is in normal... Rare.
	The chair will remind all persons in the audience that manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house and its committees.
	The gentleman may proceed.
	In healthy children, MMR vaccine does not cause brain swelling or encephalitis.
	So if a child wasn't healthy when they were vaccinated?
	So there are rare instances of children with certain very specific underlying problems with their immune system and who the vaccine is contraindicated.
	One of the reasons it's contraindicated is in that very specific group of children there is a rare risk of brain swelling.
	Would a parent know if their child was in that category before?
	Certainly and that's why a parent should talk to their doctor.
	Indeed in fact data supports that such a risk is always present so Fauci basically lied he gets caught lying the the other doctor bails him out by trying to carefully categorize the information by the way she's married to Rod Rosenstein who as it turns out today was behind the setup and entrapment in part of General Flynn
	you can find that at the Federalist that goes into detail about the internal memorandums and how Rosenstein helped push and pitch this problematic prosecution of General Flynn all along There are people who thought that Rod Rosenstein was some sort of white hat.
	I knew him from his days in the tax division.
	He's never been a white hat.
	He's a corrupt, rogue prosecutor who got away with it for way too long, and its latest victim is General Flynn.
	And there you see Spouse promoting the same sort of questionable, trying to bail out Mr. Fauci from what appeared to be clear perjury about the safety of vaccines.
	In that same context, there has been a long, controversial history of rushed vaccines creating problems as it relates to these kind of flus in particular, including the H1N1 and the swine flu.
	Let's take a look at clip number eight that goes into just one of those stories of where things did not go as the Fauci types promised they would.
	Cecil County teen is in rehab paralyzed from the chest down.
	His family says it happened as a result of getting the swine flu vaccine at school.
	And as 11 News reporter Jennifer Franciotti explains, the teen's doctor agrees.
	I like skateboarding, riding my bike, riding my scooter, like building forts in the woods.
	All things most active 16-year-old boys enjoy and nothing Robert Beckham will likely ever be able to do again.
	Horrible.
	Like really horrible.
	It sucks not being able to walk.
	The Cecil County teen is in rehab at Mount Washington Pediatric Hospital, where he and his parents, Belinda and Tom, are learning to cope with his new status as a paraplegic.
	In December, Robert suddenly lost feeling in both his legs and was rushed to Baltimore's Sinai Hospital.
	Very unfortunately, under very heavy treatment, not only he did not improve, but he even got slightly worse.
	Dr. Yuval Shafrir is the pediatric neurologist at Sinai who treated Robert for what he says is a rare condition called transverse myelitis.
	It's a condition that typically is caused by an immune reaction against parts of the spinal cord.
	Dr. Shafrir says a segment of Robert's spinal cord was destroyed by his own immune system.
	Transverse myelitis is a disease that can occur after infection, but in this case, the doctor says it was a medically unpredictable reaction to a vaccination.
	The only obvious cause was the H1N1 vaccination.
	I kept pestering my parents to get me this shot, but when I got it, and then a month later, it went bad.
	I mean, I'm still in shock from it.
	I just can't believe.
	This happened now.
	I did not know that there was even a small chance of this happening.
	I've never heard of this happening.
	To make matters worse for the family, both of Robert's parents are disabled and financially unable to take him home from rehab to care for him.
	That's why this weekend there's a big fundraiser in Cecil County.
	If he had received the regular flu vaccine, he would be able to file a claim in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
	But because it's done under this swine flu program, which is handled under the same bill as terrorism, the family basically will get very little.
	In the way of compensation for what's happened to this child.
	Maryland State Health Department officials are aware of Robert's case.
	Certainly there are instances of adverse events, very rare, and again it's something that we want to monitor closely.
	And while Robert's paralysis is heartbreaking, Dr. Shafrir says... In no way this should deter anybody from getting vaccination.
	I just want him home.
	I want him better.
	Jennifer Franciati, WBAL-TV 11 News.
	It's a terrible situation.
	Well, the family needs help now making their home handicapped accessible for Robert.
	All donations can be made to the Cecil Bank in care of Robert Beckham.
	And as Jennifer mentioned in her report, tomorrow there'll be a fundraising benefit for Robert.
	It'll be held at the Porters Grove Baptist Church.
	It starts at 6 p.m.
	Those kind of problems, and you can go to the CBS 60 Minutes swine flu problems, that were even wider scale and broader scale when we rushed vaccines as the sole solution to something that has in fact been an exaggerated description of a problem.
	Indeed, those swine flu problems with vaccines were not limited to that.
	There are multiple and myriad stories all across the world.
	Let's just take a look at one example of how vaccines had to be pulled from Canada related to the same set of issues in video clip number six.
	Doctors in Canada are being told to stay away from a batch of 170,000 swine flu vaccines following six reports of allergic reactions.
	The vaccine in question was produced by GlaxoSmithKline, which insists none of the other vaccines that is distributed around the world need to be pulled.
	Authorities routinely monitor vaccines for any signals of problems such as allergic reactions.
	While those are rare, they do sometimes occur, and company officials say they advise doctors not to use the batch after getting word of a higher than normal number of reactions.
	It's not clear how many of the 170,000 vaccines have been administered, and officials haven't released any details on the victims.
	Still, they are urging people not to be alarmed and add that any allergic reactions occur shortly after inoculation, don't last long, and have not led to any long-term health problems.
	Tim McGuire, the Associated Press.
	Such problems, in fact, go across the world.
	Let's take a look at video clip number five, when botched vaccinations cost the lives and endangered a bunch of children.
	Some children did survive the botched vaccinations last month and will recover, but 15, all under the age of five, died from fever, vomiting, and diarrhea.
	This is really, this tragic event is as big as what we have seen.
	The inoculations took place in a remote village nearly 300 kilometers east of the capital, Juba.
	The contaminated vaccine caused sepsis, a blood infection.
	Human errors contributed to the unfortunate deaths of the children.
	And namely, the use of unskilled and untrained personnel.
	Among those administering the vaccine to 300 children was a 12-year-old, and the same syringe was used repeatedly for four days.
	Syringes are not meant to be reused.
	In their initial findings, investigators say that's what contaminated the measles vaccine, which killed the children.
	A commission set up by South Sudan's government, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF is also looking at other problems.
	The vaccines were stored in a building with no cold chain facilities for four days.
	This means that the vaccines... Just some of the problems that are present.

▲