All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
32:45
Trump And Putin To The Slammer?

In what increasingly looks like the politicization of justice, last week saw the International Criminal Court (not recognized by the US) indict Russian president Vladimir Putin for allegedly sending children out of the Ukraine war zone and this week former President Donald Trump says he may be arrested and charged with a "crime" that looks very shaky. Also today: US says "no ceasefire" for Ukraine. And finally...about that drone.

|

Time Text
Wake Up About January 6th 00:14:15
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
I'm doing fine and dandy.
Thank you.
All right.
We're going to try to help out here by understanding.
First, we have to understand that.
Yeah, that's the truth.
Anyway, we have something that it's not fully understood by anybody yet, but we're going to talk a little bit about it.
But one of the big things here in the news has been what are they going to do to Donald Trump tomorrow?
I mean, are they going to prosecute him or persecute him or what are they going to do?
Boy, I'll tell you what, they say that he's going to be indicted and handcuffed, maybe, but who knows what's going on.
But I'll tell you what, there's been a few articles lately about this incident.
And the one person that we have high regards for has written extensively on this, and he has credibility in that.
That is Jonathan Turley.
He's written about it.
He sort of straightens things out.
He thinks this is a farce.
He says it's more designed for a TV program than it is for justice at all.
But that's nothing new.
And when he was criticizing what's going on here, I thought, is it a whole lot better than the trials of January 6th?
Yeah.
Trying those people.
And people, I mean, some of the stories out of January 6th are just horrible.
You know, guys have been in there for 10 minutes and did nothing, didn't touch anything, and ended up in prison.
So it's disgusting.
So this is more of this thing.
But when you look at the detail, it becomes rather bizarre.
It seems like there's a district attorney in Manhattan that's really gunning for Trump.
But you know what?
It's a secret, and we shouldn't tell anybody about it.
But this district attorney, because we don't want to be biased in any way whatsoever, this attorney, I think it was reported that he got a million dollars for his reinvestment campaign.
From who?
From Soros, right?
Yeah, yeah.
He's a Soros camp.
But people are going around and finding out that there's, and that's the one thing I sort of gave a type of credit to Soros to know to go to some of the low-level offices and judges around the country.
And they have them wrong placed.
And that's sometimes why it seems like a lot more people are supporting these lockdowns and other things than you'd ever guess.
But Soros used a lot of money to do this, and he even put money in here.
But this whole case is really bizarre.
You know, it could well have been a misdemeanor, but the statute of limits ran out.
So now they had to artificially convert it to an FEC, an election thing, and make it a federal felony.
So the one thing is it is so bad, but it's terrible that people suffer, whether it's January 6th or not.
It's evidence how lack of respect our judicial system deserves.
I mean, this has to be looked at by more among people.
I just can't believe this is happening.
But then again, the opposition, the enemies of Trump, including some Republicans, oh, this is it.
We've got to get this guy.
I don't know.
I mean, Trump has his problems, but I don't know why they're hysterical.
You know, there's a lot of political problems out there.
But boy, they seem to hang on to that and they just love it.
Maybe we'll put him in prison.
But of course, if something ten times worse happened to be performed by Hillary, she doesn't, I bet her wrists don't look bad at all.
She didn't get a slap on her wrist.
Anyway, there's not a lot of justice out there.
So let's hope we can add something positive about this issue.
The funny thing, like you say, the more they think they're hurting him, the more they actually help him.
This helps him a lot.
His campaign right now is sort of like in the water, not doing much.
All of a sudden, it's focused people's minds on his campaign like a laser and reminded him that the people who hate him are very nasty people.
And the other thing about the Soros thing, which I think is ironic, because Soros' whole thing, he escaped Hungary in World War II, whatever, and became rich, who knows how.
And then he started funding the open society.
But what's interesting is that what he's funding is really not an open society because this is literally, this is politicized justice.
And that's the hallmark of the totalitarian systems that he supposedly escaped where all justice is subject to the political whim of the state, of the power.
That's not an open society whatsoever.
Well, that's not too unusual.
