Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 13, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:08

20200513_Wed_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- The British are coming, the British are coming! - You are about to leave my time on the streets today.
	- A foreign moral class program.
	- America first!
	- And Mark, what's your country?
	- Welcome back to another edition of American Countdown.
	We are about day 60 into the shutdown in different parts of the country.
	Day 50, 40, or 30 in some parts of the country.
	And a few parts of the country open, a few parts of the country fully open, a few parts of the country partially open.
	And the shutdown continues with the additional threats being issued by mayors and governors to continue it into June, to July, to August, or if you listen to the mayor from LA, just until they come up with a cure.
	Which, by the way, they've never really come up with a cure to influenza-type viruses that are a complete 100% cure, but that is in fact what some politicians are saying, that their city will be under effective medical martial law until that occurs.
	Well tonight there's also new discoveries in both the Spygate scandal and the nursing home COVID related scandals.
	We'll be talking later on in the show with Jack Posobiec who has been covering both scandals and has been at the front edge of covering both scandals and go into detail more tonight.
	First, the COVID-19 update of the day's news.
	One sort of relevant fact in this age in which various people like Twitter and Facebook are saying you can't put anything up if they think it means you're recommending any form of civil disobedience.
	Well, it's useful to remember Martin Luther King's letters from the Birmingham jail.
	We look at chart 33 and the quote is a partial quote from Martin Luther King's letter, which pointed out, he goes, how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others when some laws are in fact against the moral law, against the natural law, against the just law?
	As Martin Luther King articulates, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
	Or as St.
	Augustine himself said, the great philosopher, an unjust law is no law at all.
	So that's useful to remember in this age.
	Today in America, Twitter or Facebook would ban Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail.
	That's the era in which we reside in terms of what is allowed or not allowed in civil protest.
	Meanwhile, on the COVID-19 daily update front, Los Angeles County's stay-at-home orders will quote, with all certainty, be extended for the next three months.
	Indeed, the mayor said it's going to continue until, for the city of Los Angeles, until there's a cure.
	Beach advice from the Governor of California, advising that there's permitted activities and prohibited activities.
	You are now allowed to swim, surf, bodyboard, run or walk on the beach, but you're not allowed to sit on the beach.
	You're not allowed to sunbathe on the beach.
	You're not allowed to get together with others on the beach.
	You're not allowed to do sports on the beach.
	You're not allowed to bike on the beach.
	And you're not allowed to picnic on the beach, even though all of the evidence and information says being outdoors, doing exercise, being healthy, getting sun, getting vitamin C, vitamin D, those kind of activities are good for you.
	Anything that improves your immune system is good for you, particularly in this time and era.
	And yet most of those activities still being prohibited and banned in California, where there hasn't ever even been a real outbreak of COVID-19 to the degree that happened in New York City.
	Indeed, if we look at chart 24, we see the U.S.
	deaths associated with COVID-19 per million people.
	And we see that for people under the age of 25, it's literally less than one in a million.
	Less than one in a million chance of dying from COVID-19.
	Indeed, you have to go all the way up to people over 85 before you get to any degree of risk.
	And even there, the risk is proportionate to their life expectancy already.
	Meanwhile, the governor of California, if we look at chart 23, does have another solution for the COVID-19.
	It's a perfect pretext to require election by mail.
	He probably is particularly inspired to do that in light of Republicans winning some elections in California yesterday that were unanticipated.
	With a ballot harvesting form of election, where James Woods posted a photo of a whole bunch of ballots sitting at the bottom of an apartment building.
	No temptation there to just fill it out for your neighbor and send it in, right?
	No temptation to send it in to post people's ballots for them and send them in, right?
	It's probably purely coincidence that so much of the late ballots in the 2018 California elections all dramatically shifted to the Democratic aisle and helped put the Congress in the Democratic side.
	Meanwhile, if we look at the actual data from COVID, not only are the death rates extraordinarily low, particularly for most people under the age of 50, and especially so for those under 25, we look at the growth in the death rate, it continues to decline, decline, decline, and decline.
	It is now in the 1% range.
	People thought that the it would just stay flat and it would still flatten the curve meant thousands of deaths daily.
	2,000, 3,000 deaths daily.
	That's not occurring.
	It keeps going down and down and down and down.
	And yet many of these politicians power grabs keep going up and up and up and up.
	Indeed, if we look at it as a proportionate ratio to testing and look at chart 19, we see that, in fact, it stayed flat almost from the beginning.
	That once we got testing up and going, it very quickly, rapidly declined, the number of people who had COVID, to where now it's at a record low rate of the percentage of people being tested having COVID-19.
	Meanwhile, more and more Americans are comfortable with going out and about as they get over the media hype and the media hysteria.
	Uncertainty about comfort with resuming activities is declining.
	Put another way, people are more and more comfortable with rejoining civil society and the public economy despite the media scare campaigns as they diminish in their public effectiveness and impact, as they see other people out and about, as they see other people enjoying their quality of life, as they see other people getting back to work.
	They increasingly recognize the need for it.
	Indeed, a survey today that one of the head Federal Reserve bankers admitted that 40% of people who make less than $40,000 a year were unemployed and lost their jobs in just the last six weeks.
	That's why you're seeing more and more people being willing to get out and about and join the public world as the public hysteria fades.
	Meanwhile, if we look at the date of death data, the true date data, we see that in fact the virus likely peaked back in April.
	And therefore, so you had this early exponential rise, and then it peaked before the shutdowns could have even been effective.
	Because remember, there's about a three-week, four-week lag time between infection and death per COVID-19.
	So in other words, these were people that it peaked before the shutdown could be impactful or effective, which would have been towards the end of April or early May.
	In addition, of course, the surveys and studies have shown no correlation between social distancing and getting infected across the country by the states, cities and regions, according to Google mobility data and COVID-19 latest available data.
	Meanwhile, we look at what charts are going in the wrong direction.
	We look at chart number 12, we see the total unemployed and that's a chart called the U6 that tracks people that are underemployed, people that are outside the labor market for various reasons.
	And while President Trump in earlier in 2020 had reached a record low total unemployed, it was around 70%.
	He had got it all the way down to just an extraordinary level never seen in the history of keeping this chart.
	Now it has broken records and is over 20% and it keeps going higher and higher as that spike just is extraordinary, unprecedented, unhistorical, and unparalleled in what it's done to our economy.
	That's why you see more and more images like images from chart 10 with for rent signs and store closing signs of small businesses all across the country.
	Indeed, the headline from even a Vox article is, quote, unprecedented rise in unemployment, given the more than 30 million people who actually filed for unemployment claims in just the last six weeks.
	Indeed, if we see a CNBC chart, chart number two, we see the unemployment claims from the last six weeks compared to all of the jobs lost during the Great Recession.
	Unemployment insurance claims over 30 million in just six weeks, averaging 5 million a week, All the jobs lost during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, only 8.7 million.
	So we are in completely uncharted territory in terms of the economic consequences of the shutdown from all of these politicians.
	Indeed, you have articles like this from Bloomberg.com saying stock traders should start to heed the lessons of the 1930s about what they think is coming in the economic space in the real economy, which will at some point reflect what's happening in stocks and bonds.
	Meanwhile, even Dr. Birx is starting to realize that CDC appears to be inflating the numbers of coronavirus deaths.
	As this headline reads, bombshell report, Dr. Birx believes the CDC is inflating death numbers by as much as 25%.
	I suspect that number is going to end up being much higher when they end up doing excess deaths, which is calculating the people who die within a year from something.
	Who would not have otherwise died.
	That's the medical literature terminology.
	We're probably going to be looking at 25% of the reported deaths really being COVID-19 deaths.
	We're going to find something that looks like a severe flu season times maybe two or three.
	Something that looks like the Asian flu of 1958.
	Or the Hong Kong flu of 1968, not the Spanish flu of 1918.
	And of note, in all three contexts, we didn't shut down civil society, we didn't suspend the Constitution, we didn't end the economy, as has been done here by Democratic politicians across the nation.
	Meanwhile, Governor Northam of Virginia decides he's not going to reopen anytime soon, even though, and the headline says 2,000 cases.
	Well, that's just 2,000 cases of the virus.
	The death rate is very low outside of nursing homes in Virginia, yet he's still using it as a pretext to have statist control of civil society and the economy, suspending people's core economic and civil liberties in that state on a continuous basis.
	In the same context, L.A.
	County, of course, is going to keep stay-at-home orders in place well into summer, even though indoor transmission is where the great risk of threat is, not outdoor transmission, especially in summer.
	Usually that's why they call the flu the seasonal flu, and COVID-19 is a comparable kind of influenza-oriented disease.
	Meanwhile, the eligibility for ACA health coverage following job loss continues to collapse as they estimate upwards of 27 million Americans may lose their health insurance in the coming weeks and months due to the massive job layoffs that have taken place.
	As the Washington Post even reports, small business used to define America's economy.
	The pandemic could change that forever.
	They bury the headline.
	They talk about how small businesses might be obliterated as a means of conducting business in large parts of the United States of America at a record-setting level.
	Maybe it wasn't a coincidence that big Democratic donors stayed open, that big politically influential big box stores stayed open, and mom-and-pop operators were shut down so long that they did not have sufficient reserves to stay alive when the economy even reopened in some of their regions and states.
	Meanwhile, the medical collateral consequences continue to accumulate for the shutdown.
	A mother died during childbirth from a treatable condition that went undiagnosed due to COVID-19 restrictions, as the Blaze reports.
	In addition, those people who stand up for civil rights and civil liberties, as a Seattle police officer did, we broadcast his broadcast to the world here on this station.
	And what has happened to him?
	Well, the Seattle police officer has been placed on leave, pending termination.
	Merely for a video warning that he as a police officer would try to enforce the civil rights and civil liberties and not obey any unconstitutional order.
	He's the one getting laid off, not the police officers doing other activities.
	Let's take a look at video clip number nine of what some of the police officers have been busy doing and following the most insane parts of these shutdown orders.
	Let's look at clip number nine.
	It's confronting to watch a mother ripped away from her young son as police moved on lockdown protesters in the CBD.
	Footage of the arrest has been played around the world and a warning some people might find the vision distressing.
	Taking a stand for her freedom, Renee Altacritty clashes with police.
	My son is with me.
	I am not under arrest for anything you are doing.
	Why is she under arrest?
	You mean to get rid of me?
	Why is she under arrest?
	The four-year-old son is scared.
	Why is she under arrest?
	The 36-year-old was one of about 40 people protesting against the coronavirus lockdown in the city yesterday afternoon.
