All Episodes
Previous Next
May 22, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
29:48
Banana Republic! 'Deadly Force' Authorized For Trump Raid!

According to newly-released court documents on the 2022 raid of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, "deadly force" was authorized by President Biden's Department of Justice. What were they thinking? A shootout between Secret Service and the FBI? Also today: good news from Kentucky. Finally: Sen. Paul Puts Secretary of State Blinken on a very hot grill.

|

Time Text
Another Kentucky Victory 00:09:55
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Good.
Are you all set to go?
Yes, I hope so.
You have a lot of information?
I have a little bit.
A little political, a little economic, a little foreign policy.
A little bit about telling the truth about what liberty is all about.
Yes.
Okay, I want to start off with, you know, we're going to be talking a little bit about the contest between the FBI and the Secret Service.
That'll be one of our main topics.
But before we do that, we thought we'd give a little bit of a boost and a shout out and saying, well, there's a victory.
There's a victory.
We're not totally surprised about the victory, but the size of the victory was great.
But the best part was that somebody had to have the last laugh of the people who were gunning for our friend Thomas Massey.
But Thomas Massey showed him.
And I think he did quite well on the vote.
He had 75.9% of the vote.
But there were two hand-picked Republicans, you know, figuring that they could undo his popularity.
And they each had 12%.
So that showed that he did very well.
And to me, I think that's wonderful.
But Thomas, you know, was rather bold.
He wasn't going to just walk away and smirk about the whole thing.
He had the needle in them a little bit.
He had to go after them and taunt AIPAC because they're the ones that supported him.
And others did.
But I was just wondering a few minutes ago before we started about how much money they were going to spend or plan to spend.
But I figured, well, that's like a Democrat.
They're going to waste their money.
So if they did spend any money trying to get rid of him, at least in this primary, it didn't work.
And they're not going to be any more successful in the general election.
So that certainly is good news.
And I think it goes to show that he can't be universally voted for and have all this political strength just because he's an ordinary Republican.
I think it's because he's not an ordinary Republican.
He's more than that.
He's a constitutionalist libertarian who people can believe.
And I'll bet you anybody there are people in his district that said, well, Thomas, some of your votes, I don't agree with them all, but I know you're going to tell us the truth.
And I think that's why he's popular.
So I was delighted to see the result.
Yeah, a big result for him.
We can put up this Think Zero Hedge captures the spirit of it.
He says, Massey taunts APAC after demolishing primary challengers.
He starts out by saying, despite having been talking about the most powerful pro-Israel political organization operating in America, Libertarian-minded Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massey stomped his two Republican primary challengers on Tuesday.
He cruised to a 76% of the vote victory.
As you point out, Dr. Paul, his two challengers even combined wouldn't have been a serious challenge to him.
Now, if you go to the next one, here's Massey on his victory, and I think he explains very well.
It's not, as you always say, Dr. Paul, it's not that complicated.
Here's why he keeps getting elected.
Here's Massey.
Tonight's victory is a referendum on thousands of independent votes I have cast in Washington, D.C. on behalf of Kentucky's 4th District.
I've consistently upheld the Constitution by voting for and sponsoring legislation to support the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy.
I've also fought against endless foreign wars, foreign aid, and inflationary policies, regardless of who was in the White House, in that part especially, because we know that he's tangled with Trump when Tump was president.
And I think, you know, this is really where, in some ways, APAC shows themselves to be somewhat lazy and stupid because they wanted to simplify Massey's votes by saying, oh, he just hates Israel.
He hates Jewish people.
When in fact, anyone who knows anything about him, and that includes a lot of voters, obviously, in the 4th District of Kentucky, know that that's absolutely not the case whatsoever.
He doesn't like foreign aid, and he won't vote for it.
Very simple.
So they wanted to tar him.
They wanted to shame him over this as if he's some kind of a hater.
The fact is, he's not.
He's pro-American.
And that's why I think we all won yesterday with his victory.
You know, I think in a way the vote was on the Constitution because that is what he defends.
And he took it so seriously.
And others have, you know, when I was there, at times I was criticized.
Well, the Constitution is not a rigid document.
It's a living, breathing document.
It has to be flexible.
And the time that it was pointed out to me, why are you voting against this and that?
Oh, that part of the Constitution about declaring war.
That's anachronistic.
We won't follow that anymore.
But fortunately for us, Thomas is carrying the torch, and he does a great job.
And the messy, why it should be encouraging to all of us, he hasn't suffered from it.