All this nonsense that went on with wokeism and lockdowns, everything was based on the opposite.
If they're doing something terrible and lying, then of course they flip it around and blame their enemies of the same thing and put them on the defensive.
It works for them until people start to wake up.
And they certainly did wake up with lockdown.
I think there's a lot more people should wake up about the denial of information for the trial for January 6th.
This is pretty amazing that this material, oh, and people who are going to release it or something, they get upset.
Why are you releasing this material?
We don't want them to know the truth.
So it's a real pity.
And this is an example that I think we should be very grateful that Jonathan puts the time and effort puts his effort into explaining this thing.
Because he does have intellectual credibility.
And he's been a professor.
And I think he does an excellent job.
Yeah, and he's known as having an absolutely fair hand.
He's definitely not a Trump supporter.
There's no question about it.
But he's able to look across it without the hysteria and look at what's happening.
But, you know, Trump also has a keen eye to what his supporters want.
And so he's the one that first announced, hey, I'm going to get arrested on Tuesday.
And that got everyone all fired up.
So in fact, he's using what they're doing to his own political advantage, which shows that for all of his other faults, he's pretty astute as a politician.
Well, let's put this up now.
We've been talking about Turley's piece.
And we actually put this up at the Ron Paul Institute as well.
But it's a column that he wrote for The Hill a day or so ago.
America's Got Trump.
Get ready for a truly made-for-TV prosecution.
And I think it's appropriate that he's kind of making fun of the game show aspect or the reality TV aspect of what's happening.
And go to the next one because he's talking about the Manhattan DA brag.
And he says, although it may be politically popular, the case is legally pathetic.
Bragg is struggling to twist state laws to effectively prosecute a federal case long ago rejected by the Justice Department against Trump over his payment of, quote, hush money to former stripper Stormy Daniels in 2018.
Yes, that's how long this theory has been around.
And Turley says, I wrote then about how difficult such a federal case would be under existing election laws.
Now, six years later, the same theory may be shoehorned into a state claim.
So, like you say, and I'm not a legal mind, I'm barely a mind, but the way they have contorted and pretzelized this from a state case into now a federal FEC thing is really something to behold.
Yeah, and if he ever gets close to a case that maybe Jonathan Turley might say, well, that seems to be reasonable that maybe should be pursuing that.
They drop it.
Anything that looks technically because they're obviously, their hands aren't clean.
But if I, you know, the thing that a lot of people are wondering today is, what are they going to do tomorrow?
Is there going to be fanfare?
Will he see?
People want to know if there will be handcuffs.
I think that Trump, you know, you point out that he's still building a TV audience.
He goes out there and makes his announcement, and that's what you do when you want to get more viewers.
And that must just drive them nuts.
All they want to do is punish.
And it's a shame that we have to be cautious because unfortunately, his tour in politics, sometimes he's not as libertarian as we would like.
Yeah.
For sure.
Well, Turley points out a couple of important precedents.
And one is John Edwards, who ran for president.
And he, this is Turley himself saying, it was a much stronger charge of him using his campaign funds to cover up an affair with a woman, obviously not his wife.
He actually used funds.
Nothing happened to him.
He points out that the Hillary camp was only fined by the FEC for using their campaign funds to fund the Steele dossier, obviously a pack of lies against Trump.
So nothing really happened to them.
At most, this would have been a misdemeanor.
And as you suggested in your opening, that had a two-year statute of limitations, which has already run out because it's been six years since this happened.
So they're really grasping at straws here.
And they may well end up falling down in the dirt.
You know, I can't see where they're going to gain a whole lot.
It sort of fits the view that sometimes it's difficult, even for a messed up society, to yield to the truth.
And the truth, they can't quite destroy it all.
They can distort it and punish people and prosecute people.
But on the long run, hopefully we can be optimistic enough that people do wake up and they feel better about hearing the truth.
But in the meantime, one of the worst places to try to sort out this truth business is in politics.