	Now to everybody, they drug a woman with a child.
	Now to everybody, this is shit.
	The mother of three was fined for breaching social distancing and arrested for not giving police her name.
	They ripped apart, her son kicking and screaming, held back by two officers.
	That lady was approached by police, asked to provide some particulars, so a very simple process could then take place.
	And for whatever reason, she chose to become quite hysterical.
	I cannot believe this is happening.
	They've left me in the back of a paddy wagon at the police station.
	They've taken my son inside.
	I don't know what else to say.
	This system is absolutely ****.
	Dozens of protesters rolled the dice again today.
	Exercising our rights, people.
	Protesters say they will be back here on Macquarie Street every weekend to fight for their rights and now police will be too.
	Police are reviewing a body-worn camera footage of the incident and claim the vision we've just seen doesn't tell the full story.
	Pete?
	Okay, Anna, thank you.
	That's not the only thing the police are up to.
	Let's take a look at video clip number 11, where they are now enforcing the laws involving masks, even though those laws are still in question and in controversy.
	Let's take a look at clip number 11.
	What happens is in Alabama, no less, you're going to see that an off-duty officer uses a takedown maneuver on a woman in Washington.
	And what was the reason?
	What's the reason for throwing her down?
	She wasn't wearing a mask.
	Let's take another clip from a news station about these kind of activities taking place.
	Let's look at video clip number two.
	And then there's this tonight.
	Police in New York are being accused of using the COVID-19 social distancing guidelines as an excuse to harass minorities in the inner cities.
	This charge stems from an incident in Brooklyn where police are seen using violence against a young man who was arrested For not wearing a mask.
	Police officer says that when he's asked.
	What did he do wrong?
	He wasn't wearing a mask.
	By the way, there is no statute or law forcing Americans at this time to wear a mask, at least when they're outdoors or on a non-private property.
	With more now from New York, here is RT correspondent Trinity Chavez.
	Today, officials preparing for New York's pause order to expire on May 15th.
	From my point of view, we're on the other side of the mountain.
	Governor Andrew Cuomo saying some businesses may prepare to reopen on Friday, revealing a seven metrics plan regions must meet before reopening.
	We have been smart through this and we have to continue to be smart.
	The criteria including a 14-day decline in hospitalizations or under 15 new cases, two-week declines in new infections and deaths, New hospitalizations have to be under two per every 100,000 residents and hospitals must reserve 30% of both hospital and ICU beds.
	The guidelines also require 30 contact tracers for every 100,000 residents.
	But as officials enforce rules to stop the spread of the virus, several tense moments caught on camera.
	Social distancing patrols in New York City taking a turn for the worst.
	Disturbing video showing a violent clash between apparent social distancing violators and police in Brooklyn.
	And this cell phone video capturing the moment an officer waves a taser and repeatedly strikes a bystander during a social distancing bust.
	Police watchdogs accusing officers of using social distancing during the pandemic as an excuse to harass people of color along the lines of stop-and-frisk.
	What happened with stop-and-frisk was a systematic oppressive unconstitutional strategy that created a new problem much bigger than anything it purported to solve.
	This is the farthest thing from that.
	This is addressing a pandemic.
	Yet according to leaked data, 90% of the people arrested for violating social distancing rules in New York City were black and Hispanic.
	Following public outcry over racial disparities in New York City's enforcement of social distancing, officials are deploying social distancing ambassadors, who are non-police workers, to persuade people to comply with social distancing measures.
	Reporting in New York, Trinity Chavez, RT.
	So people are being picked up and thrown down in stores.
	People are being picked up and thrown down in streets.
	People's kids are being ripped away from their parents.
	All in the name of social distancing outdoors, where frankly it's not even necessary by any of the medical literature that we have to date.
	Outdoors is simply not a threat region.
	This is an indoor transmitted disease disproportionately and overwhelmingly.
	And yet for exercising their basic core constitutional rights of freedom of association, freedom of expression, they're being targeted.
	Indeed, protests around the world are being targeted by police.
	Let's take a look at video clip number six.
	Let's take a look at video clip number six.
	I was stabbed in 2017, please!
	You just keep quiet!
	You want the violence, the violence only takes advantage of the night!
	You just keep calm.
	You just keep calm.
	The power is only used to use the power.
	If one of you is the best time to bring 10 people with you, then you'll see the power.
	Additional orders that sounded better in their original German come from Governor Wolf, who laid out a tweet storm where he threatened people's businesses licenses, their liquor licenses, their business insurance, their ability to function economically.
	He threatened cities and counties that if they didn't do what he did, what he demanded they do by his royal edicts.
	as like a colonial governor, that he would deny them federal funding and strip them of state funding.
	And that, of course, has led, as this headline declares, Wolf impeachment talk now begins as Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania doubled down on his lockdown threats.
	Indeed, in the state of Texas, the attorney general had to remind city and county officials they could not continue to disobey both the orders of the governor and the constitutions of Texas in the United States.
	So he had to write letters to the officials in San Antonio and Bexar County.
	Also had to write letters to the notorious Clay Jenkins of Dallas.
	Had to remind him that houses of worship are essential services and he can't continue to discriminate against religious activities.
	He warned against the Orwellian tactics that were being discussed of forcing businesses to track and trace surveillance spy on their own customers on behalf of the state.
	That he could not continue with various shutdowns that threaten criminal prosecution and punishment for those who simply exercise their constitutional liberties or their necessary business activities.
	Indeed, as the headline reads, the Texas Attorney General tells the largest counties that they're exceeding their lawful authority.
	This included Austin and Travis County.
	This included Bexar County and San Antonio.
	This included Dallas and Houston.
	Due to those counties and cities' attempts to restrict religious activities, political activities, and business activities now permitted by the governor of the state, and even for those activities they don't consider permitted, they cannot use criminal prosecution or punishment as the means of enforcing them.
	And that is why he had to write letters talking about these attempts to restrict essential services, violating core constitutional liberties and rights.
	Sad that we're into that position where a state attorney general has to remind city and county officials not only of the preemption of state law as it applies to cities and counties, but to the core preemption of constitutional protection as applied to every political official.
	Meanwhile, a burgeoning scandal in the nursing home context.
	Many governors across the country forced nursing homes, despite CDC guidelines saying otherwise, to take people who are infected and ill from COVID-19 and push them into the nursing home population.
	In other context and cases, nursing homes refused, even when they did not have a governor ordering them, you had nursing homes refusing to follow the policies and procedures recommended by the CDC, not imposing a strict protocol of testing, not within the nursing home if anybody had a fever, not making sure people got the hospital treatment they needed, not making sure people got the Family connection and communication that they were supposed to provide and leading to a rage and wave of deaths.
	COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes likely unnecessarily and likely from the effect of either nursing home negligence or the deliberate actions of governors.
	Indeed, the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality Safety and Oversight group of the Department of Health and Human Services that governs Medicaid, which is the primary funder of the nursing homes, went through what was required for health care workers, went through within the nursing home facility context.
	went through what was required for their patients and for their residents and what should be done in terms of transporting them to the hospital and when they should not bring them back into the nursing home if they've been diagnosed positive for COVID-19 unless they meet certain standards for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 from the infected patient.
	In particular, if the patient was still sick at all and had any symptomatic indicia, he or she should not be brought back into the nursing home.
	And yet that is in fact what many nursing homes did in several states.
	And in other states, like the state of New York, like the state of Pennsylvania, like the state of Michigan, the nursing homes were ordered to take them back, spreading the disease, leading to an outbreak in those nursing homes in those states.
	Meanwhile, of note, the Pennsylvania health official that was responsible for implementing this enforcement on nursing homes requiring they take infected patients without having sufficient safeguards to prevent transmission.
	Well, that Pennsylvania health official moved their mother from the nursing home out of the nursing home as quickly as they could while everyone else was being forced into the nursing homes and locked down inside the nursing home.
	A man died from COVID-19.
	His daughters now sue the nursing home, identifying the negligence that took place.
	And as deaths rised over 20,000 in nursing homes, guess what nursing homes are doing?
	They're seeking special immunity from lawsuits, just like vaccine makers.
	Why do they need this immunity if, in fact, they did nothing wrong?
	Why do they need immunity from liability if they can't convince a jury that they did nothing wrong?
	Unless, in fact, they did something wrong.
	That's the only reason they need it.
	It's already difficult to bring medical malpractice claims against nursing homes and any other institution in the United States.
	More than 70% of them fail.
	Medical errors will likely kill more people in the United States this year than will COVID-19 by probably a good measure once the data is fully calculated.
	And yet those medical errors are often never dealt with, less than 10% who even face a form of suit or administrative action.
	And even then, 70% of the time, the plaintiffs fail.
	So already with built-in protections effectively from the way juries and judges already perceive such issues, yet here they're demanding extraordinary immunity, complete immunity, blanket immunity from any kind of legal action.
	And politicians are already starting to give it to them, including particularly those politicians in those states that ordered people into those nursing homes in the first place.
	And not surprisingly, many of the associations involved with the lobbying effort were, of course, major contributors to those governors in the Democratic Party across the nation.
	At the same time, we have a second scandal that continues to burgeon, and that's the Spygate scandal.
	In terms of what has happened, the judge providing, Judge Sullivan presiding over General Flynn's case, which sits at the center of the Spygate scandal, triggered two events.
	First, President Obama was caught on tape worried about the nature of the General Flynn case.
	Why might that be?
	Might that be because of records released today that reveal that in fact President Obama might be at the center of the Spygate scandal?
	That the targeting of General Flynn might have come directly from President Obama himself?
	Maybe that's why he's a little scared and nervous about Obama, about General Flynn getting to walk free as he deserves to be.
	In consequence, people were begging the judge to reveal, to allow special amici briefs to be filed from people who are not even parties to the case, explaining why they think the case should take a different path and both the Justice Department and the defense recognize as appropriate.
	Now what's extraordinary about this is that this is something that the same judge has refused repeatedly when people on behalf of General Flynn, when they suspected there was a conflict of interest with the Covington firm, where Eric Holder notably is a partner, representing General Flynn, that they were not representing him adequately.
	So people wanted to be able to have a third voice heard.
	What did General Flynn say?
	He said the same thing the U.S.
	Supreme Court had previously said.
	He said options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the court's docket is not such an available option.
	Well, yesterday he had a different tune.
	Instead, yesterday he comes out and says, after various people are begging him to do it, we look at chart 17, Given the current posture of this case, the court anticipates that individuals and organizations will seek leave of the court to file amicus briefs.