He's more popular than ever, which means that most people are not average Democrats and most people aren't average Republicans.
And sometimes it's harder.
I would like to argue that there's some flexibility in both sides.
But on some other days, it looks like they're bullheaded and they're destined to hate Trump or follow the rigid rules of the party and make the party the king.
But this to me, I say, is a positive thing for the Constitution and that the people who are running for office, the ones that are in office, if they're in a close race or they're thinking about running for office, that it's not necessary to cave in on the issues.
I think you get more rewards and you'll get criticisms.
But here, he took a vote on Israel and I was supposed to doom him.
Yet, you know, people said, well, he's voting his principles.
He says, that's the way I vote for all the countries.
I vote against foreign aid for everybody.
So I was saying, you know, that makes sense.
So that's wonderful.
And I think it did upset him that they tried to tar him as some kind of a biased, a prejudiced person.
And so I think after this, I think he did a little bit of a victory lap, which is deserved.
And I want to show a couple of those little victory lap tweets that he put out.
Put on the next one.
Actually, skip the next one and go to the one where it starts with first after spending.
There we go.
So this was retweeted by Glenn Greenwald.
So Massey is retweeting APAC saying, we're shining a spotlight on his atrocious anti-Israel record and making sure every Kentuckian knows that he votes with AOC, da-da-da-da-da.
And so what they said, this APAC tweet said, is that we weren't playing in Massey's primary.
And Massey said, first, after spending $400K, smearing me and watching me, we get 75% of the race tonight.
Now they claim they weren't playing in the race.
They deserve the ratio here.
So that was a good one.
And then there's the next one that he did on his victory lap.
He said, APAC announced they were spending $300,000 against me statewide to run negative ads.
Well, we raised $100,000 on the blowback.
Then Protect Freedom PAC began running $300,000 of the ad below, supporting me statewide.
AIPAC, your smear campaign.
on this American has backfired.
So I think that was a well-deserved kind of victory lap saying you smeared me as being intolerant, as being a prejudiced person, and my victory is beating you guys out for that.
It is great.
Yeah.
And I hope others would learn a lesson from it too.
Yeah, exactly.
It's never, you know, even if telling the truth is unpopular at times, and even if it's a setback, people should crawl in a corner and say, well, I have to become more political, you know, because I want to be in office to save the country and save the Constitution.
And it's not necessary to do that.
So I think that's why this is such a good story.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention another victory from Kentucky yesterday.
And the outcome wasn't as guaranteed.
I felt that Massey was guaranteed.
But anyway, put up the next one.
This is our good friend TJ Roberts.
Now, he was running for the State House in District 66 of Kentucky.
And he won a great victory yesterday.
We've had TJ on the show back in January.
TJ is a great friend of ours.
In fact, he was a Ron Paul scholar the first year we held the Ron Paul Scholars Seminar.
That's how we got to know him.
We could see his leadership qualities from very early on.
And it's really great to see him being rewarded for his hard fighting.
That was a hard race.
He kept me updated on everything that was going on.
That was a tough race to win, and he won it.
So he will probably most likely be going on that as a Republican district to represent 66 in the Kentucky legislature.
We expect a lot more from TJ in the future.
He's really one of the bright stars, I think, that's going to be shining for a long time.
So congrats to TJ.
Happy to see the victory.
Very good.
Documents Reveal FBI Dispute 00:11:30
Yeah, well, let's move on to something a little bit more shocking.
And that is something that came out yesterday.
There was a new court filing of unsealed documents from the August 22nd raid on Mar-a-Lago.
And the stuff that was in these court documents was shocking.
Put on the next clip, deadly force was an option.
New documents show FBI agents were prepared for Secret Service resistance at Mar-a-Lago.
Dr. Paul, this sounds like something out of the Banana Republic.
Yeah, you know, I called you when I was reading this, and I've already seen it.
You already knew I'd be upset about this.
This hits to the really, to the nitty-gritty thing of what's going on.
To me, this is the total blunt rejection of the principle of a republic because all of a sudden, but a lot of people have known this for a while.
You know, the campaign going on right now is recognized as not being based on law, but on lawlessness with all the court trials and what they're accusing Trump of doing.
And it's totally void of any congressional restraints.
What goes on?
This whole idea that all of a sudden, you know, these FBI agents were prepared for Secret Service resistance.
So they were pretty, and they even used the word Trump.
Trump may show up.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And they have to be prepared for the violence.