Politics, you know, when you talk about the appearance of what's going on in the court system, and it's Soros plus a lot of money doing something, but if you go out and do an honest poll, you'd find that I think most people would agree with us on our principles, but it's not backed up by billions of dollars in propaganda and university professors and doctors, even the physicians who flipped on the COVID stuff.
That to me was so disgusting.
But I still believe that people have to work harder at getting the truth out.
And we still have Elon Musk to maybe pull the rabbit out of the hat.
Yeah, well, speaking of Musk, I mean, he had a great tweet right after Trump announced that he may be arrested.
He said, if this happens, Trump will be re-elected in a landside victory.
So that's an interesting take on the whole thing.
I didn't want to do one other thing because we're talking about what appears to us at least to be politicized justice.
And that is, you know, within the span of a couple of days, we're expecting maybe the Trump indictment today or tomorrow.
Who knows?
But at the end of last week, we saw the International Criminal Court.
Now, this is a thing that you fought against for a long time when you were in the House, and we can talk about that.
But they issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, saying that he was the crime of unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.
Apparently, the children in Ukraine, in the war zones, were sent to Russia out of danger.
But nevertheless, the ICC issued an arrest warrant.
But what's interesting, if we can actually put that up, this is from the Hill.
This will just tell you what happened.
This was a couple of days ago.
But Michael Tracy, who's very astute, I have to say, there are a lot of things that are wrong with this and weird about it, including the fact that the ICC is not recognized by the United States.
It's not recognized by Russia.
It's not recognized by China.
It's not recognized by India.
In fact, most of the world does not recognize it at all, its authority.
But Michael Tracy, if we can go to the next one, he makes a couple of interesting points.
So where did the evidence come from, quote-unquote, evidence come from, that Putin and also Maria Lvova-Belova, she was also issued an arrest warrant.
She is a Russian government official responsible for children's issues, I think.
But anyway, so where did the evidence come from that the ICC used to indict him?
And this is Michael Tracy.
He says, the report on the alleged deportation of children from Ukraine was funded by the State Department.
And it was cited by Biden in his Poland speech last month.
It names Putin and Lvova Belova as the main culprits, exactly mirroring the ICC arrest warrant.
And the methodology is just crazy.
So the methodology of the State Department report is crazy.
If you do the next, and if I can, just to have your indulgence, Dr. Paul, if we can put the next one up, the methodology for this report, which was the basis of the arrest warrant, is crazy.
And here's Michael Tracy.
The authors of this report expressly disclose that they conducted no interviews with alleged victims or witnesses.
Instead, their data was collected from sites like Telegram and Twitter, plus local Ukraine media outlets, other NGOs, and official communications of government.
They did no investigation, Dr. Paul.
They simply flipped on Twitter and said, we got him.
We got Putin.
Governments Want Globalism 00:04:03
Let's do the next one and go through it really quick.
There's just two more, if you'll indulge me.
And he says, I don't know if it's just an eerie coincidence that the arrest warrant issued last week against Putin perfectly mirrors a widely circulated State Department report, but if not, it's mind-blowing that they would have relied on such methodology.
And here he says, what is known is that the State Department has been one of the conduits through which the U.S. government has actively engaged in international criminal court proceedings against Russian officials.
So we don't recognize the court, but the State Department and the U.S. Justice Department is interacting with the court to send over indictments and to send over info to try to get regime change in Russia.
And here's something interesting.
Someone commented under Michael Tracy's thread here, pointing out something, Dr. Paul, which I think might even be the smoking gun, if we can put this.
This was a couple of weeks before the ICC issued its indictment.
Here is none other than Merrick Garland going to visit the head of the International Criminal Court.
They had a little meeting, and shortly after that meeting, they issue an arrest warrant for Putin.
Something is very fishy here, Dr. Paul.
You know, when we talked about this years ago, the issue was not so much should there be one of these judicial systems, but it was who's going to be in charge?
Who's going to be the decider?
Will one country have the edge over the other?
So it ended up that some just wouldn't join, but they use it, you know, to their delight or when they want to use it, but to ignore it when they want to do that.
But you know, the whole principle of the internationalism and the globalism on all issues, whether it's economic policy or medical policy or whatever, tends to backfire.