	As amicus briefs, defined as a friend of the court, does not represent the parties, but participate only for the benefit of the court.
	Accordingly, at the appropriate time, the court will enter a scheduling order governing and presumably admitting the submission of these amicus briefs.
	Something this judge said he would not allow when it was on behalf of General Flynn that the Supreme Court said has already been abused by courts across the country.
	Now he's suddenly allowing.
	We'll get into that and the nursing home scandal with Jack Posobiec on the other side of the hour.
	We continue to recommend that you support our sponsor and patron, InfoWarsStore.com, which has a wide range of sales available for you and to you, including wide ranging products, things like hand sanitizer and sanitizers, and your own little InfoWars mask in case police want to grab and throw you to the ground tomorrow.
	So come back and join us as we'll get into more of these scandals.
	To the politicians urging businesses to risk their lives and the risk of the lives of their customers or their employees by opening prematurely, they need to understand that they are engaging in behavior that is both selfish and unsafe.
	You business owners, these politicians put you at risk of losing your health department certificate.
	They put you, business owners, at risk of losing your liquor license.
	And by opening before the evidence suggests you should, you're taking undue risks with the safety of your customers.
	That's not only morally wrong, it's also really bad business.
	For a slope-shouldered mediocrity like Wolf to have this much power, imagine what a rush that must be.
	He never wants it to end.
	The state, meanwhile, is desperate for relief.
	Jim Bognett is a congressional candidate in Pennsylvania.
	He joins us.
	Jim, thanks so much for coming on tonight.
	So that was Tucker Carlson with the dear governor of Pennsylvania who expressed deep concern for the well-being and the safety and the health of the people in Pennsylvania and that's why he has to do his various extreme orders.
	If we dig in deeper to the governor of Pennsylvania we may find a different path and pattern of behavior other than simply protecting the health of his people that his power grabs might have some other objective in mind.
	We have with us Jack Posobiec, who's been breaking two different scandals.
	One scandal now going on three years, the other one now going on just a few days, but has been burgeoning over the last several weeks and months.
	One is the Spygate scandal and the other is the nursing home scandal.
	Jack has been on the front end of both of those.
	You can find Jack's work both in Twitter at Jack Posobiec, but you can also find it at One America News Network.
	Jack's been ahead of the curve on both sets of issues, as both scandals continue to burgeon up with a common pattern of abuse of power by those who wield and have that power, and particularly those who have disproportionate amounts of it.
	Jack, glad you could be with us.
	Hey, Robert, thanks for getting on today.
	You know, it's great.
	We did a kind of a quid pro quo this week.
	So I had you on One American News.
	Now I'm coming on with you.
	Exactly.
	And what's fascinating, Jack, is two different issues and that they're peaking at the same time.
	I mean, we definitely live in interesting times by any imagination.
	But first is to the nursing home scandals issues.
	One of the things you've started documenting is how many of these governors Ordered the nursing homes to take infected patients into the nursing homes while those nursing homes were on lockdown.
	So there's sort of a double set of issues.
	One set of issue is that infected people in a perfect petri dish for the spread and the transmission of the disease.
	And the second, given the lockdown, there was no other means of dealing with it for other patients who were there, unless you happen to have connected parties like certain politicians in Pennsylvania who got their parents out of the nursing home.
	Unless you were those people, you were stuck there, and now we're seeing an epidemic rage through the nursing homes.
	I think in Pennsylvania, the latest count is maybe up to 80% of the deaths recently come from nursing home-related COVID-19 deaths.
	And the while the governor's out there justifying a wide range of his other conduct in the name of public health, he was one of those governors that forced nursing homes to take patients.
	And I went back today and look, the CDC all the way back to and the Medicaid Commission for the feds all the way back to March was saying do not bring back.
	Infected COVID-19 patients unless those COVID-19 patients either aren't showing any symptoms or even if they are showing symptoms make sure there's a transmission safeguards in place so that there's very little risk of transmission and it's not and that's not what these governor's orders did and you're one of the first people to document it.
	Can you talk about what these governors ordered and what the consequences may have turned out to be?
	Right, Robert, and thanks so much for pinging on that and having me on again.
	So what we've documented, we've gone through this on One American News now for a few days.
	We've been, you know, covering it as well on Twitter.
	And we've got all of the documents.
	We've got all of the orders.
	I want to be clear about this.
	This is a story that was actually first broke by a fantastic investigation done by USA Today and sort of their consortium of local papers that they've got.
	A lot of local reporters were the ones that were pinging off this story.
	And actually, it didn't come from their attendance at these press conferences that the governors were having.
	It's actually come from when they started asking questions about the nursing homes because people were seeing in several states, of course, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are at the epicenter of this.
	We're also seeing the same in some a bit in California and Michigan, Governor Whitmer, where They saw that people were dying at a rate that seemed much higher than some other states, and they weren't sure what was going on.
	They were talking to people about what the system was, and they then found out that essentially the governors made an order.
	They made an actual order through their state health departments, various state health departments, that an infected patient, once released from the hospital, even if they were still testing positive for COVID-19, the Chinese virus, Even if they were still testing positive, they were brought back into the nursing homes.
	It got so bad that Governor Cuomo at one point, when he was facing some pushback on this, even said that he would threaten to pull the licenses of nursing homes that didn't comply with this order.
	Meanwhile, we go back to Pennsylvania.
	You just played the clip of Governor Wolf out there, that very defiant, very draconian clip from him.
	His own Secretary of Health, Dr. Rachel Levin, Actually got her own mother out of one of the nursing homes.
	She got her mother back in March out of one of these permanent care facilities and then gave her Uh, a pass to be able to go into a hotel where she's put her own mother up in a hotel, 95 year old mother.
	And so we've got now a smoking gun, right?
	We've got a smoking gun that they knew these health officials knew the situation they were creating.
	This is essentially the death panels that we were warned about during the Obamacare debate.
	The death panels are here.
	And in fact, the death panels have already made their decision.
	They made the decision to send those patients knowingly infected.
	To those nursing homes.
	And I want to be clear about this, and I know it's something that you've definitely covered a lot, Robert, the fact that there was capacity in these hospitals.
	We're not talking about ICU capacity, but we're talking about beds, wings that were available because of the shutdown of elective surgeries, because of the shutdown of other folks going into the hospitals.
	There was excess capacity to the point where nurses were getting furloughed in some parts of the country because of this.
	Meanwhile, instead of simply establishing a wing for COVID-19 there, they sent them back to the nursing home.
	So it's an incredible smoking gun on the part of Pennsylvania because now you can see that an action was taken in furtherance of this.
	An action was taken in essentially the opposite direction from what the stated policy was.
	And again, this really reinforces that narrative that we've been talking about for so long, that Alex has been talking about for so long, the populists versus those in power, right?
	This is the people versus the politicians.
	And I want to warn people a little bit, not warn, but I don't want people to make this a partisan issue, right?
	This isn't about Republican, Democrat.
	This isn't about conservative, liberal.
	This is about life, right?
	This is about human life.
	Our elders.
	This is about respect thy father and mother, honor thy father and mother.
	And this was not done by these state officials.
	And in some cases, we're now seeing that it was done knowingly.
	I mean, it really is extraordinary.
	The parallel to death panels is a good one because people in nursing homes are often towards the end of their life, but they're there in order to take care of them in that context, in that time frame.
	I know you've been hearing from people across the country.
	I've been.
	Can you talk about some of the people you're hearing from where they're denied access and now their relative died, and now it may be because of this?
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	I mean, there were so many times where, I mean, let's face it, my grandparents aren't around right now.
	But my parents aren't quite old enough to be at that level where they need any type of, you know, they're young, they're quite young, actually.
	And we've heard so many cases, though, where people heard, hey, this is going to affect the elderly more than everyone else.
	There's going to be a high mortality rate.
	Let's get them home.
	Let's bring them home for the duration of this.
	Let's have them home with us.
	Let's not leave them.
	In these places that could turn and they were told that they weren't allowed to.
	And then in some cases that they had to stay, even when they were requesting to get their parents home.
	I have a good friend in New York where this happened.
	And in other cases, look, let's face it.
	They were told that there was a plan in place.
	They were told by their government who they trusted, their elected officials, that mom and dad are going to be fine.
	Grandma and grandpa are going to be fine.
	When in fact, in some cases, including the case of Pennsylvania, by the way, another local investigation that's going on up there states that Pennsylvania did put a plan in place and then didn't actually follow it early on.
	So this is a new scandal that's erupting for Governor Wolf throughout all of this, that he had a plan, he didn't follow his own plan.
	Now Josh Shapiro, who's the Attorney General of of Pennsylvania.
	He's from the same home county as me, Montgomery.
	So I've known him for quite some time when he was a state rep.
	Very smart guy.
	He's trying to deflect on all of this to put the burden back on the nursing homes.
	He's just announced this morning that he's going to be conducting a criminal investigation of the nursing homes.
	Well, I got to ask, what's the crime?
	Was the crime following the orders of your own health officials?
	Was the crime following the orders of Governor Wolf?
	Was the crime following along what your administration did?
	So what he's trying to do is deflect away from the problems of their own governing gubernatorial mismanagement and the entire excess of this.
	Because look, people understand that this death count, this horrific death count, is going to become an albatross around the neck of any politician that went along for these policies, regardless of party.
	And in this case, it is his party.
	So he is in protect mode.
	He's in panic mode.
	That's what's going on here.
	The other aspect I'm noticing is that there's also now this push, particularly in those governments where they issued these orders, like in New York as well, to now immunize nursing homes entirely for anything that happened wrong to people that were patients.
	Have you seen those same headlines?
	And what's going on politically sounds like a sort of circle the wagons to immunize everybody who did wrong in this context.
	Yeah, that's absolutely right.
	They're trying to take the legal principle of sovereign immunity, and I would certainly defer on that to you, but it seems like they're trying to take the legal principle of sovereign immunity and apply it to everyone involved in this situation to protect them from either a class lawsuit or protect them from reckless endangerment.
	from potentially being sued for wrongful death in some of these cases.
	Because let's face it, there's no question, there's no question that we knew from the experience, even the bad info that we were getting from the Chinese, we knew that there was a higher mortality rate for elderly than for middle-aged or younger.
	So we knew early on what was going to happen.
	We saw the videos, we saw what was coming out of China before they could squelch it before the censorship really kicked in over there.
	And so there, this isn't a case where these governors or these officials and these, and later these nursing homes that were following their orders can really plead ignorance in this because we knew.
	And if we, the people understood this, uh, just, just following the headlines from back home.
