All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
56:02
3917 Gen. Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty | Lionel and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux.
Hope you're doing well here with Lionel, a legal and media analyst, lawyer, former prosecutor, polyhistoric, and expert.
His YouTube channel, we'll link below, is Lionel Nation.
And his Twitter is Lionel Media.
We'll put the link to that. By the way, I threw in expert as a joke years ago.
I have on my business card, expert.
And nobody said, expert in what?
I said, oh, just an expert.
Okay. And people read much like you.
He's an expert. On what?
I'm a self-appointed expert.
So there you go. I assume that the expertise has something to do with your Joe Pesci impersonation, which I assume is spectacular beyond words.
It's Curly Howard.
It's Curly Howard and Ben's a dream.
But I bet right. We're going to dip into a couple of illegal matters before the American nation at the moment.
Now, the one that seems to be arousing massive, joyful, demonic hysteria on the part of the Democrats is Flynn's plea of guilty to lying to the FBI. And the other, of course...
Is the murder of Kate Steinle in 2015.
The jury, I guess after deliberating for six days or so, came out with a not guilty plea for the main charges.
But let's start with Flynn.
This is something that I find quite incomprehensible in so many different ways.
Most of all because it all happened after the election.
So how this is proof of the Russian collusion to win the election is beyond me.
But let's step people through what happened and where it stands at the moment.
Okay, he was charged with one count, he pled guilty, to one count of the Universal Title 18 U.S.C. 1001, which basically is this statute that says, if you lie to the FBI, the old days perjury implied lying in court, lying in a trial, lying before the grand jury.
This is the charge that they got nabbed Martha Stewart on.
Not insider trading.
And this is why, Stephan, the reason why people take the Fifth Amendment.
Not because they have something to hide, but it's like, if somebody came to me and said, would you talk to us about where you were in 1963 for the Kennedy assassination, I'd say, I was five years old, I'm taking the Fifth.
Because what happens is, if you, Stephan, go in today on day one, speak to them without any indication, any inclination, any intention of lying.
Day two, they bring you back.
Day three they bring you back and they look at the testimonies and they don't overlap.
That is a prior inconsistent statement that is perjury and they got you.
That's why people do it.
It is a chicken whatever charge and it is all they've got.
It's a signal to people that he's made a deal.
And why did he make a deal?
Simple. There's an old expression, when we've got you by the balls, your heads and hearts will follow.
And when you've got your son in the sling, we may not get you, General Flynn, but your son, do the right thing, fall on your sword, and that's that.
Now the question is, Let's assume, arguendo, for the sake of argument, that everything that they're saying is true.
What exactly did Trump do at its worst, in the light most favorable to the prosecution?
If I were Donald Trump, I'd say, okay, fine, whatever it is.
So what? Did we talk to the Russians?
Yes. My question is, who are the Russians?
Putin? The Kremlin?
Kislyak or whatever? This ambassador?
Stefan, everybody, he's been in New York.
Ten... Three out of every ten people on the street have run into an ambassador.
He's at every party.
He's an ambassador.
He's gregarious. He talks to people.
So what is it that he did?
If, let's really nail it down.
Let's say that the Russians, again, the Russians, said, we've got dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Anything wrong with that? Nope.
No. That's called opposition research.
It's called, well, let me hear. What is it?
Is it against the law?
Don't know unless you tell me.
So this is much ado about nothing.
But I live in a country, Stefan, in this grand republic where the mainstream media still thinks there's this law called colluding with the Russians.
And there is no such thing.
Well, this is the weird thing to me.
First of all, don't talk to the government.
Secondly, don't talk to the government without a lawyer present.
Because he didn't even have... He wasn't charged with anything when he was originally chatting away with these guys.
The police, for sure...
Sorry? Precisely.
So now the police have no obligation to tell you the truth.
So it's kind of like a one-sided relationship.
So the question to me is, okay, why?
Well, so what did he do? Well, he talked to the Russians.
That's his job. That's part of what he's supposed to do.
So the fact that he talked to the Russians to me is, it would be kind of weird if he didn't.
Secondly, it was supposed to de-escalate things with the Russians.
Well, why would Why were things escalated with the Russians?
Because you had Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Don of Brazil, and all these people all summer saying the Russians are colluding, the Russians have undermined democracy.
You have Hillary Clinton threatening war against a nuclear power.
Because she thinks that they might have had something to do with, I think, the inside job of leaking from the DNC. So you have a whole bunch of attacks.
You've got Obama expelling Russian diplomats.
I mean, the hysteria about the supposed Russian hacking and overtaking of the election, undermining the electoral process, had gone to a full-blown satanic panic hysteria.
And so, yes, some roads needed to be repaired.
Some bridges needed to be mended.
And what was he talking to them about?
Working together to help defeat ISIS. I really can't see how that's a bad thing in any way, shape or form, given that ISIS was put forward last year, and I think reasonably so, is a pretty important enemy.
So there's just a whole bunch that I don't really understand.
It's like if I get interviewed by the cops and I say, well, I had a paper route when I was eight.
And then the next day I say, well, I had a paper route when I was seven.
And then they're like, aha!
It's like, well, it's still not wrong to have a paper route.
I mean, do they get you in lying?
But about what? Let me show you how bad it is.