And if you start with misdemeanors, at least the minor misdemeanors, my thoughts on that were when I was growing up, yeah, there were such things.
People got tickets for driving too fast.
It was always a misdemeanor, and it was in your town, and you had very local people who were responsible and responsive to the voter, actually.
And you didn't have this.
But no, now it's not the local community in charge of the misdemeanor.
Matter of fact, if a misdemeanor can be just a weapon, and converting the misdemeanor into a felony.
And in a way, it's been settled.
It was turned down and it was never ruled again.
Nobody was ever punished for it.
And that, I think, is the big problem is that people want local control.
The governments want more globalism.
So we have the cities, we have the states, we have the counties, we have a country, and then we have to have organizations.
We have to, I mean, how are we going to have justice for NATO if we don't have an international criminal court?
But somebody who might be the provoker of all wars will be probably in the charge of the courts, which is unfortunately the case here.
Because when you look at what's happened here in these last five years or so, at least since 2016, that the judicial system has deteriorated so badly that I think most people think, well, what's the first question they had?
Oh, somebody's in trouble, and it's very controversial.
We don't know who he's guilty or not, but he's going to have a trial.
And the first question is, is he a Republican or a Democrat?
Is the judge a Republican or a Democrat?
It's always owned by the party.
And they say that's one of the characteristics of a total dictatorship.
Are you a party member?
Yeah, exactly.
Well, I remember when the ICC was coming through the House, and you were absolutely opposed to it, and you had opposition.
Weakening U.S. Influence 00:09:56
Both the progressives and the conservatives did not like your position.
The progressives loved it because they loved the idea of globalism and they loved having a global entity that could prosecute bad guys.
The conservatives disagree with you because they wanted to control it.
We can use this as an arm of our foreign policy.
We'll get rid of Milosevic.
We'll get rid of all these guys.
So neither of them got what your point was, which is that it's dangerous, as you just said, to have unelected people in charge of justice.
Yeah, I remember it was one of the few times that I would take a stab at, you know, just having a conversation by, and the Republicans were in charge, so I went to Republican leadership.
Very sincerely and honestly, and I said, you know, I've done a little work on this.
Would you take a look at what I think we should do and why we should do it for the International Criminal Court?
And I can't, I don't have a picture of it, but it was sort of like turning up their nose.
Don't bother us.
We don't even listen to you.
But it's on the record.
Well, the final thing about this is the Germans says it will, Germany says it'll execute this arrest warrant if Putin dares set foot on its territory.
And I'll just say there's another own goal for the Germans because what this does essentially is completely closes the door for any kind of diplomacy with Russia and Europe.
So they've really stepped in at this time, unfortunately.
But I'm going to go ahead and remind our viewers first show of the week of our sponsor, 4patriots.com.
You need to take care of your family and yourselves when we have a food crisis and we are in the middle of a food crisis.
We're sitting around watching banks fail left and right, bailouts in the billions.
We know what that means.
That means inflation or worse.
The great people at 4patriots.com, the number 4patriots.com, provide everything you need to survive, including terrific three-month survival kit, which is their most preferred product, breakfast, lunch, dinner, delicious, lots of variety.
Enter in RON for your 10% discount on your first order.
Give it a try.
See what you think.
Free shipping for orders of $97 or more.
Delicious food.
Take care of your family.
You can put it away for decades in sturdy storage containers, which they provide.
4Patriots.com.
Enter RON for your discount.
And we'll put a link in the bottom where you can go ahead and give it a shot.
So let's move on to the next one, because this is a little bit surprising, because the U.S. said, Dr. Paul, that everything is up to Ukraine.
Everything is up to Ukraine.
They can talk, they cannot talk.
Well, put on that next clip because it doesn't seem that's the case.
This is from our friends at anti-war.com and Dave DeCamp.
White House says it opposes a ceasefire in Ukraine.
You guys keep fighting.
You know, isn't that sick?
Yeah, you know, it is.
It is sick.
It really is.
And I can just imagine them stay away from us.