	There's no question that they understood this.
	And again, that goes to the point of where I was saying that the smoking gun is that the Pennsylvania Secretary of Health got her own mother out.
	That's why it is such an important point to focus on because even while they were putting one thing out publicly in terms of an order, in terms of a statement, she was doing something else.
	Exactly.
	If she thought this was safe, she wouldn't have removed her mother from the equation.
	Right, and that speaks to intent, clearly.
	Absolutely.
	Now, in the same degree, we're talking about sovereign misconduct and sovereign immunity.
	A scandal that you have been covering from the very inception has been the Spygate scandal involving General Flynn, because General Flynn taking him out was key to the success of trying to cover up that Spygate scandal.
	Now we see parts of it unraveling and a lot of people reaching for fear-minded prospects.
	Can you talk about what is happening now in terms of the released information today about who it was that unmasked General Flynn, how some of those timelines are very interesting, how some of the individuals involved are very interesting.
	Can you talk about that new information that came out today?
	That's right, Robert.
	So, you know, there's a lot of commentators on the Spygate beat, if you will.
	Not all of them actually served in the intelligence community back in 2016.
	I did.
	I was there.
	I also served under General Flynn at one point.
	I did a DIA mission back when he was director, though.
	I was way, way, way under him.
	Remember, he was the director of the DIA.
	People forget that General Flynn was appointed by Barack Obama to Senate-confirmed positions twice.
	During his administration, he's not a partisan guy.
	He's never been a partisan guy.
	And so when they went after him, it was really because of policy differences, because they saw him as rebuking their policies, their policies on the Iran deal, their policies toward ISIS, their policies towards Syria, their policies towards Russia.
	And significantly, what we saw in Susan Rice's latest transcript was that he, General Flynn, wanted to go hard against China.
	He saw the rise of China as a legitimate existential threat to the United States.
	He said that Russia, yeah, they're out there, but they've been reduced to a regional power because of their economic issues, because the fact of their oil dependency is wreaking havoc on their economy, their ability to stretch themselves around the world.
	It's just not what it's not even comparable to what the Chinese can do.
	And this, of course, was all before COVID-19 came around and the China virus did what it did to our economy and to our people.
	Now, that being said, what we're now seeing today is that his calls when he was, and this is, this is all speaks to the context of what he was stepping into, because all of these unmasking requests and an unmasking request, when explained to everybody, it is an intelligence process by which authorized principles. it is an intelligence process by which authorized principles.
	So that's a principal consumer of intelligence.
	You're talking people that are around the presidential level or have authority that they've been given at the highest levels of government to actually be able to look into.
	And when they're reading NSA transcripts of NSA intercepts of phone calls that they're already listening to, like in case in point, the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, They are then able to unmask.
	So Kislyak, he's a Russian, he's a Russian ambassador, so you don't need a warrant to wiretap him, right?
	But, if he's talking to a U.S.
	citizen, well then obviously the U.S.
	citizen, known as a U.S.
	person under Executive Order 12333, as any intelligence officer worth their salt would be able to quote you, chapter and verse, would be considered a U.S.
	person, and so we're not allowed to target U.S.
	persons without a warrant, which is of course known as a FISA.
	FISA warrant, see how it all works?
	But if you pick them up, it's called incidental collection, and only people at the highest levels are then able to unmask.
	So if you're looking at a transcript, it would say Person 1, or a summary, it would say Person 1.
	So you would then need to go back to the NSA and say, you know what?
	I want to know who Person 1 is on this call.
	It's very important to me.
	You provide the justification why, and the NSA, of course, following their legal authority to do so, is going to respond back and tell them who that Person 1 was.
	In this case, it was General Flynn.
	Now, we're also seeing that there were a series of requests made on Flynn starting all the way back in early November, continuing forward through the end of January.
	This is very significant because the phone call that we know about that was leaked, of course, to The Washington Post, illegally leaked, and that is the crime here, the leak of this phone call.
	Because this stuff is supposed to stay with our leaders of national security.
	It's supposed to stay within the intelligence Confines of our government within the national security apparatus not supposed to be in the pages of the Washington Post Oh my Jeff Bezos, but of course as we all know classified information has a way of getting there, so These that phone call between Flynn and Kislyak happened on December 28th in Yeah, we see a flurry of unmaskings around December 16th, December 15th.
	Of course, December 15th, I know, because it's my birthday.
	We see stuff from the middle of January.
	We see stuff towards the end of January.
	And the number one, or I should say the last, rather, name on that list, I think one that was very surprising to people was Vice President Joseph Biden.
	So Vice President Joseph Biden, and I want people to understand as well the context, that means that his authorization was used to unmask this.
	That doesn't necessarily mean that he himself was reading this document and was pushing it through.
	What it could mean is that a member of his staff, his chief of staff, His national security advisor or possibly another member of the NSC was using his authorization.
	Samantha Power has stated under oath that even in her role as UN ambassador, she allowed other people to use her authorization code to conduct these unmaskings.
	So we've seen that with Susan Rice, the other names we're seeing in here, James Clapper, Jim Comey, of course, John Brennan.
	I don't think that name would come as any surprise.
	Another surprising one, Dennis McDonough, the Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama himself.
	His authorization was used.
	So there's little doubt as to who he would be sharing that information with.
	I think it would most likely be his boss, President Obama.
	So all of this being done at the highest levels It really makes all of their denials.
	Really not worth their weight on in paper, because when it comes down to it, they lied.
	They absolutely lied about having no knowledge of this.
	They lied about having no knowledge of the investigation to begin with, and they lied about having no connection to it when their names are literally on the document.
	And so whether or not we can pin which one of them or persons connected to them Actually committed the illegal leak of Flynn's name and the contents of Flynn's phone call.
	We're not sure yet, but this is the start of the whodunit, right?
	This is where you would start to put your clues together.
	You've got your cast of characters, you know who's who in the zoo, and then you can begin then to build your link analysis chart based off of this.
	Exactly.
	And could you talk about how unmasking is supposed to be limited?
	In other words, the fear always with this, the reason why we have a FISA law, was President Nixon misusing this authority to spy on Americans through a back door.
	And they originally... Of course.
	The bottom line is that we don't want the President to be able to spy on whoever he wants to.
	The precedent that was set after Richard Nixon.
	This came through the Church Committee, again run by Democrats.
	And I want to explain that to people.
	It was Democrats.
	It was the Democrat Party that really led the charge back in the late 70s regarding domestic surveillance abilities of the United States, of the NSA, of the military back then, of the FBI, COINTELPRO.
	So many programs that were being done with the intelligence communities and the intelligence agencies, rather, and the U.S. military that were infiltrating political movements that were going after political opposition.
	Of course, the infamous surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr., you know, on suspicions of communism and everything else.
	We didn't want the government to have this ability again.
	We didn't want any government, Republican or Democrat, to be able to have this power to spy on their political enemies.
	And so this is the type of worry that has come up for so many people that you can say, well, yes, did they follow the procedure as it was laid out?
	Yes, but what were the purposes?
	What were the purposes that they used it for?
	What was the intent?
	To do all this.
	And so that's why all of these officials absolutely need to be brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee or various House committees.
	And they need to answer for why their names are on this document, why these unmaskings took place.
	What was their great interest?
	Keep in mind, this is the administration that's leaving, right?
	Trump's transitioning in, but also the Obama administration is transitioning out.
	They are done.
	This is their and they would be not anyway.
	It's under their ears.
	You know, it's constitutionally limited.
	So there's no real purpose for them to be continuing to worry about their policies unless they're so set in their ways about making sure their policies are the ones that win out and hamstring their opponents.
	Of course, the political opponents coming in in 2016.
	In 2016, the election day, that really was a regime change in a lot of ways.
	I think we need to start looking at, like, A regime change because you saw a massive swath, a massive push from one part of the country where you had the Clintons, the Obamas and the Bushes that were really aligned on foreign policy in so many ways to bringing back Donald Trump and with him, the nationalists, the populists, people who weren't necessarily looking about how they could get rich from these overseas adventures, but actually turning inwards and trying to rebuild the country again.
	Oh exactly, and I think aside from the shocking scale and scope of the degree to which they were unmasking, it was rather than one unmasking occurring for one conversation, as you point out this was a bunch of people unmasking all the time as soon as Trump got elected the incoming National Security Advisor.
	And while it may have met the technical rules, it wasn't consistent to the purpose of these rules, which was specifically to prohibit this kind of spying.
	Can you talk also about the significance of that January 5th unmasking by Obama's chief of staff and how it relates to other information that came out in the Flynn transcripts involving Sally Yates?
	That's absolutely right.
	And the bottom line is this, is that that unmasking was conducted on the same day that Sally Yates Jim Comey, James Clapper, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden held this now infamous meeting inside the Oval Office of the White House, which is memorialized in a very strange email by Susan Rice on her last day in office on January 20th.
	She writes an email to herself because she knows That under the Document Protection Act, this is going to be preserved for all time as long as we have U.S.
	government.
	Of course we had this meeting, but everything was done by the book and the President told us that everything we were doing was just fine.
	So on the same day of that meeting that we know that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Sally Yates were all informed of this by Clapper and Comey, that is another day that there was a request of actually a frequent, a large number of these requests, right?
	A ton of these requests on unmasking.
	So, and I want to be clear to people, this means they were likely requesting multiple reports on the same day.
	Exactly.
	It appears to be- Not just one phone call.
	Precisely.
	And the fact that it was Obama's Chief of Staff was on that day, suggests his centrality in this coordinated campaign, and might explain his sudden interest in the rule of law, somehow being violated in the General Flynn case, such that he can have a conversation leaked about it.
	When we come back with Jack, we'll ask about that question.
	As well as what does it mean that Joe Biden was now more central on this than he had previously recognized or been willing to admit.
	So much so that his spokespeople were out attacking various CBS reporters today for even talking about this issue.
	So we come back after the break.
	We'll have a few more questions with Jack about the scale and the scope and severity of Spygate and where it might be going in General Flynn's case.
	The British are coming, the British are coming.
	You are about to be part-time on the race debate.
	And one more last round.
	America first.
	And the box with your country.
	If you want to understand how deep the swamp goes and how willing people are within the system, including, unfortunately, the judicial system to defend and protect the swamp that helped make them judges in the first place, Jack has more breaking news on some of the extraordinary actions by Judge Sullivan.
	So, Jack, can you fill us in?
	Right.
	So if you go to TechnoFog, one of the best legal accounts out there, totally anonymous, but a very sharp lawyer.