And I don't want to belabor the point, but, you know, people, look, if you're going to talk about the law, you might as well know the rules.
Not you, mind you, but the royal you.
Whenever you're involved in the case of perjury, perjury is a, let's say, a prior inconsistent statement.
It doesn't even mean lying, per se.
Lying is, lying, technically, you're going to love this, is the misrepresentation of fact with the intent to deceive.
Well, sometimes it's not even, there's not even an intent portion of it, but There always has to be something material, not a collateral matter.
If Stefan goes into a court on day one and says, it was a red shirt I wore during my paper room, then he said it was a green shirt, well, that's a collateral matter.
It doesn't really matter. It doesn't deal with the material issue.
And there's no motive in particular to lie to Advantage.
Even if there isn't, it's not, it just so happens that you could say, you know what, I've always wanted to, I've hated that shirt, and I'm going to lie about it now, even though it doesn't matter.
I'll give you an example. Years ago, when Mark Furman, Mr.
Furman said that he never used the N-word.
And I asked Mark Furman, personally, I asked him, I said, what the hell were you doing when you pled no contest to perjury?
If they said, Mr.
Furman, did you ever use the N-word?
Never! And it turns out, and then, and then, and then, and then, did you lie?
Yes, but not about a material issue!
It was a collateral! Let's pause on this, because I think this is an important thing for people to remember.
So, this is sort of back in the O.J. Simpson trial, and he was asked if he ever used the N-word.
He said no, and as it turns out, I think they said over the last 10 years and like at nine years and eight months or something like that he had had a whole bunch of meetings with a writer who wanted to get realistic dialogue for a show she was writing on and he created a fictitious mean cop character and she had recordings of him using the n-word to describe a really mean policeman that she wanted to write about in some sort of screenplay and so Boy,
I mean, talk about the letter of the law and the intent of the law.
He didn't use it in anger towards a black person in the line of duty.
He was like making up a fictional character.
This is to me like charging a man with murder because he played Hamlet and seems to have killed people on stage.
I mean, it makes no sense. That's true to an extent.
He also told me, because I talked to him personally, he said he was...
Actually trying maybe to sell himself.
He was kind of, who knows, maybe making time with his writer.
I don't know. But here's the thing, Stefan.
Had he said... No.
Had he said, no, no, I said this to black people, it still is not a material issue as to the guilt of O.J. Simpson.
Now, if he lied about, did you plant the glove?
That was perjury.
But it doesn't matter. But that's an aside.
So I just want people to understand that lying, look, Stefan, if we had a separate trial, a separate courtroom for lies, for test the lying as the police do, we would have 24-7 Assembly line, Amazon factory-like robot prosecutor just for perjury.
But what's happening here is to go back.
This started with Hillary Clinton lost the election and she said, I'm going to pin it on the Russians.
Now what? The Russians.
Now make it work. Have you ever gone to a grocery store and there's a stack of oranges in a pyramid on display?
You go, oh, it's beautiful. But I like that one right there.
And you pull that orange out and they all start tumbling.
That's what happened. One thing about the Russians gave just a cavalcade, just this avalanche of this.
Now, let's go backwards.
Let's play thought experiment, my friend.
I'm Mueller or whoever it is.
And you're the chairman of the deep state.
And you say, what can we do?
I say, here's what we're going to do.
I'm going to go after everybody on something.
Believe me when I tell you something, if they want you, they'll get you.
Especially when Manafort dealt with Ukraine.
So what? When these were lobbyists.
Everybody else did that. Manafort, Flynn.
Okay, fine. I'm going to bring him in.
Manafort pled not guilty.
He's over here. But I'm going to get somebody.
Flynn I can get, I can bring in his son, and I'll get him to, quote, cooperate.
Cooperate with what? Whatever it is.
Why am I doing this?
To create the image, to create the impression that there's smoke and that there's fire.
That something is happening.
Here's what I want to be careful of.
If I were talking to the president, if I were advising him, is Jared Kushner okay?
No. Are they going to do this to you?
Because we don't know what's going on.
Are they going after Jared next?
That's the one. Stefan, I've never felt good about him there.
I don't even know why he's there.
Not that he's a bad guy, bad fellow.
I just don't.
Now, there's a lot of things.
Rather shady, like this colluding thing, like talking to Russians, like going to foreign leagues, like working with, like he worked with Yanukovych, when you can actually work with Ukraine, when you can, you know, Putin, you throw in the word Putin, of course, America hears that dog whistle.
Nothing that these people did was untoward.
But if I keep...
Grabbing this one, inciting this one, charging this one.
Somebody's going to say something.
Somebody may freak out and we might end up with something.
A Hail Mary where all of a sudden, guess what?
Maybe Jared Kushner commits perjury.
Maybe if we talk to him, maybe, who knows?
We'll get the ball rolling.
And Mulder's got to justify his existence.
You know how much we're spending a day?
A day for this?
And we're talking top, I mean, grade A, blue chip, prosecutors, career dudes, people from big white shoe firms.
He's got to say, I need not a pound of flesh, An ounce?
Anything. It's a fraud.
It's a farce. Well, here's the thing.
Hang on a sec. So here's the thing that troubles me as well.
It seems to me that it's quite likely, and I've read various reports on this, maybe you've read differently, that the government knew the content of these conversations as the result of wiretapping.