Our job is we're in charge of starting wars.
It's not our responsibility to stop these wars, but they won't even talk to them.
There's a bit of irony here that you have two countries that we consider the worst countries in the world where the China and the Russians might talk about how can we bring about peace in Ukraine.
We don't want to have any part of this.
But you know, the propaganda is pretty steady because they never, essentially, mention the fact that how did this thing explode in 2014?
Well, the Russians invaded Ukraine, you know.
Russians invaded and Russia's invaded, but they never, never point out exactly what was going on.
A little bit before 2014, and even in 2014, what was going on.
So, yes, the propaganda is a powerful, powerful tool.
And it just seems like, what is the motivation?
Well, there's a lot of motivations, money and power, and who knows what, but they're doing things which seem so really stupid and dangerous and costly.
But they keep doing it.
And you'd think there's a fair amount of history recorded that would indicate that not a whole lot is gained by wars.
I think people have made the statement that there are no winners.
Well, there's sometimes temporary winners.
And there are a few times when the good guys win.
But most of the time, you know, when you look at us getting involved in our Civil War, and what about the Spanish-American War?
What about World War I?
Yeah.
You know, the war to make the world safe for democracy.
Oh, yeah, that's really been safe.
Yeah.
Well, you know, the Chinese had a kind of a roadmap for peace, you know, in Ukraine and Russia.
And according to what Dave DeCamp reported, Zelensky expressed openness to China's proposal, but it was immediately rejected by President Biden.
And let's do that next clip because this is what Biden said through his spokesperson, John Kirby.
John Kirby says, we don't support calls for a ceasefire right now.
We certainly don't support calls for a ceasefire that would be called for by the PRC, People's Republic of China, in a meeting in Moscow that would simply benefit Russia.
So I think the backdrop to this whole thing, Dr. Paul, is the increasing irrelevance of the U.S. on the world stage because the PRC, and we've talked about this last week, they're coming off a massive victory in reestablishing diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
That's historic.
It was because of them they were brokering this.
We were enjoying the enmity between the two.
And China came in.
And now, I think I read the news this morning, for the first time in 25 years, the king of Saudi Arabia is inviting the Iranian president for a visit to Saudi Arabia.
This is astonishing, and it was all brokered by the PRC.
And so I think what we're saying when we look at what Kirby says is that the U.S. is panicking over the fact that China is going around the world making peace in these conflicts that the U.S. love to keep stirred up.
I don't think our leaders are quite aware of the shakiness of our system.
And they think that we can keep going on and on.
We're still in charge.
We still have the military power.
We still have the dollar, and people will have to do this.
Nobody cares about our deficits.
And it goes on and on.
But the thing of it is, what they don't realize is how fragile the system is.
And just think this past week when there was a little deal in the banking system, and it was contained by ramping up the printing presses and give everybody free money.
But what we have on the surface, you can make the case we still are the kingpins.
We have more nukes than they have.
So we run the show.
But I tell you, the empire is very weak.
And I think what you were talking about there shows the weakening of the power of our empire.
Some people must get to the point where, you know, even the money and local politics is important.
It's this strategy of who's controlling the world, you know, who's the superpower.
And we've had a lot of people here.
It's pretty annoying when I see some conservatives in the Congress who are respected for some of their views, but then they're so gun-ho about making sure that we don't look weak and that we have to make sure that we have control of it.
And by golly, nobody's going to settle the peace in Ukraine.
It's our money and our weapons.
And they respond to us.
Well, when we run out of money or the money runs out of value, they're going to listen to us a lot less.
You make a really great point because their argument, and it's always, we can't be made to look weak.
We can't look weak.
And in fact, we look weak because the more we go around yelling at other countries, the more they start saying, you know what, buzz off.
We're tired of you.
And we actually do look weak.
We couldn't bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together.
We couldn't solve the problem between Syria and Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
The three of them are getting together.
United Arab Emirates, Assad, was in the UAE.
I think he is right now in the UAE.
These guys were like this for years.
And now that was all brokered by Turkey and China.
So, yeah, we do look weak.