	And what it says is, new Flynn filing.
	Judge Sullivan has appointed retired Judge John Gleeson as amicus to present arguments in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss.
	So this is breaking news.
	This is happening literally as we're on the show right now.
	So they're bringing in a retired judge to argue against the government.
	So keep in mind, the government and Sidney Powell, Flynn's defense, are in agreement on this motion to, obviously, to dismiss the charges.
	Yet Sullivan has appointed a retired judge to come in to argue against it.
	Sullivan now, and this is key, is also ordering Gleeson to address whether the court should hold Flynn in contempt for perjury.
	They're asking if Flynn should be held in contempt of perjury because back in 2018, Flynn did have a comment where when he was asked to about the guilty plea, whether he wanted to keep up with his plea.
	And Flynn said yes, that he was sticking with the plea at that time.
	He later rescinded it.
	He fired his lawyers, and he's now charging them with malpractice, essentially, for failing to represent him as ordered.
	So this is major stuff here.
	We're now seeing the point where it essentially looks like Judge Sullivan is doing everything he can to not let Flynn easily off the hook, That's number one.
	And number two, it almost seems as though he's trying to tempt President Trump to get in.
	I don't know.
	What's your take, Robert?
	Yeah, I mean, I think this is extraordinary unethical behavior by Judge Sullivan.
	I haven't said it before because there was a chance I was going to get in front of him.
	But in my view, Judge Sullivan has an undeserved reputation as a highly ethical judge.
	He's the one who presided over the debacle of justice that was the Senator Stevens trial.
	He later blamed the FBI for misleading him.
	Why didn't he figure that out on his own accord?
	And since the Stevens case, well, he's made a big deal about, hey, look at this, I want full discovery.
	He is, I don't know of any significant case he's dismissed for it.
	He's all bark, no bite when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct, but he's no bark, all bite when it comes to defendants in cases like this.
	He's also issued a lot of peculiar rulings against President Trump in other contexts, rulings that have been reversed relating to a wide range of executive order behavior that was considered purely constitutional until Trump became president.
	So this shows judicial bias.
	This suggests that Judge Sullivan was in the bag for the government and was not intending to be impartial or fair in the process.
	And I'm not willing to any further give Judge Sullivan the benefit of the doubt.
	I think it does show that unfortunately the president may have to take action as Americans are getting a real clean and clear view of what extraordinary degrees to which the judicial system will go to cover up corruption in the United States government as it relates to this case.
	That's my view of it.
	There's a chance he misunderstands it.
	There's a chance he misunderstands the record.
	There's a chance the people that are in his ear, like his law clerks, are people who take the view or position that's different, that they simply are in a little echo chamber and they really think they're listening to the ex-DOJ prosecutors who are defending the Flynn prosecution and criticizing its dismissal.
	So it's possible that he's just operating in an echo chamber, doesn't realize it.
	But this is utterly unprecedented.
	I know of no case where this has ever been done before.
	I know of no case where this is even allowed by law.
	I know of no case in which the Constitution condones it.
	And it has all the hallmarks of, rather than being concerned with government corruption, Judge Sullivan is busy covering up that corruption by his course of conduct.
	He should be issuing orders as to why the prosecutor shouldn't be held in contempt for making former misrepresentations before he suddenly resigned from this case.
	That's what he should be doing.
	And instead, he's not doing that.
	And instead, he's attacking the people who exposed that misconduct.
	So my instinct is, this is an extraordinary order.
	I've been in front of judges like this, judges that are power freaks like some of our Democratic governors and mayors are right now.
	And the only way to deal with it, now I know Sidney is going to take a more tempered approach.
	There's a lot of logic behind that.
	My approach would be a little less tempered.
	I think sometimes, like the Roger Stone case, what I told Roger from the inception, that you have to expose judicial bias, and you as a lawyer are going to take a lot of heat for it.
	They're going to take a lot of personal pot shots at you, try to damage you professionally, but you have to live like Medgar Evers, as he famously said when I was a kid, when I listened to it.
	He goes, the most men die a thousand deaths every day.
	I'm only going to die once.
	It's unfortunate that someone with as impeccable a record as General Flynn has to be the one to live through the uncovering of how bad our criminal justice system is in politicized cases.
	But I think the great lesson of General Flynn is because he is like a Martin Luther King type figure.
	Someone with such an impeccable record that they went through it, did a macroscopic, microscopic view.
	And I think around that timeframe, and you can talk about this, Jack, I think it was around that timeframe internally now, the document suggests the FBI line agents came back and said, there's nothing here.
	This case should be closed.
	And I think it's around that same January 5th, January 6th timeframe that Obama is with Peter Strzok effectively now.
	Reviving this case Obama's doing what he's doing and unmasking people and having the meeting Strozic's doing what he's doing.
	Can you talk about the now what we know the timing wise of what took place?
	Right.
	Well, there's there's a couple of different a couple of different ways to look at it But essentially right and we've got to get the dates worked out specifically that's that's part of the reason why I'm calling for for a formal congressional commission to investigate this whole situation because we do want to really pin down the timeline on this.
	What date did, uh, did different things happen?
	We have a partial timeline.
	It's kind of vague, but we do know that at one point they were planning to close the investigation of General Flynn because by the way, what we just talked about on unmasked, this, this is, this is a little bit, I think why it gets complicated for some people because General Flynn was, when he was unmasked, right?
	That was in conversations that were going on regarding the, the Russian ambassador sanctions, et cetera, et cetera.
	But concurrently with that and in parallel to that, there was a separate investigation going on of general Flynn called crossfire razor.
	We knew about crossfire hurricane.
	That was the umbrella term for what was going on, but there was a separate counterintelligence investigation that was being conducted at the same time.
	And so what we need to figure out is, Were they using the unmaskings to bolster the fact that the counterintelligence, excuse me, counterintelligence investigation was coming up empty, right?
	They were trying to investigate Flynn.
	They were talking to confidential human sources, CHS's, spies, uh, the, the term that, you know, the deep state doesn't want you to use.
	Um, but in, in, you know, in, in the, uh, community, we would say confidential human sources, or we just say source, um, same idea.
	And, The fact of the matter is that they kept coming up dry when they were looking for any evidence of Flynn's ties to Russia.
	They talked about the fact that he went to Russia, even though it was completely public, and it was actually part of a U.S.
	intelligence collection mission that he was doing under the auspices of the DIA, where he had obviously just retired from for 33 years.
	He was fully debriefed both afterwards by intelligence agents.
	That's how the process works.
	So this is something that the FBI then uses To claim that he's some sort of counterintelligence agent for Russia when actually he's doing it out of patriotism and out of love for his country to try to find out what one of our, no, we're not going to say our global adversaries, but certainly one of our adversaries in the world stage is involved in.
	That being said, were they using these to create a sort of what's called parallel reconstruction?
	And the idea being that they're using this incidental collection in these unmaskings To bolster the case against Flynn in a counterintelligence perspective.
	So we then, of course, we see that Flynn was interviewed after President Trump took office.
	This would be after that January 20th date.
	He's then interviewed by Peter Strzok and Joe Penka.
	They come back.
	They say they don't think that Flynn intended to lie.
	They don't think he intentionally lied.
	They asked him about the phone call, which they already had the transcript from.
	So keep in mind.
	They had the transcript from this unmasked call.
	They then used that to interrogate Flynn without a lawyer, without benefit of legal counsel.
	Flynn is not a lawyer.
	Flynn is an intelligence general.
	When I worked in the intel agency, I sure didn't know as much about law as I do now because we've had to deal with it for so many years.
	Robert, you and I have had some fun conversations offline about that and about various different topics.
	What they did to Flynn was they used this classified information that they obtained from unmasking to investigate him from a counterintelligence perspective, that's number one.
	But then also number two, for this thing called the Logan Act, which I don't even know who pulled that up, this idea that there can only be one administration at one time, well folks, There was one administration and it was the Trump administration.
	They legally won the election.
	They were the duly elected leaders of the United States.
	They followed the constitutional guidelines to win the election to the presidency.
	They were ascending to sovereign power in our Republic.
	Okay.
	There's no question.
	There's no question that using a Logan Act investigation on Flint at that point was completely unconstitutional.
	It flies in the face of our entire system.
	And yet these are the same people who will then say that they are fighting so hard to uphold the system.
	It's really amazing when you go back and look at some of these videos from 2017, the things they said publicly.
	Oh, no doubt about it.
	It's extraordinary.
	The scale and scope of what we're witnessing, we've never witnessed in the modern era.
	I've never seen anything like it.
	You mentioned that the need of a committee that sort of really put together the whole timeline, all the correspondence, all the communication, because we've got different pieces of the puzzle, to help put the puzzle together.
	So go through what do you think needs to happen next by the president, by the by people in the Senate on the Republican side of the aisle and by others in order to really get to the bottom of what took place here and the injustice that is still occurring to General Flynn.
	Well, I'd certainly commend our acting director of national intelligence, Rick Grinnell.
	He has been in the driver's seat for so many of these declassifications.
	We remember, of course, that the Republican Senate was slow walking him.
	They didn't want to confirm him.
	I was one of the earliest champions and loudest champions for confirming Grinnell at the time.
	Now we see that he's in the driver's seat.
	He's getting the job done.
	A.G.
	Barr.
	Before that, it was Jeff Sessions.
	Where was Jeff Sessions on any of this for years?
	That he knew what was going on, did nothing.
	We used to have H.R.
	McMaster.
	I, of course, led the charge against him among a number of folks who were leading the charge against H.R.
	McMaster.
	But you see that now we've got Barr and Grinnell in place.
	So many things are moving.
	So much is happening.
	And as someone who works in media for One American News, I certainly call for the declassification of as much as possible.
	We want to know more information.
	And furthermore, Congress here has a decision to make.
	Do they want to maintain their constitutional right of oversight of the federal government or not?
	Are they going to use their oversight powers to actually conduct real oversight of what the government was doing?
	That's the role, by the way, of Our Congress, it's not to, you know, be this partisan bulwark against the president and, you know, running up against these, uh, you know, his phone call with Ukraine or to appoint special prosecutor Mueller to investigate conspiracy theories that were dreamed up by Adam Schiff and then, uh, peddled by Jake Tapper on television, CNN.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	What we need is a congressional committee.
	And I would call for a bipartisan committee, um, or, or even a commission to be put together Just like, uh, just like Judge Sullivan is bringing out a retired judge, you know, we can certainly find people that both sides of the aisle view as you as having, um, that are unimpeachable, completely unimpeachable and actually go through soup the nuts, as we would say in the Navy, soup the nuts of what went on
	during the entire course of this thing and to lay it all at the feet of the American people to make it all public because we have to restore.