Now, if the government knew the content of these conversations that he had, Flynn had with Kislyak, Then they didn't need to ask him about it, in which case, isn't asking about it kind of like an entrapment?
Like, if you already know the content of the conversations, then you're kind of fishing for someone to say something that doesn't accord with what your recordings say, and then you got it.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
It would seem so. First of all, let me explain this one word.
Two words people always use incorrectly.
Hearsay and entrapment.
Entrapment means, that doesn't mean catching you.
Entrapment means, Stefan, that I set up a situation and you in no way had any inclination.
Classic example of entrapment.
John DeLorean. Years ago, the DeLorean, Back to the Future, the DeLorean car company in Belfast, losing money, losing everything.
He didn't know what to do.
An informant comes in and says, I know how you can make money.
I know how you can bail yourself out.
How? Cocaine.
What? Get out of here.
No, really. Get out of here!
No, really!
That's kind of sort of entrapment.
A woman standing in the corner pretending to be a prostitute, and you say, hey, how much, honey?
You know, that's not entrapment either.
That's called police work. Entrapment means they really, you did not, you had no propensity, no predilection, no indication that you wanted to do this crime.
But here's the best part.
The government can lie to you.
The government can say, hey, Stefan, listen.
I know you've been on with one of your competitors, whoever it is.
I talked to him. He gave you up.
He didn't give you up. That's why I don't believe it.
It's like, fine. Better to tell me now.
Make it easy on yourself.
Excuse me. Why do I have to tell you anything if you've got the goods on me?
Why do you want to make a deal with somebody you've got the evidence on?
It makes no sense to me. I'm not telling you anything.
But they do this all the time.
But your competitor told me that you did such and such and that you're lying about your views and It's all a lie.
I can lie.
The government can lie.
That happens all the time.
Now, and by the way, wiretapping?
Oh, my friend, you and I are just walking around using terms.
There is no wiretapping anymore.
There is no Fourth Amendment. Wiretap, from the moment you buy your phone, you've just consented.
Under the Telecommunications Act of 96, and every term and condition that you check off to get your new iOS, whatever it is, there is no more wiretapping.
They know everything about you, and it's not vocal, it's metadata.
So that being said, what's going to happen right now is, if Trump is smart, he'll sit there and say, let's go to trial now.
Now, here's a question I have for you.
You ready? And this was not pre-rehearsed or rehearsed.
Can you indict a sitting president?
Let's assume they had something.
Somehow you've got this information that Trump is a serial killer.
Missing nurses and whatever.
He really did it.
Can we indict him?
Pull him off of the...
Go to the White House and arrest him?
You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent.
Can we? I think that you have to go through the impeachment process first.
No, you're a smart guy.
You know what?
Let me give you this one.
Best bit of legal advice there is.
The answer to every legal question under the sun, no matter what it is.
You ready? It depends.
That's the answer. No, I'm not being cute.
Let's talk about this. Ronald Rotunda is probably the preeminent constitutional scholar, and he wrote a memorandum for Ken Starr when they wanted to get Clinton.
Can we do this for matters that are not related to the presidency?
Meaning, and this is what the drafters feared, we don't want to just get rid of, subvert the franchise, subvert the electorate by just indicting somebody we don't like.
Let's assume we've got them to, good.
It depends. It seems what, and I've been doing a lot of research in preparation for your Aga show, That as long as it's not Mueller, as long as it's some unique entity, because the president has complete and plenary jurisdiction over his Department of Justice, and anybody who even says, Mr.
President, you're fired. What?
You're fired. Wait a minute.
I'm about to indict. You're fired.
You're fired. Everybody's fired.
I just disbanded the Department of Justice.
There is nobody to indict me.
Unless it is a separate entity, not the Office of Independent Counsel, which was abolished under Ken Starr, but some other outboard, which I don't even think exists now.
I don't even know if it even exists.
The Department of Justice Cannot do it, or he can fire them.
In addition, the Office of Legal Counsel, who is the Department of Justice, kind of like the final word, wrote a memorandum, as Bill Clinton left, that said, you cannot...
Indict, or rather, remove from office via indictment a president.
But you are correct about having to impeach him first, then he's a private citizen.
So even, even if Trump says, go ahead, whatever it is, whatever, try to even serve me on this one.
Problem. Clinton versus Jones.
Paula Jones sued him.
Supreme Court said, we don't see there being any interruption.
That would be constitutionally prohibitive for a sitting president to be sued and, one would argue, Rotunda, Professor Rotunda argued, that the 25th Amendment, which allows you to pull somebody out if they're losing their minds, if they're crackers, non-compass mentis, which is what Joe Scarborough is alluding to, but they're suggesting that even the Constitution realized that there may be interruptions where the president is sick or in...
The government does not cease, so it depends.
Right. Now, if they're really so...
There's two other points I wanted to make before we move on to Kate Steinle, Lionel.
The first is, this has been known since February.
This has been out and out. So why on earth has all these millions and millions and millions of dollars been spent to get a guy to plead guilty for something that was already known about, I mean, not quite a year ago, but not far off from a year ago, number one.
Number two... I've got to tell you, just looking at it from up here in Canada, there are two issues of perjury that seem to have come up.
Oh, no. Lying to the police.
So, number one, of course, is this Flynn saying, you know, some lack of details about some conversation he had.