We want to say one quick thing about this article that you noticed, Dr. Paul, and I had a look at this morning.
If we can do this next one, this is from Strategic Culture Foundation, and it's an interesting article about that drone crash.
And I don't think we've heard the end of it, and I think that's what your view is, and I know you're right on this.
But if we can go to the next clip, one of the points that was made in the article, and I know you have a couple points that you saw in it, was just that he doesn't believe, the author of this is an in-house editorial, the idea that the video released by the Pentagon was accurate, he calls into question because he talks about dumping fuel and then the claim, which we did not see, that the Russian jet hit the drone.
And the point that they make is that it stretches credulity and the law of physics to believe that such a collision could take place without causing a mid-air explosion of both aircraft, especially considering that the American drone had been drenched in aviation fuel before the alleged high-speed hit.
Commissions and Conspiracy 00:02:58
So it feels like some spin is going on here about it.
And the way I look at the odds of us getting the good information is, you know, somebody is liable to say, well, this is important.
Let's have a commission.
Let's have a commission in Washington and put all the people who orchestrated this thing and put them in charge of the commission like they have in the past.
And I've complained about that for years, that the commissions are there to either shift blame or, you know, cause problems for them, but not to find the truth of all.
But the commissions, and right now, we don't know.
But can we ask, I'm mocking on purpose, you know, government commissions because they're always political.
But what about it, you know, paying attention, instead of taking a whistleblower and a journalist that's doing a decent job, instead of making them criminals, criminalizing the journalists themselves personally, that is where the real problem is.
So there's still a few of them out there.
We've already quoted one that we think is a pretty darn good journalist today, is Turley.
And there are others out there, and DeCamp has been good on the foreign policy.
So they are there, and they're so much more powerful than a wimp that just cites the garbage.
Because eventually people get, you know, catch on, and they're eliminated psychologically and professionally and everything else.
And they may be still making noise, but eventually they just are shunned and rightfully show.
Well, I'm going to close out if you think we're done, Dr. Paul.
I want to thank our audience.
I'm looking here watching the live chat.
All the crew is in the house having a little chat.
So we're happy to see that.
If you're watching the show and you're not participating in the chat, go ahead and give it a shot.
Throw something out there.
See what happens.
Also, please hit like.
Please subscribe to our channel, Dr. Paul.
We're getting close to 300,000 followers, and we're going to report that when we get there.
So that's great news.
It's easy to support us without spending a penny.
Just pass the word on, watch the show, like the show.
But if you do want to support us, go to ronpaulinstitute.org and you can make a tax-deductible donation to the report.
But whatever the case, we appreciate you watching and helping us bring our numbers constantly higher.
Yeah, I'm going to finish up by making and repeating a little bit of the comments about the drone.
And the article that we looked at from Strategic Culture, it starts off with, a $32 million drone buried unceremoniously at sea says a lot about a failing empire.
And there are others joining in that sentiment.
But then it follows up, and it makes the point that we have made so many times.
What are we doing over there?
I mean, even in a practical sense, you know, say you wanted to have an empire.
Wise Foreign Policy? 00:01:17
Is it wise to think that we have to start a war in Ukraine and participate?
And how many people are going to die?
How long will other people die for our foreign policy?
But as far as a U.S. spy plane operating 8,000 kilometers from Washington on Russian borders, helping a Nazi regime, that may be a stress for some, but there's some people who claim that there's a little bit of fascism that they're dealing with.
Regime at war against Russia crashes into the Black Sea, and yet, insanely, Moscow is a reign for taking defensive action.
So we can take defensive action, but no.
So it's not a fair system.
So that's why I think the basic principle is what we talk about so much.
Have a principle, and the principle in foreign policy is not complex because the founders understood it, advised it, and said that we shouldn't fight wars unless they're declared.
We shouldn't fight war with fiat money.
You can't print money.
And that you should be friends with as many people as you can, and you should trade with people as much as you can.
And a non-interventionist foreign policy is the very best way to go if anybody has the slightest interest in peace and prosperity.
Export Selection