But there's a few things that maybe someday if this gets any worse, there may be a need for this.
What they think, you know, some people like, you know, the contest between the federal function is one thing.
But what about the local officials?
You know, here the FBI is ready to take on the Secret Service.
I mean, you can't get much closer to the power structure of that.
This almost smells insurrectionist.
Yeah, doesn't it?
If they're prepared to take the president in because they don't like him, because we hate his guts, so we need to get rid of him.
And this is what we're going to do.
You know, when this stuff goes on, they practice this kind of stuff, and it's their belief, and it doesn't bother them.
And they say, well, we have to do something.
Trump thinks he's above the law.
You've heard that.
Well, I think maybe they're above the law.
I think they put Trump below the law, that he has no constitutional protection, just as an ordinary citizen.
No, he's a president, and we don't like him, and therefore he has qualified for no protection of the law.
And it's a struggle.
The battle is going on.
But there's hints that a few people are waking up.
And I often think about, you know, there are groups in this country that technically they have a point to make that under the original concept of law and order in this country, there was not to be a national police force, and that people would have to follow the local, and that the sheriff was a very important factor, you know, in enforcing laws and the police.
But, you know, if they cause too much trouble, they're going to give too much energy to people who think that that is the ultimate way to, you know, to enforce the laws and the police and the Constitution.
It doesn't look like this is terrible.
And yet, I don't know.
I didn't watch much news last night on regular television, but I doubt if they did a whole lot of talk on that.
But that to me is wicked.
Yeah, and all these documents came out for the discovery phase of the trial.
So Donald Trump's defense receives all these documents.
Yeah.
But the thing is, this had to have been approved by Merritt Garland, the raid, and probably by Joe Biden himself.
And it's, you know, we remembered it was August 2022, and we couldn't believe when we saw the armed FBI agents breaking into Mar-a-Lago.
And it was a high-profile, it was a dramatic raid.
And I think what it was meant to do was humiliate Trump, show him to be a criminal.
And it had to have been approved at the highest levels.
Well, here's from that Hedge article, if you can put it up.
Let's read a little bit from here.
An operations plan for the raid of Mar-a-Lago in southern Florida stated that President Trump, should President Trump arrive during the period when they were there, the agents would be prepared to, quote, engage with him and the U.S. Secret Service agents who protect him.
If the Secret Service agents, quote, provide resistance or interfere with FBI timeline or accesses, end quote, then FBI officials would contact certain individuals.
Their names and positions were redacted, the documents said.
Documents also stated if Mar-a-Lago employees refused to provide a list of occupied guest rooms, FBI agents would knock on each guest door to determine occupation status.
They would request a map, list of rooms, and a skeleton key for all rooms, and they were preparing to bring lock-picking equipment with them.
They were loaded for bear, as they say, going into this.
You know, we live in an age where there's essentially no control on who's coming into our country.
And evidence is some very bad people are coming in, and not much is done about it.
But if you have an illegal come into this country, and he's known to have committed a violent crime, and he again commits a violent crime, and they suspect where he might be.
What will the federal agents do?
Would they treat him, you know, a lot like they treated Trump, or worse, or what would they do?
He would probably be said, hey, you're living in a terrible place.
We have a room for you over at the hotel.
I mean, that's how bad it is.
The truth is turned on its head, and good people suffer the consequence.
Well, you know, our viewers will probably remember Julie Kelly, who we've had on the show.
She's a dogged researcher.
She's done such great work on the January 6th defendants, but she's been all over this, too.
And she had a couple of interesting posts on Twitter X today.
If we put this next one up, so she says, tons of new unsealed filings on classified documents case.
I'll try to post as much as I can, but this is mind-blowing.
FBI authorized the use of deadly force at Mar-a-Lago.
And this is from the documents.
According to an operations order produced in Discovery, the FBI believed its objective for the Mar-a-Lago raid was to seize classified information, NDI, and U.S. government records as described in the search warrant.
The order contained a policy statement regarding the use of deadly force, which stated, for example, law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.
The agents planned to bring standard issue weapons, ammo, handcuffs, and medium and large size bolt cutters.
But they were instructed to wear unmarked polo or collared shirts and keep law enforcement equipment concealed.
So they were ready to bring in literally the big guns.
Who are they going to shoot?
A former president?
I mean, this is insane.
I just want to do one more from Julie, if we can, if we can do the next one.
And she said, oh my God, Julie wrote, armed FBI agents were preparing to confront Trump and even engage Secret Service.