Perfectly legitimate and legal conversation he had as part of his duties talking to the Russian.
James Clapper pops into my mind as well.
James Clapper, what's it?
Four years ago that he was lying...
Like, while under oath about the mass surveillance of America, he says, no, well, maybe just inadvertently a little bit here and there, but then three months later, boom, Snowden comes out and it's all revealed.
That is substantially more important.
He also denied any surveillance targeting people linked to the Trump administration or anything like that.
And boom, comes out that they have been doing that as well.
So where are his shackles?
Where is his pursuit?
I mean, it's just it's so political.
It seems to me that it's very, very dangerous to people's diminishing respect.
Political is fair.
And we make fun of Canada.
No, I'm sorry. We always say, oh, Canada, you know, you got hockey.
We've got the most corrupt system.
It's embarrassing. I got one for you.
Remember years ago when all of the heads of the tobacco industry swore on our oath?
Do you think nicotine is addictive?
No. Remember that?
They all stood up. The head of tobacco.
Now, look, you don't have to be a, you know, you don't think nicotine, you have Internal memos!
Nicotine is the cigarette is the delivery system of nicotine.
Nobody even said anything about that.
What about Hillary Clinton?
What about the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Health Access?
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Well, he wasn't under oath, but still, had there been an FBI agent, had he gone up and said, say that again to me.
Let me ask you a question. Have you?
Because remember, this Title 18, 1001 section doesn't say important stuff.
It just means you lied to me.
So let me tell you that...
Hillary Clinton, pay for play, Uranium One, Huma, I'm sorry, Huma, I get Huma and Uma confused, Huma, Anthony Weiner, his, his website, his thing, her server problems, Benghazi gate, just go down the list, nothing, nothing, not a word, not a, so I also ask you, my good friend, this question, what the hell's wrong with Trump?
Why doesn't he go in and grab Jeff Sessions, pick him up by the throat and say, you listen to me.
I have immunity.
I will break your neck.
What are you doing?
Why did you, who, why did we get rid of Comey?
We got rid of the most incompetent Pierre...
Inspector Clouseau there was.
Everybody hated him.
And we replaced him with this guy?
Who is in charge?
And you're recusing yourself?
This is where Trump and I... But this is where, like a session, two things would happen.
One, he'd recuse himself from the meeting because he'd find some conflict of interest somewhere.
And number two, he would say, does this meeting involve going after people using medical marijuana?
If not, I have no interest in it because clearly that's number one issue for the American public.
Remember he said Trump all through the campaign is like, let's lock up people taking an herb for glaucoma.
Let's lock up people trying to diminish the effects of chemotherapy by using marijuana.
And everyone cheered for that.
They said, we don't care about Hillary.
We care about the people using medical marijuana.
And I think that Jeff Sessions really got that memo and is putting his gas foot down to pursue that goal.
And this is it. I've run out of sarcasm for the month.
This president decided at one point, and I thought it was terrific, when he was going to, at least he teased us for getting Bobby Kennedy to come in and look at perhaps maybe the crazy idea, maybe investigating the connection between vaccine protocols and autism.
I don't know where that would have went.
The wall, build the wall.
I don't know where that went.
I don't know where a lot of the, he was, he had so many good points about, I know it's moot now, Obama's birth certificate.
I know people are laughing at that.
Excuse me, I don't have to ask anybody permission whether there's an Article 2 requirement that went away.
See, Trump comes here and then I think, Stefan, do they get to him and say, listen, you're a smart guy.
We have Jared, who is the father of your grandchildren.
This is your daughter's husband.
We've got him. We've got you.
Whatever. I don't know.
I have no idea because he shows this This absolute, this brio, this bravado when it comes to Joe Scarborough and this one, and he's tweeting away.
And yet, when it comes to other things that really need to be done, especially regarding Hillary Clinton, and he tweets about it.
And I want to remind him, you're the president!
You don't have to tweet anymore!
You can sit there and say, I want something done about this.
And if you don't do it, I'm going to put in somebody who does.
But yet, that doesn't happen.
Maybe he can't find anyone who's not compromised.
Flynn, nothing's going to happen.
Flynn pled guilty. It's nothing.
He's got an agreement, a squeal, a rat agreement that's worked out.
He's going to give truthful testimony.
They're not going to go after his son, and nothing's going to happen.
Now, there may be something, and here's the best part.
If you've already got something on Jared Kushner or whatever, you do it!
You don't drag it out.
You just do it.
You wake up one morning.
Remember Manafort, four in the morning?
Breaking down the door, whatever.
What the hell is this?
What are you doing? Are you trying to intimidate me?
I'm right here.
I mean, it's this jackbooted Stasi technique.
They don't have anything because I'm telling you, Jared Kushner or whoever the target would be would be in the dock already.
They wouldn't mess around.
But the purpose of all of this stuff, I think, is not – I think clearly it's not the pursuit of justice.
But what it does do is it has the significant effect of draining the will, the concentration, and most importantly, the bank accounts of people who are being targeted by this stuff.
It is a kind of soft – Judicial coup to drain the capacity of the administration to get things done and to make it very hard to quit and to make it very hard to replace people who have quit.
Because who wants to wander into that and say, hey, do you feel like getting investigated for a year?
Do you feel like spending $200,000 of your hard-earned money on legal fees to try and stay out of jail?