	Folks, if we want to actually defend the American Republic, and I think that is the point here, if we want to continue the American Republic, then we owe it to the people to maintain the legitimacy of our institutions because right now it looks as those institutions were abused, were then we owe it to the people to maintain the legitimacy of our institutions because right now it looks as those institutions were abused, were used for political ends and political purposes, and
	Even if those specific individuals in their heart of hearts believed they were doing the right thing, it still ended up having the wrong consequences.
	Exactly.
	What we need is a new church committee for the modern age, given what took place in almost everything from Ed Snowden to Julian Assange, from Spygate to everything before and after.
	We're witnessing to the General Flynn case.
	We're witnessing a misuse and abuse of the powers given to the high-ranking FBI, law enforcement, intelligence branches, the Department of Justice, in ways that is discrediting those institutions and discrediting justice in the United States.
	Thanks for being with us, Jack.
	People can follow him at Jack Posobiec.
	That's P-O-S-O-B-I-E-C.
	And, of course, you can go and follow him on One America News Network.
	Jack's one of the best people to follow for breaking news on these and other topics.
	Thanks for being with us, Jack.
	Appreciate it, Robert.
	Take care, guys.
	Absolutely.
	So this is an extraordinary order by the judge.
	Never seen anything like it.
	It does suggest to me what I had told some other people, which was that I did not find Judge Sullivan to be a trustworthy judge in these kind of politicized cases.
	There was no history of him meaningfully disciplining the government.
	He talked big after the Ted Stevens case.
	That was about it.
	He's the one who presided over that travesty of justice.
	And there was plenty of intel and information for him to have known otherwise before he acted.
	He just shifted the blame for being part of such a fraud and a phony case.
	The fact that he's issuing these ridiculous orders, like suggesting holding General Flynn in contempt for perjury because he pled previously and now says the plea was based on inaccurate information that was given to him.
	People withdraw their pleas all their time and they're never charged with perjury as far as I know.
	So the idea that somehow that means you can be charged with perjury or should be and have an independent review.
	This is what happens when judges think they should be president too.
	That's who Judge Sullivan is.
	At this point it's becoming such a laugh, such a joke.
	That President Trump should simply pardon General Flynn, pardon Roger Stone.
	Put an end to it.
	We've seen what American justice looks like.
	And the more you get to see it up close, to paraphrase Jim Hightower, it's like watching a monkey climb a tree.
	It doesn't get any prettier as it gets higher.
	That's the nature of our justice system sometimes in the United States.
	This is a travesty and this is a tragedy, and it should be spoken as such.
	Many lawyers won't because they don't want to offend certain people in positions of power.
	They don't want judges mad or upset at them, but sometimes truth has to be spoken to power regardless of the circumstance or situation.
	Indeed, in that capacity, as we mentioned, as Jack mentioned, the Susan Rice CYA email relates to what was released by ODI Grinnell, which is that on January 5th, 2017, the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States unmasked General Flynn.
	The same day, they hold that meeting, that relatively secret meeting at the time, involving Joe Biden, involving Sally Yates, involving James Comey, all the co-conspirators, you might say, that end up involved in the questionable activities of Spygate before and after.
	If you go through all of them, it's a long litany of people who are unmasking General Flynn.
	Unmasking is supposed to almost never happen.
	The point of allowing tape-recorded conversations with foreign officials is to listen to foreign officials, not to find out who the American is.
	Because that's an invasion of privacy.
	That's spying on them in violation of the Fourth Amendment without probable cause they committed a crime.
	FISA has been established for that purpose.
	Unmasking was supposed to be limited for information purposes, where you can't make sense of the information without knowing who it is they're talking to, and that information is necessary and essential to your job.
	How can it be all of these people on all of these dates needed to unmask General Flynn?
	There's a word for this.
	It's called spying.
	That's what they were doing.
	Mass-scale spying by the Obama administration on the incoming administration.
	I guarantee you, if it had happened to Obama, he'd have been screaming about it for eight years straight.
	In fact, if we go further into the detail, there are these fake Watergate prosecutors who are trying to speak out at MECI.
	And instead, that's why, if you dig into their records, as TechnoFog did, these quote-unquote Watergate prosecutors, they have nothing to do with Watergate.
	They just stuck that name on them because they think it sounds cool.
	And they want to intervene in the Flynn case in order to lecture everyone about how their viewpoint should be upheld.
	When you dig into their records, like if you go to TechnoFog, at Techno underscore Fog on Twitter, you can find where he documented all the different ridiculous and nutty things some of these people have been saying.
	To give for an example, Jill Wine Banks was saying stuff that she had no doubt that Mueller would be able to prove an actual conspiracy with the Russian government and Trump, when in fact Mueller would disprove that specifically.
	They were the ones urging an evidentiary hearing as part of this entire nonsense.
	So these are people who are pushing ludicrous conspiracy theories, discredited conspiracy theories, without evidentiary backing.
	In fact, refuted by the evidence, even by those people that were aligned with them ideologically and politically.
	And now they're being given a voice through a judge.
	Likely in the Flynn case, that judge was being assigned by Judge Sullivan because he or his staff got wind of how bad an advocate these other people were that he was trying to put up.
	So he found a judge to make the arguments in its stead.
	We'll see if this judge acts with the ethical propriety that the Judge Sullivan has not shown yet in the Sullivan, in the General Flynn case.
	Indeed, if we go in deeper, this relates to some of the charts that have been put up by a range of publications.
	If we look at chart number one, we see an extensive combination of how all of these people continue to overlap and interconnect.
	The quote-unquote insurance policy that was the text Going from Peter Strzok to his lover Lisa Page in the high-ranking parts of the FBI.
	Ultimately, you would have overlapping connection with the Clinton campaign.
	You would have it with Christopher Steele.
	You would have it with Fusion GPS.
	And you would have it with the highest-ranking people in the FBI, the National Security Agency.
	And now we have seen it with President Obama.
	If you look at chart number three, you just see all of the resignations and demotions when all of these people have been caught.
	It included the FBI Director, James Comey.
	It included FBI, next FBI Director, Andrew McKay, who again, both of them recommended by the Obama-appointed Inspector General for prosecution and criminal referral due to the misconduct that he found, and that was within a limited scope of his powers and authority.
	You see FBI General Counsel James Baker had to resign.
	You see Tricia Anderson, the Deputy General Counsel, had to resign.
	Lisa Page, Special Counsel, had to resign.
	Peter Strzok, one of the head people in the Counterintelligence Division, had to resign.
	Bill Priestap, head of the division, Counterintelligence Division, had to resign.
	Multiple public affairs directors and associate attorney generals had to resign.
	Indeed, if we look at chart number five, which is from the Epoch Times, going through all of the intricate detail of Spygate, the scale and scope of it is extraordinary.
	The next time they tell you that a conspiracy can't happen because it requires too many high-ranking people to actually pull off, just show them this chart.
	This is just one example of one conspiracy they were able to pull off just to attack a single general.
	In the case of General Flynn and targeting President Trump writ large.
	They were able to do all of this misconduct for years until caught, denied it, and lied about it.
	And now that it's been exposed for the world to see by even the Department of Justice, the federal judges are busy trying to cover up for themselves even further.
	The Spygate charts continue and involve, in fact, they often parallel charts like chart number four, which is simply the Uranium One scandal and how you often see some of the same co-participants involved in the process.
	Indeed, even the National Review, which has tried to take a hostile view through parts of this case, had to admit, quote, Obamagate is not a conspiracy theory.
	May 12th, 2020, going into how much extraordinary evidence increasingly proves it.
	And this goes to certain central characters.
	Sally Yates, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey.
	People that we know have a history of not exactly telling the truth.
	Let's take a look at clip number 17, which is just one of the times that James Clapper committed perjury before Congress.
	Perjury that was so impactful it led Ed Snowden to become Ed Snowden.
	Take a look at clip number 17.
	Last summer, the NSA director was at a conference and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans.
	He replied, and I quote here, the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.
	The reason I'm asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don't really know what a dossier is in this context.
	So, what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
	No, sir.
	It does not?
	Not wittingly.
	There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.
	That was material perjury about a critical question about a critical matter that led Ed Snowden to become a whistleblower.
	But Clapper's not the only one who was neck deep in perjury during this time period involving the same critical actors that will surround Spygate and the attacks on General Flynn and covering for President Obama's rogue and reckless behaviors.
	Let's take a look at clip number 16 about CIA Director John Brennan and when he lied to Congress.
	Yesterday's IG report provided even more information about what actually happened and confirmation of a fact that's been pretty obvious for a while.
	Former Obama CIA Chief John Brennan is a liar.
	Not only that, he lied to Congress.
	In the spring of 2017, Brennan told the House Intel Committee that the Steele dossier played no role in the creation of an intelligence community assessment on Russian interference that was presented to both President Obama and President-elect Trump.
	Brennan was not vague about this.
	He said unequivocally, on camera, the dossier was totally irrelevant.
	That was a complete lie.
	The IG report proves it.
	A lie!
	The Steele dossier, in fact, was a major element of the intelligence assessment, and Brennan in particular found it very important.
	In other words, John Brennan, not a close call here, perjured himself on camera in front of the world.
	But here's the striking thing.
	John Brennan is not facing perjury charges.
	In fact, he's still tweeting self-righteously and making smug appearances on CNN, which I think, check my memory for a second, pays him as a contributor.
	So here you have perjury by James Clapper of a material critical matter.
	Perjury by John Brennan of a critical material matter.
	Susan Rice lied to the world and claimed she had nothing to do with the unmasking, when now we know that in fact she did.
	In fact, they all did.
	They were all neck deep in it.
	And yet none of them have been prosecuted while Roger Stone was prosecuted for making, they alleged, a false statement about something that wasn't even material or consequential to the investigation.
	And now they're saying that General Flynn should be investigated for contempt of court for perjury simply because he was gaslit into a plea deal and coerced into a plea deal he now recognizes was a wrong plea deal to do because he was given poor advice and lied to by the government.
	Does that make sense in our current criminal justice process?
	Meanwhile, the DOJ's Flynn filings renew focus on mysterious Susan Rice email during transition.
	What they're referring to, and what the release today of the information about when the unmasking occurred and by whom, is the fact that, indeed, she wrote an email the day she was exiting Susan Rice's desk as National Security Advisor to herself and a bunch of other people.