And this is from the document on the contingencies section.
Should POTUS arrive at Mar-a-Lago, FBI, MMEM, and OSCs will be prepared to engage with former POTUS and USS security team, et cetera, et cetera.
The FBI search team will knock on each guest's door for occupation status.
So they were ready to literally engage with the president, with his people.
And they were covering all their bases.
They were gathering up passports.
Oh, but these bad people, they're going to go get on an airplane and they're going to leave the country.
I wonder if they took Trump's passport.
They probably wanted to.
Well, in a way, by all the rules and regulation, the treatment and the illegalities in the courts, they've eliminated him as a citizen qualified to have proper protection.
You know, getting changed from a misdemeanor to a criminal court, which the media at least reports, this is astounding.
That's not a common thing to do automatically, just because the judge that did that was admitted Trump hater.
So I don't know, maybe there will be some truth that'll pop out of this election.
But the whole thing is, is nobody has a monopoly over truth because there will be pros and cons on both sides, but we know where it's balanced right now.
But the whole thing is, is the dedication should be to the seeking of the truth, no matter which side you're on or where it is or what's going on.
And that's why I was so glad to talk about Thomas Massey because he said, the truth is I've taken an oath.
It's clear-cut.
So that means it's not, I don't see it in an era partisan thing.
Obviously, you have to have sympathies or distaste for a lot of what's going on with the Biden judicial system.
But that doesn't mean that everything that opposes them, they have perfect knowledge to it.
But I think, and we do have some independent libertarian thinkers and reporters on these court cases, which I think are very helpful, but I'm not sure whether it gets to the people who really need it, like the Congress.
Yeah, no kidding.
Well, one last thing on this.
Molly Hemingway writes for the Federalists, and she posted a very interesting document here.
If we can put the next one up, this shows that there was some dispute within the FBI.
Prosecutors argued that new evidence suggested Trump was knowingly concealing secret documents at his Palm Beach home and urged the FBI to conduct a surprise raid at the property.
And this part is highlighted.
But two senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted the plan as too competitive and proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to search his property according to the four people who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation.
So there were two senior FBI officials.
They probably had been there a long time and they had cooler heads on.
They were actually professionals and said, well, you guys want to break in here with guns?
Why don't we just first ask him if we can have the documents, you know?
But they had already been into his place.
Why hadn't they?
Well, this is before they did the raid.
He said, well, why do we have to do this raid?
Why don't we just ask him for them?
Yeah, but the law does not restrain the government in any way whatsoever.
Why Restraints Fail 00:05:57
It's supposed to be the other way around.
Yeah, the cooler heads did not prevail on this one.
Well, let's move on to someone.
And I had to force you to talk about this because I know it's hard to talk about sometimes, but I'll praise him.
Senator Paul did a great job yesterday.
He had Secretary of State Blinken sitting on a barbecue and he had the coals on high.
And Blinken did not like it.
He always looks, to be honest, like he's constipated.
But he looked even worse yesterday when Senator Paul was grilling him.
But he brought out the reason I really wanted to talk about this, he brought out such important points, especially for non-interventionists.
He was basically saying, and we have a clip we're going to play.
Actually, put that first clip up from the sun.
Senator Paul, in a confrontation on Capitol Hill, grills Secretary Blinken on the administration's foreign policy blunders.
And there's so many good things.
Here is one.
It's longer than we usually put out, Dr. Paul, but it's a minute and 40, and it's kind of a mashup of all the things that he told Blinken.
And it really, in a nutshell, is a critique of the entire interventionist foreign policy.
You keep doing the same things and they don't work.
Why do you keep doing them?
So let's listen to Senator Paul on this.
Do you think publicly scolding China will make it more or less likely that they continue selling dual-use parts to Russia?
Senator, we've tried it both ways.
We've had these conversations with China for some time in private, hoping to see a change.
We haven't seen that, and it's important.
I would argue that we've only tried it one way.
We've got the stick, and almost the majority of people who work for you, everybody wants to use a stick.
Nobody's really considering that there's a carrot.
So really for the last, let's say, five years or more, your administration, the previous administration, not a lot different, really, that you put impediments to trade, you add sanctions, and then you scold them.
In addition to threat of sanctions, in addition to the scolding, we now have the administration talking about more tariffs.
So in June of 2019, then presidential candidate Joe Biden tweeted, Trump doesn't get the basics.
He thinks his tariffs are being paid for by China.