Well, come work at the White House.
To me, it is a form of administrative harassment to the extreme degree.
Only because they don't have anything.
Look, if I'm your Torquemada or your Luca Brasi and you're the head of the deep state, I'm going to say, General Molyneux, we've got it.
Watch TV right now. Look at this.
He's in shackles. He's in shackles.
He's in shackles. Got it.
We're not going to drain the bank accounts.
I want them arrested. I want them arrested and charged.
We're going to drain his swamp.
Now, meanwhile, as we pan over to the Democrats, we say, now, it's been, which today's December, Do you have a platform?
Do you have a vision? Do you have anything in mind?
Now that we've basically just taken this man and his platform out, What are you going to replace them with, either in the midterms or whatever?
Nothing! They still don't have anything.
They still, to this day, Hillary Clinton is walking around in this persistent apologia, this, these, these, it's not me, what happened, I don't know what happened.
What happened was you lost.
And then this Russia, let me tell you, this Russia, you've seen what they've been doing to RT. RT, by the way, is, I mean, this is so, this is how stupid they are.
Six months ago, a year ago, people said, RT? RT, what is RT? Is that a diet drink?
What is RT? Oh, it's a TV show.
It is? Now it's, how do I get it?
Where do I get it? The Forbidden Fruit.
What are they talking about? My God, this is the greatest platform ever.
You've got Twitter who stood before the Congress with the General Counsel who said, we've delisted them and we're not going to have any ad sales.
And RT comes along and says, by the way, I've got to show you something.
You came to us and you gave us this plan to make our share of voice, our SOV, from 2% to 15% for $3 million.
You begged us last week.
And now you don't want to have anything to do with this.
You've got Eric Schmidt being asked by people, are you going to delist or remove Alex Jones or Stefan Molyneux or whoever?
This is actually...
On live TV. Here's the issue.
Our First Amendment only applies to the government limiting and affecting free speech.
The government. Private citizens, private organizations, private are exempt.
However, when you have congresspeople asking, hey, Molyneux, what are you doing to stop that, to delist it?
I'm asking you.
Now you've just entangled and involved the government, and guess what?
You've now made Google, which is as governmental since DARPA and these other people, these are quasi-governmental, you've now made them Able to fall under the rubric and the protection of the First Amendment.
I mean, this is, I've been doing this for a while now.
This is unprecedented.
This is, they want this man because he poses an existential threat to everybody.
Democrats, Republicans, they don't care about the rules.
They want to ruin him, do everything in their power.
And anybody who dares to promote Any speech, roughly, not only in support of him, but in support of freedom and liberty and the like, we are at a war, my friend, and we're winning, and they know it.
Okay, so let's turn to Katie.
So I'm going to assume that people have some rough familiarity with the case, that this was a five-times deported, seven-times convicted felon illegal alien.
I'm not going to use illegal immigrant because I try not to sprinkle my language with obvious oxymorons.
And he claims that he wandered into a...
A public bay and found, wrapped up in a shirt or a t-shirt, a $1,000 gun.
And he pulled out this package and it just, it went off, don't you know?
And originally he said, no, I was shooting at sea lions.
And he changed that story. Then he said, it went off three times.
And then he threw it into the bay, wandered off.
And he, I think, was, he had a lot of sleeping pills in his system and...
He shot this woman, and she died in her father's—she expired slowly in her father's arms in the ambulance and then at the hospital— And he was found not guilty of anything other than felony possession of firearm, if I remember rightly.
He's going to get time served, and I know the DOJ, I think just this morning, has decided to pursue things a little bit further.
There is, of course, a massive amount of outrage.
Now, there's some times where the massive outrage is because people don't understand some of the complexities of how the law works, and I'm with people, and I've pushed back against that kind of stuff, but I'm having a tough time with this one, I'll tell you that.
Oh, yeah. He is the most despicable man.
I mean, but here's what, oh, and also the gun was stolen from a Bureau of Land Management or something.
I mean, it was a stolen gun and he's just, talk about this guy's luck.
He's just walking around the promenade and the board, hey, what's this?
A gun! Yippee-yi-yi-yi-yi-yi and a gun, the bullet goes off.
If I were to represent, God forbid, this person, and I could explain to the collective jury, I would say, ladies and gentlemen, I hate this man.
I hate him, but that's not the issue here.
And we're not going to tell you about how many times he's been deported or...
We look at only the issues.
If Stefan's in charge on trial for shoplifting...
I'm not going to bring up marital indiscretions unless you're Matt Lauer, juvenile record, felony convictions.
It has nothing to do with this.
We don't want the jury to hear this son of a gun.
We don't want you to hear about how many times he's an illegal because under our system, right or wrong, we want you to hear the facts of the case and not say, you know what?
I hate this guy.
And I wasn't going to find him guilty.
But now you tell me he's been five times he slipped in?
Wow, we're going to put an end to that.
So, sad to say...
The jury also found out there was no evidence of first-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, brandishing, reckless use, yippee-yi-yi-yi, for whatever it's worth.
It's a horrible, horrible case.
They have to follow the rules or else we lose.
They can't charge, let's say, with arson.
You can't say, well, that's not fair.
Well, why? He's a five-time.
Yeah, but he didn't set anything on fire.
Well, so what? He's an illegal living.