	So it's January 20th, last day possible.
	She realizes there's a potential scandal brewing.
	She realizes that scandal might get caught.
	The successors might catch it.
	So she writes a CYA email to cover herself.
	She says, on January 5th, we had a little conversation in the White House.
	We now know on that very date, The President's Chief of Staff went and unmasked records concerning General Flynn, and then had that meeting with Joe Biden and James Comey and Sally Yates and Susan Rice in the Oval Office, where General, where it's the old, it's like the mob boss who says, whatever you do, I don't want you to shoot, shoot George.
	Whatever you do, don't, don't, you know, shoot George.
	It was that kind of meeting where he says, hey, I want everything to be totally legal.
	Why do you need to say that everything needs to be totally legal?
	Did you always do things illegally?
	Is that why?
	Or is it because you're giving them a wink and a nod that you want things to be done however they need to be done to get the political objective in place?
	And she details all of this.
	She details how President Obama's orchestrating it.
	President Obama's orchestrating it, organizing it, directing it, coordinating it.
	He's the one who brought all these people together.
	It's now reflected in the submissions along with the government's motion to dismiss the Flynn case.
	They included the transcript of the interview with Sally Yates, where Sally Yates admitted the very first time she even heard about this involving General Flynn was from President Obama on that date.
	So those are basically marching instructions by President Obama's.
	Here's how we're going to hide and by the way, in that same email, Susan Rice admits that President Obama directed his team to withhold and hide intelligence information from the incoming administration.
	And at the same time, just by coincidence, The high-ranking people under Comey are doing, and Comey's at that meeting, are doing a parallel construction case effectively to create a bogus pretext to either entrap General Flynn or get him in some way that they can get him out of office and try to set him up for perjury.
	We know that because they admitted in their own notes.
	When we come back, I'll give you personal, professional insight from Sally Yates' record of corruption, malfeasance and misconduct, and how that further informs this Spygate scandal.
	So come back and join us.
	We'll go into more details about how the Spygate scandal spreads like a bad infection, much worse than this Chinese virus.
	Sorry, San Antonio.
	Welcome back.
	to American Countdown.
	And As we see the media continue to sort of be an Operation Mockingbird into perpetuity on behalf of the corruption that took place during the 2016 campaign and the SpyGate scandal, we now see it in the way they're covering the pandemic and the nursing home COVID-19 scandal.
	It is more critical than ever to have access to independent platforms providing independent information, willing to contest and challenge whomever is in a position of power that may be misusing and abusing that power.
	And that includes whether it's the powerful political officials in national security and law enforcement positions today, whether that's powerful judges who can make one's life very difficult, or whether that's people like billionaire Bill Gates and his attempts to corruptly influence public health policy for his overpopulation, Margaret Sanger-inspired agenda.
	In that context, we welcome you and want you to support our sponsor.
	Our sponsor is InfoWarsStore.com, the last standing place for independent platforms in the world of this size and scale.
	And the utility is you can go to InfoWarsStore.com and get products you like, products you want, products that make you healthier, and because they're always discounted, and right now very substantially discounted, make you wealthier and wiser at the same time.
	Where else can you get healthier, wealthier, and wiser in one single place?
	By supporting a platform that makes independent information accessible, available, and actionable to you that you cannot get anywhere else, but also products that provide for your health, that provide for your well-being, particularly in this time and place.
	You can get hand sanitizer.
	You can get masks.
	You can get a vitamin fusion that supports vitamin C and vitamin D.
	Which more and more reports, more and more surveys, more and more studies show how good it is for you and how good it is in times like these.
	In the same context, you can get things that are air filters for your home and for your space.
	Particularly helpful in a time in which many of us are still locked into our homes around the world.
	Or any other wide range of products from things that help you sleep to things that help you wake up.
	To things like protein bars that are good for you.
	I use them during the afternoon.
	I like the chocolate peanut butter ones myself, I do confess.
	But they're particularly good in the afternoon when you need a midday snack between lunch and dinner or other times of the day.
	So whatever you want, whatever you like, whatever you need, generally it's there and it's available.
	It's there in its best available form at a substantial discount compared to the market competition that may be out there.
	And when you're buying these products, you're not supporting, say, billionaires with a politicized agenda.
	You're supporting the most independent platform for information and news the world has seen in the recent time.
	So we encourage you and incentivize you and welcome you to support it.
	You can buy things like their great coffee that I get all the time or any other product that you like that's good for you, that you need, that's beneficial for you and your family.
	Make yourself healthier.
	Make yourself wealthier.
	Make yourself wiser.
	Support InfoWarsTore.com today.
	In this context of this extraordinary Spygate scandal, we see certain names percolate and pop up repeatedly.
	Now increasingly that name is Barack Obama, but other than other and independent of him, names like Sally Yates comes to mind.
	Sally Yates was brought into this conspiracy on January 5th when there was a meeting in the White House organized and orchestrated by President Obama that Sally, that Susan Rice would later document in detail in her CYA email.
	My experience with Sally Yates was back when she was at the Northern District of Georgia in an investigation that she helped foster, her agents helped perpetuate, where they threatened politicians and public officials if they exposed the malfeasance and misconduct.
	Patterns we're now seeing repeated in the General Flynn case.
	Her agents conked up and came up with a mode, concocted the most ridiculous set of lies and statements about some of the most innocent people I've ever defended and represented.
	An Italian-American businessman who is in the construction industry from New York City moved to Atlanta to create a second opportunity both for himself and for other people.
	He brought people together, paid them above average wages, wanted to make sure they had good economic security, good jobs in a friendly, family-friendly work environment, helped make their lives more stable and secure, gave people jobs that other people wouldn't, and helped give them a chance at the American dream himself as he went to try to live it himself.
	And in that time frame, he ended up targeted simply because he went to a club that they were looking at for other reasons and other purposes, simply due to his ethnicity and his last name, he got targeted by a rogue agent of the IRS.
	In that process, the rogue agent, and I do a lot of criminal tax cases, this rogue agent did more rogue conduct than I've ever seen in all of my cases combined, and I've seen a little bit of everything in my cases combined.
	In terms of malfeasance and misconduct from prosecutors and police alike.
	This agent went to great extraordinary scope and scale in terms of what she did.
	Lied about him in every way conceivable.
	Connected him to people he had nothing to do with.
	Made him look like some character from the 1960s helping Meyer, a Meyer Lansky character in a foreign location.
	Did illegal spying, did illegal surveillance.
	And then when the criminal trial came, doctored documents just like they did in the General Flynn case.
	Putting pages one and two from one report Together with pages three and four from another report to make him look like all the same pages of a singular report.
	Unfortunately, at the time, my client had other counsel and that counsel was a former prosecutor who thought, geez, the government couldn't do such terrible and horrible and awful things.
	Well, unfortunately, they had not woken up to the reality of federal criminal cases in politically motivated times.
	Sally Yates helped coordinate that case, helped create that case.
	It was under her offices and auspice that that case got rolling and going in the first place.
	She helped do some of the worst misconduct that I've ever witnessed in any criminal case.
	Ultimately, my client was set free because even the prosecutors had to fold and capitulate rather than see the scandal get exposed to the entire world of what all of the bad conduct they had done.
	But that was my background with Sally Yates, someone willing and eager to not just bend the rules, but to break them in the name of her own pursuit of her political ambitions and aspirations.
	Justice be damned in the time frame and in the process.
	So it's no surprise that you have perjurer Clapper, perjurer Brennan, and you have Mr. Contempt Eric Holder and corrupt Sally Yates all sitting in the nestled at the center of this Obama inspired Spygate scandal.
	Indeed, as President Trump put it, that I think Rice committed a crime.
	And they explained the Daily Wire did at the time, three reasons why.
	And in fact, now we have more evidence that that's precisely what happened, as she also lied about her role and involvement in unmasking activities.
	Senators Grassley and Graham, they admit the unusual email that they found, the CYA email, raised serious questions back then.
	But the press and members of the political class tried to ignore it.
	The Flynn filings confirm the suspicions that were voiced by critics and skeptics at the time.
	Indeed, as one article put it, Rice's odd memo.
	Did Obama withhold intel from Trump?
	Yeah, he did a lot more than that.
	He was coordinating a spy campaign meant to drive General Flynn out of office so they could continue to undermine President Trump in the next three years with the combined Russia-gate conspiracy theory scandal that turned out to be nonsense, then the Ukraine-gate impeachment scandal that also turned out to be nonsense.
	As was recognized at the time, Susan Rice's reported unmasking of Trump officials raises very serious legal concerns for her.
	Well now, we know almost every high-ranking official in the Obama administration unmasked General Flynn with even less evidentiary basis to do so.
	Meanwhile, Sally Yates, as this headline reads, Sally Yates should be investigated for her possible role in Watergate-style surveillance.
	The only relationship between this case and Watergate is that this is Watergate on steroids in terms of illicit spying on your political adversaries, and it was done by President Obama and his friends in high places rather than the other way around.
	See, and as we now know, Biden, Comey, Brennan, and others all submitted unmasking requests.
	All should be at the same legal risk as both Sally Yates and Susan Rice.
	And by the way, during the middle of all this, we get news that in fact there's no evidence that Russia ever actually got the emails from the DNC.
	Hidden for over two years, the Democratic cyber firm actually admitted in congressional testimony it had no proof of a Russian hack of the DNC.
	Indeed, it had no proof at all that there was any information exfiltrated ever from any hack of the DNC servers.
	Which brings us back to maybe whether someone else was involved in that information getting out to the public view, as Julian Assange strongly hinted at in the past.
	In the same time frame, we have the long history of issues with Sally Yates and Eric Holder and some of these other officials involved.
	For example, the Justice Department had to announce changes to the Sally Yates memo on individual accountability, where she tried to coerce basically corporations to use their power to sacrifice individuals, including invading their privacy and undermining their constitutional rights.
	It was one of the many flagrant violations she did during her time period.
	Not to mention, if you look up who it was that was expected to protect the Clinton email investigation from ever being uncovered, from the Clinton Foundation case from ever being developed, don't be surprised if you see the exact same name start to pop up.
	Whether it's James Comey and Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok and others on the FBI side, you're also going to find the name Sally Yates prominently featured repeatedly, including in emails leaked by WikiLeaks.
	Indeed, even Politico wrote an article at the time about why Trump had to fire Sally Yates back in 2017 when she tried to grandstand and prevent him from influencing actual foreign policy that the president was elected to do, not her.
	Meanwhile, Eric Holder, one of the key attorney generals that's been pushing an anti-General Flynn agenda to cover for President Obama, as he once put it, he was glad to be President Obama's wingman.