Any freshman econ student would tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.
Remarkably accurate and true at that time, but now he's become jumping on the Trump train.
But the question would become, when you add tariffs, you're going to threaten sanctions, you're going to scold them, now you're going to add tariffs.
More or less likely that they'll do what you want.
I think less likely.
Everything we're doing, everything the previous administration did, as well as this administration, is heading towards less trade, disengagement from China.
The history of sanctions is more, more, more.
And then you're not doing enough.
And people on the right here will say, you've got to do even more.
We're going to pass legislative sanctions.
Nobody talks about removing them.
But that's the only way you'd get behavior to change.
That was a great little measure of you.
He sounds pretty good.
He sounds pretty good.
What are you saying?
All you guys do is use the stick over and over.
And you're surprised that they don't do what you tell them?
Do you think by hitting them with the stick and having no carrots, they're going to somehow do what you tell them?
And you'll be, well, we tried it both ways.
Well, this is not exactly with the same issue, but the principle is the same about retaliation.
And there was a story out just today.
It says, China slaps Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon with sanctions over arms sales to Taiwan.
You know, are they allowed to do that?
Oh, that's against the law.
You know, we do that and do that.
That's why I say the empire is coming unglued.
And we need more statements like that made to the general public that Brand just made because the principle is so bad.
Why are you doing it over and over?
All the evidence shows it's dumb.
You know, you could argue that case on economic policy.
Printing money never works.
It causes a lot of problems.
It is fake and it destroys wealth.
But we keep doing the same thing.
I keep trying to figure out what is it, what is the excuse for that?
Why do they keep making the same mistakes?
And there's usually different reasons.
A lot of it is just plain eye greed.
Sometimes it's just political power.
Sometimes they think they're smarter than anybody else.
And they just march on.
But I think it's power and wealth gained without real hard work and effort.
They just take over and they really believe in empire.
See what Rand was attacking there.
Empire.
This is what we have to deal with.
Yeah, exactly.
And it was a great point.
And the thing is that, as he rightly pointed out, if you keep hitting them with a stick and offer them no carrots, they're not going to do what you said.
But the other thing that happens is that if you only hit them with the stick, especially in the case of China, they're going to stop coming back for the carrots because they're getting carrots somewhere else.
And with China, they're getting their carrots now from trade with Russia, trade with Iran, trade with the other BRICS countries, trade with India even.
So they are, because they only got the stick from us, well, they said, okay, I guess we're not welcome.
So they went somewhere else for the carrots.
And at some point, nobody's going to come to us for the carrots, the carrots being trade, engagement, you know, and that's it.
We're isolated, as he said.
And, you know, it keeps going on.
In spite of this problem and this money being spent in our debt and all that, we still, any request made that says, oh, this is for national security, the Congress goes along with it.
And some of the biggest hawks are conservative constitutionalists on the Republican side.
I mean, they lead the charge, and then the Democrats go along with it.
Yeah, well, it's terrible.
Mark's Warning: The Coming Crisis 00:02:07
Anyway, I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul, thanking our audience.
We're getting reminding you to mark your calendars.
Hopefully, we'll have those tickets out for sale tomorrow.
It's going to be a great conference this year.
A little bit different this year, and some surprises.
So, that'll be in D.C. on August 31st.
Mark your calendar.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I too want to thank our viewers for tuning in today because without you, we don't reach very many people.
And our numbers are going up slowly, steadily.
And I'm convinced that we have an audience that cares and understands exactly what we're trying to do.
And, you know, this issue today that we talked about really struck me heavy and hard.
And Daniel did such a good job in explaining all this.
And that is the contest between the FBI and the Secret Service.
And symbolically, this is two policing operations, very important to our country.
They were almost at war with each other.
So the stage is set for what's the consequence when you no longer have a republic.
And then you add on to that, you no longer have a sign currency, no longer have the power that we wielded to maintain our empire.
That's all changing.
And the American people have to wake up and figure out if there's this much problem, if it's half as bad as I think, we better get busy because it's coming and the date of recognition of this reconciliation is unknown.
It could come next month or next year, but it cannot continue this way.
And it usually never dissipates gradually.
It usually comes to a climatic end.
And that's what I think would be really, you know, releasing the power of the FBI and the CIA.
I'm just sorry that a proposal I made several decades ago, and I was a little bit worried about the FBI.
I said, do we really need an FBI?
And my conclusion still is, no, we don't.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.
Export Selection