Well, you can't do that either.
But here's what I would also do, going back.
If I'm Trump, I go into the office again.
I grab him by the collar again.
I'm saying, Jeff, I'm going to tell you something.
Stefan, Title 18 of the United States Code has some of the most arcane laws.
You, I guarantee you, you know how you read these laws sometimes and say, you're not going to believe these laws are still on the books in Canada.
You can't buy a horse after sundown in whatever, right?
Buggery of a falcon.
Well, guess what? Wait, wait, hang on, hang on.
I need to write that one down.
Just, just, just, okay, go ahead.
Misprision is a great one.
Mopery. These are actual common law.
What? Anyway, they're still good.
Believe me, somebody can find him guilty of something.
And that's what people need.
We feel a frustration and anger, sanctuary city.
And then the prosecutor, excuse me, the defense lawyer, I understand.
He tries his best.
I would have said nothing.
I would have said, I'm a public defender.
I'm not a private lawyer.
I don't want anybody to know my face.
I'm going to say, thank you.
Justice is served. Hey, don't look at me.
Look at the jury. But he said, the presumption of innocence is something that everyone enjoys.
Even the president and Mr.
Pence currently under investigation is like, I can't believe you did that.
Now, this is California.
This is San Francisco.
This is a group of people who may, It's cotton to that particular ideology.
L is for liberal and L is for the shape of the wall that some people are suggesting that it goes across from Mexico and up to San Andreas Fault.
Right. So unfortunately, it's beyond a tragedy.
But the good news is, I think, Stefan, it will motivate us to say we have got to do something.
Now, here is the problem with this.
When I was a prosecutor years ago, we would have people who would be charged with driving and Getting a DUI and not having a driver's license.
And you know what one of the parts of the sentence would be, invariably?
Revoking their driver's license.
And I would say, but he doesn't have a driver's license.
Well, we're going to revoke it anyway.
So now we're going to deport him.
You see, he wants that.
Great, I go back home.
Got it? I'll come back.
We've got to get out of that mindset.
We don't want to deport you.
If the word goes back, AJ, what happened to Zerat?
You killed this gal, and they sent him back.
You can do anything.
Well, we've got to make an example out of him.
Within the law, within the law, and word travels, and I suggest that we dust off some hoary law from your, and as one judge said one time, we're going to break it off in you.
Which I've never understood exactly what I meant.
But it's a sad case.
It's a horrible case.
And it goes to show you that, you know, Stefan, the people who are most upset about this are not xenophobic, redneck, anti-hate-mongered.
No! This is a rule!
If I go to your wonderful country, I don't think I'm going to abide by the rules.
We just have this crazy idea.
And when I go there, I say, hey, I want sanctuary.
Don't you understand? I'm a dreamer.
I'm a dreamer.
You say, get your dream ass out of here and go back to Buffalo.
It doesn't work that way.
So we will get over this.
I hope they keep him detained, file some kind of federal charges, which ups the ante, and let him rot in some supermax prison just to send the message to other people that we're not merely going to send you back when you kill, rightly or wrongly or accidentally, our beloved citizenry.
How does he get charged or convicted of felony possession of a firearm if he claims he didn't even know what he was picking up?
Does that mean that someone can bake a cake with a gun in it, give it to a felon on his birthday, and woohoo!
Call the cops! He's now in possession of a firearm, even though he doesn't know that there's a gun in the cake.
How? How does that work?
If he's in possession of the firearm, but he says he just picked up this bundle and lo and behold the gun just went off by itself, I don't quite, I can't square that circle in my mind.
They didn't buy the argument.
Syenter, knowledge is always required for possession charges.
Yeah. I can't slip something in your pocket and you charge a heroin if you said, I don't know anything about this and the jury believes you.
Consequently, they didn't believe him.
But if he knew he was in possession of a firearm, then isn't he responsible for the discharge?
Isn't that a negligent discharge?
But what happens is, if I said to you, here, Stefan, hold this.
What is this? It's a gun.
Ooh, I shouldn't be having it.
And let's assume I drop it, and it's discharged, and you charge me with first-degree murder?
No. Second-degree murder?
I didn't even... First degree murder, willful, wanton, malice of forethought, I'm going to kill you.
Second degree murder, shooting into a crowd, depraved heart, involuntary manslaughter, recklessness.
DUIs and crap like that, right?
Right. But what's interesting is I'd love to be able to sit there and say, what was he doing?
What did the witnesses show?
Well, they showed him handling this.
Handling what? The cake?
Or the gun.
And when he was handling the gun, how was he holding it?
Did he say, what is this?
Is this a cake?
Or did he grab it by the handle?
And did he look somewhat familiar with a gun?
So don't tell me you didn't know what you were doing because you're a quick learner or a savant who all of a sudden knows how to handle this thing you don't recognize as being a gun.
So the jury obviously didn't believe him.
But... But if you were to ask them, and I don't know if anybody pulled the jury, I'll bet you they would tell you there was no evidence that he was...
You know, for example, what about this?
This fact scenario.
I told him, put the gun down, you're drunk.
But he wouldn't listen to me.
And I said, you're pointing it at people.
And people were ducking and screaming and saying, put it down.
That's a different story.
If those facts are not there...
Who knows? Right. Alright, let's move on and close off with Matthew Todd Lauer.