	This article talks about how he returns as a hero to the law firm that lobbies for big banks.
	What's not revealed in this one is that that same law firm at the time was purporting to independently represent General Flynn, giving him the bad, conflicted advice that led to the plea that the judge now wants to somehow call perjury because of what took place.
	Indeed, as Gateway Pundit goes into detail, Obama's wingman Eric Holder goes on MSNBC to trash Attorney General Bill Barr after it was his Covington law firm that withheld 6,800 documents from General Flynn and tried to cover up that information rather than disclose it fully.
	Remember, this is the same Attorney General who was one of the first to be held in contempt for his attempts to cover up the Fast and Furious scandal of prior years.
	Now, not everyone was in the dark about Spygate, though the press deliberately chose to be in the dark.
	And there were others, like Dan Abrams, who told me that I was reckless to even suggest it could happen back in 2017.
	So it reminds me of some articles that I wrote for Law & Crime and Breitbart and other publications that are now archived at my site, as we see all of these things come true day after day after day.
	More than three years ago, I wrote, back three years and two months ago, yes, there could be serious legal problems of Obama administration involved in illegal surveillance.
	And I went through in detail what we now know to actually be true, what I suspected was true at the time, in terms of illicit unmasking, illicit leaking, illicit parallel construction, illicit investigative techniques, using things like entrapment.
	Using things like trying to get someone to lie about something that's not even material and then using it as a pretext to get them fired and to try to get them to plea based on gas-lit information.
	Almost all of it was previewed all the way back then in January of 2017.
	The, as I also mentioned back then, it was on Breitbart Radio about, it's ludicrous to claim Obama never spied on Americans.
	Now we know, in fact, that that claim by the press, by the politicians, by those in the sway of the Democratic class and the Obama defending class and some of your never Trump types, that indeed, Obamagate is real, as even the National Review had to admit today, given the scope and scale of evidence revealed.
	Indeed, as I also wrote back then, the Nunes Memo exposes a worse scandal than Watergate.
	Remember at the time they were saying the Schiff Memo was true and the Nunes Memo was simply made up and fabricated and was conspiracy theory minded.
	We now know it was the Schiff Memo that was conspiracy theory minded and falsifying evidence, while the Nunes Memo has increasingly been proven true and accurate.
	As Stacey Dash commented at the time involving one of my tweet storms or threads, went into detail about how FISA is supposed to work and how there's almost no way they did what they did legally in this context.
	Now we know in fact what they were doing was basically Nixon's plumbers disguised as NSA officials, high-ranking FBI officials, and NSA officials.
	That's in fact what happened.
	That's why Congressman Gohmert at the time quoted my work In a statement he made to Congress, he was also criticized for his comments.
	Now increasingly his comments turned out to understate the scale and severity of the problem that we were having with Spygate such that we need, as Jack Posobiec noted, a new church committee to really fully vet the scale of what took place, the depth of what took place, the depravity of what took place, and how much it threatens all of our civil liberties today.
	That's what led, in part, people like Professor Glenn Reynolds, a friend from the University of Tennessee, talking about, did Obama spy on Trump?
	Yeah, he did.
	And now we know it beyond any doubt.
	Indeed, a good summation of what took place and what transpired is by Tucker Carlson himself.
	Let's take a look at video clip 19.
	Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight.
	On Inauguration Day 2017, it's likely that not 1 in 100,000 Americans was thinking about Russia.
	It was the last thing most people were thinking about.
	The Cold War had ended peacefully more than 25 years before.
	Moscow was no longer America's main strategic rival, as it had been for 50 years.
	Russia had been downgraded instead to the status of a regional power, consumed with disputes with obscure places like Ukraine.
	In the American media, there were more stories about Russian alcoholism than there were about Russian ICBMs.
	But in the White House in Washington that morning, Russia was very much the main topic.
	It was January 20th, the last day of the Obama administration.
	Outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice sat down at her desk to write her final memo.
	Rice described the presidential transition, which had been underway for months.
	Then she wrote this.
	During a meeting two weeks before, quote, President Obama said he wants to be sure that as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
	Now, Rice did not explain why Obama's staff felt it might not be possible to give intelligence on Russia to Donald Trump's staff, or for that matter, why the Obama people thought they had the right to withhold national security information from an incoming American president who had just won a national election.
	But Rice didn't need to elaborate.
	There was only one possible explanation for this.
	Donald Trump could very well be a Russian agent.
	Barack Obama himself said he believed that was possible.
	In Rice's words, quote, the president asked Jim Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.
	Comey said he would.
	Now what exactly does that mean?
	Here's what it means.
	The President of the United States turned to the head of the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement official in America, and said, continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so that I can act against him.
	Comey's response?
	Yes, sir.
	That's what Obama was saying, openly.
	In any normal period in American history, this exchange would define Barack Obama forever.
	Obama would be known as the disgraced former president who used federal law enforcement to hurt his political enemies.
	That's what he did.
	Unfortunately, this is not a normal period.
	Already today, Obama's order that Comey investigate Donald Trump has been relegated to a little-known footnote.
	Joe Biden happened to be sitting in the room when this happened.
	Has Biden ever been asked about that?
	It's possible he never has been.
	Most media outlets have ignored the origins of the Russia conspiracy hoax completely.
	And as a result of that, Barack Obama's plan to derail his successor unfolded with very little opposition along the way, including from Republicans.
	The entire country, therefore, spent the first three years of the Trump administration hyperventilating about Russian collusion that did not exist.
	Susan Rice assiduously did her part to help it along.
	Here's Rice in July of 2017, a year and a half later, suggesting on network television that the President of the United States was indeed working for Vladimir Putin.
	He's taken a series of steps that had Vladimir Putin dictated them he couldn't have mirrored more effectively.
	What his motivations are I think is a legitimate question.
	One that I trust that the special counsel is investigating.
	But the policies that this president has pursued globally have served Vladimir Putin's interest in dividing the West, undermining democracy.
	Does that mean you think it's an open question whether or not he's compromised by Russia?
	George, I don't know what his motivations are.
	I think that's a legitimate question.
	In fact, it was never a, quote, legitimate question.
	It was a reckless slur, the most reckless possible slur, the kind that damages a whole country along with a politician it's aimed at.
	Rice knew perfectly well there was no evidence at all that Donald Trump had ever worked for Russia.
	We know that she believed that because she admitted as much under oath in a closed-door hearing in Congress.
	As Rice explained to the House Intelligence Committee, the reason she was willing to accuse Trump officials of treason against their own country was that some of them seemed unduly worried about the rise of China.
	Here's what Susan Rice, for example, said about General Michael Flynn.
	Quote, General Flynn's focus was on China as our principal overarching adversary.
	He had many questions and concerns about China.
	And when I sought to elicit his perspective on Russia, he downplayed his assessment of Russia as a threat to the United States.
	He called it overblown.
	He said they're a declining power.
	They're demographically challenged.
	They're not really much of a threat.
	And then reemphasized the importance of China.
	I had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit sensitive to the question of the nature of General Flynn's engagements with the Russians.
	Thank you.
	Did you follow that?
	Because Michael Flynn correctly described Russia as a declining power, and then went on to criticize Susan Rice's close friends in the Chinese government, Susan Rice concluded that General Flynn must be a Putin spy.
	This is idiotic and it's crazy.
	It's hard to believe that Susan Rice was once National Security Advisor of the United States, but she was.
	Evelyn Farkas was once Barack Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.
	Farkas repeatedly went on television to say there was ample evidence the Trump administration was colluding with Russia.
	And yet, like Susan Rice, Farkas said something completely different under oath before Congress.
	Quote, I didn't know anything, she admitted.
	Now we quoted Evelyn Farkas saying that on this show on Friday.
	Farkas responded to us by claiming that we were quote, missing some key facts.
	Now, originally she agreed to come on tonight and explain what those key facts might be.
	She is running for Congress now in New York.
	Unfortunately then, Evelyn Farkas backed out, but we fervently hope she comes back to tell us what those might be.
	We'd like to speak to Barack Obama, too.
	That's unlikely, so we'll have to settle for what he has told his friends.
	On Friday, Obama had a purportedly private call with supporters that, of course, was immediately leaked to the media.
	In it, the man whose six law enforcement on his political rivals accused the current administration of undermining the rule of law.
	That's the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic, not just institutional norms, but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.
	Institutional norms.
	These people are nothing if not predictable.
	What you just heard, as always, was textbook projection.
	You see it again and again and again.
	What they accuse you of doing, they are eagerly doing themselves.
	The rule of law, Yelps Obama!
	It's almost amusing.
	The press doesn't find it funny in the slightest.
	They see no irony at all.
	They repeat it verbatim with solemn faces.
	Over the weekend, Chuck Todd of NBC accused the Attorney General Bill Barr of gutting the rule of law, of ignoring it completely.
	And to prove that, Chuck Todd used what seemed to be quite a damning quote.
	Watch this.
	I want you to listen to this Bill Barr answer to a question about what will history say about this.
	Wait till you hear this answer.
	Take a listen.
	When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written?
	Well, history is written by the winner, so it largely depends on who's writing the history.
	I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of the answer.
	It's a correct answer, but he's the Attorney General.
	He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law.
	Struck by the cynicism.
	Chuck Todd, who is married to a political consultant, was just struck by the cynicism.
	He could barely believe it.
	He was stunned.
	Bill Barr didn't even mention upholding the rule of law.
	Kind of a major admission, omission for an Attorney General.
	But wait.
	It turns out that Bill Barr did mention the rule of law.
	It was at the center of his answer.
	That was a CBS tape.
	NBC got a hold of it and edited out the words to distort Bill Barr's meaning.
	We have the real tape.
	Here it is.
	When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written?
	Well, history is written by the winner, so it largely depends on who's writing the history.
	But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.
	Yeah.
	To be clear, Catherine Herridge did not edit that tape.
	She did a straightforward interview.
	NBC News edited the tape.
	Now if you're shocked that a news network could be that openly and aggressively dishonest, so buffoonishly dishonest, then you haven't been paying very close attention for the past four years.
	They've been doing it since day one with the Russia hoax, and they don't plan to stop now.
	Time frame in which the FBI has made a mockery of investigative integrity.
	When the Justice Department has made a mockery of justices itself.
	When a transition team designed to help the new government spied on it and undermined it instead.
	When lawyers who have the duty of zealous advocacy have instead often become muted puppets for corruption and malfeasance.
	We need a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

▲