Yes. Now, boy, this was pretty rapid.
I mean, one day, one day.
I remember when I was reading about this stuff, you know, no, well, we're going to put him on hiatus or, you know, we're going to give him leave without pay or he's going to take a time to be with his family, to spend quality time with his loved ones or anything like that.
It was like, boom! This guy who generates $500 million worth of ad revenue, this guy who's the centerpiece of these shows, this guy who's been around forever, boom!
Boom! Frog marched out of the building.
He's got his stuff. I assume all of his dildos and Benoit balls and whatever freaky crap he had in his closet.
He's got all of his stuff in a paper box.
And he's marched out with security.
I think, well, they've got to have a lot on this guy.
Or they've got to act like they're upset because somebody says, uh-oh...
Like Andy Lacks, the head of NBC, may say, uh-oh, they're going to find out about how everybody's...
Stefan, everybody's known about this.
I don't even work there, and I knew about it.
Look, a couple of things. A woman who was in Sochi, ah, Russia, make the Russian connection.
...to where it happened. Okay, fine.
Monday night. Monday night.
Now, I know nobody wants to show him any due process, but I'm sorry.
Why are you bringing this up now?
Maybe you could say, okay, it's a climate.
It's a climate of purging.
Okay, fine. Could you, maybe, did you, whatever.
Monday night, she brings it up.
With, quote, evidence of such.
Tuesday, they talk.
Wednesday morning, he's fired.
That's it. Gone. Now, here's the real issue.
Does he get out of his $25 million?
Did somebody say, guess what?
Guess who I just saved $25 million from?
Morals clause.
Morals clause. If you bring shame, ignominy, disrepute, embarrassment, you're out.
Okay, that's one thing.
Then, because now he's negotiating his stay.
If he says, ah, ah, ah, you knew about me, which is a weird situation.
The button on my...
What about this? The button?
You've heard about that. He had a button, allegedly, on his desk that would lock the door.
Stefan, I've never heard of this thing called false imprisonment.
I mean, this is weird. It's like having a chair with a trap door under it that leads to some Fifty Shades of Grey dungeon.
I mean, who builds that?
Who approves that?
Who pays for it? Who installs it?
Who says, oh, this is a great idea.
Let's trap people in the room of some guy known to be particularly handsy.
How about having a woman that you've immediately leapt upon engage in activity, she passes out somehow, you call some kind of an assistant to come in to help, then you've got, he's handing out By the way, Benoit balls, I want to party with you, man.
I want to party with you.
I don't know how I know that phrase.
I just heard it somewhere.
Little history. They used to give it out years ago to Chinese women working the treadles.
What? What is the treadle?
The treadle is a sewing machine.
You know those things they would push with their feet?
Oh, you push the pump with the feet.
Okay, yeah, yeah. Well, in order to make the day go by, they would use these things.
Now, the stitching was a little irregular, but they sure loved their job.
That's great! Poplin!
Anyway, I'm sorry. A little bit of reverie there.
Now, the issue is...
What happens to NBC? What happens to Andy Lack?
What happens to people and Jeff Zucker from CNN? What about this?
I represent your daughter.
Your daughter's 20 years old.
She says, Dad, guess what?
I'm working with Charlie Rose.
Charlie Rose, they knew 30 years...
Well, whatever. They used to have Charlie's Angels.
Famous. Kevin Spacey.
Everybody knew this. Weinstein.
Weinstein was the Charles Manson.
So... If you have, Stefan, a company where you have a delivery service and one of your workers gets drunk all the time, has six DUIs, and has killed people while operating a motor vehicle, and you put it behind the wheel, you're held liable.
How do they explain this?
How do they do this?
This is also, you're going to see something here, this culture.
I can't keep track of everybody from Garrison Keillor to Russell Simmons to...
Everybody who seems to have ever been involved in anything is now being purged.
And not one person says, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, not me.
What are you talking about?
Not one person is saying, I don't know why that is.
Why did it take so long?
Oh, I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you why. It took so long because finally you got someone into power post-social media who wasn't tied to Hillary Clinton.
Because Hillary Clinton comes with the whole cover for Bill Clinton.
It comes with the media covering up all of this stuff.
And you don't want to start pulling that thread of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, rape allegations.
You don't want to start pulling that thread when you have a powerful Clinton around.
Because you will probably end up having...
You'll suddenly take up exercising and a gym will fall on you.
You will have a very challenging day.
So I think it's because...
This is why these guys didn't want Trump to get in.
Because they knew that someone was going to come in who wasn't going to be compromised by collusion with the Clintons.
Or, as we say now, they'll be ark-incited as the term is.
But let me also tell you this.
We're going to have this little thing.
It's going to be the...
We're going to blow off this.
The... This is a pedophile issue.
This is what Hollywood...
This is, in many respects, a limited hangout.
This is, let them feed on this.
Go ahead with Matt Lauer.
Rip his flesh off.
I don't care. Because they're going to say, ah, Mr.
Epstein, yeah, we'd like to talk to you about...
You people were talking about this Pizzagate stuff and you were kind of dismissed and some of you were crazy and some weren't.
We want to revisit that.
Everyone else is talking about this Corey Feldman.
Come here. We're not done yet.
Wait until you see that one.
Well, and the thing is, I mean, the Pizzagate stuff is, you know, I mean, you don't even need to go there because I think the most amazing thing that's come out of this, Lionel, is, I mean, I've been bound by NDAs in the past, think of the business world and so on, and they're really chilling.
You know, they're like...
You've got to put the big plunger like Jim Carrey style into your face to shut the hell up.
I think these days that NDAs aren't worth the paper that they're written on if it comes to this stuff.
Now, if the NDA dam bursts and if people no longer feel, and I think with some reason they no longer feel that these things are basically going to be enforceable.
I mean, technically, yes, but I don't think practically they would be enforceable anymore.
If this giant paper dam of NDAs busts and all of these allegations come out, I mean, man, I mean, we haven't even seen where they're going to come out much in Washington.
We've seen these, what is it, 267-odd harassment cases.
The Republican was just, I think, outed today with $84,000 or so that he spent to hush this kind of stuff up.
And we haven't seen it come yet out in academia.
In the sports world, I think the stuff is everywhere.
Oh, yes. And people have been silenced for way too long, and I think that silence is breaking.
And also you're going to be seeing some watcher, even Geraldo, Bette Midler.
Even? Especially.
I mean, did you read the guy's 1991 memo?
Exposing myself? He wasn't kidding.
Not only that, as they go back, back to Matt Lauer.
You're seeing Friars Club reviews where they're intimating that he's known for this.
You even see this bogus foe, which is redundant, play on this imaginary sexual impropriety investigation where they're mocking it.
So now we're getting into the hostile workplace, a locker room mentality.
Now here's the best part.
They were going to crucify.
Trump is, and Ann Curry, by the way, Ann Curry is so delirious and happy with this because she, of course, was ousted because of this creep, Matt Lauer.
But Trump says, now let me get this straight, Stephan.
In 2005, I, alone in a trailer with Billy Bush, being recorded, which, by the way, is a violation of California law, but I was being recorded.
We were basically two guys yucking it up about stuff about women.
And I said, quote, women will let you grab their...
Whatever. Will let you.
People frame this as sexual assault.
It's entirely voluntary.
It's entirely not coercive.
He's saying they will let you. If you're rich and famous, some...
Hey, has nobody ever heard of groupies before?
I mean, is this completely incomprehensible to people?
There are deadhead women who go around the Grateful Dead concerts barely wearing a...
Tooth floss up their butt.
And so the idea that there are no women out there who ever give sexual favors to rich and powerful men, I mean, come on.
I mean, so he's saying a truth that is universally acknowledged.
And he didn't say all women.
He said, yeah, there are women, if you're rich and famous, they'll let you grab them by the pussy.
And it was not coercive at all.
They were going to kill him.
Tar and feather him for that.
And you've got women here who are coming.
I can't even keep track.
Stephan, this was October the 9th, I think.
Let me just say this.
Coming up, we have this antediluvian, this ridiculous concept called the person of the year.
By the way, I'm sorry for this light.
The light's coming off of the Hudson River and there's very interesting shadows here.
I'm not sure if you're passing through into the afterlife or if you just need a curtain.
So just, you know, stay away from the relatives at least till we finish the show.
All right. So anyway, so to make a long story short, there's this idea going on right now that...
As we speak, people are saying, who is the man of the year?
There, I'm making it better.
Who is the person of the man of the year?
I respectfully submit, in all candor, that the person of the year is going to be the sexual predator.
The Hollywood, because remember, it's not a person, Hitler was a person of the year.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not a virtue thing.
The sexual predator, sexual predation, I have never in my life seen so many people from so many walks of life, but one after another.
And we are now in the, and I love using the word, the zeitgeist, the spirit of our times, where we are, thankfully, listening to people.
And then you're going to hear funds.
You're going to see the big lawsuits against NBC, corruption of aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring, and hiring, and acting as an accomplice, treating these women like making this the worst place.
Andy Lack, by the way, Andy Lack, when he was the president or the head of the Board of Broadcast Governors, compared RT to ISIS in Boko Haram.
That's the mindset we're dealing with.
So he's in charge of that.
Wait, RT was created by and funded by Obama and Hillary?
I didn't know that. Are they that close to ISIS? That's astounding.
Right. So what we're doing is right now, and let me just do this RT, and I've got to say this because, you know, in my great country, we talk about the First Amendment.
At Congress, They have, if you're Al Jazeera, if you're CCTV, if you're North Korean Gazette, no problem.
But because of this anti-Russian thing that Hillary started, because this was her first avenue of trying to explicate and expiate her loss, because it started with this faux Russian Kremlin gate, this red-baiting, russophobic nonsense, this... Cause the chain reaction.
And I'm telling you, you're going to see...
Remember years ago when they had freedom fries versus French fries?
You're going to have Russian dressing that's pulled out of French.
You're going to have Russian...
I mean, the Bolshoi will be...
We are in this insanity.
But meanwhile, as that's going on, as this incredible grand juries impaneled to go after Flynn for what exactly...
You have sexual predation, rape, Bill Clinton to this day, whose wife didn't just look the other way, but actively, according to the testimony of these women, actively sought retribution and fear and obstruction of justice.
What kind? And we laugh at Canada!
Well, but here's the thing.
Here's the thing, and maybe we can close on this note.
There is a massive revolution going on at the moment.
There is a financial revolution, wherein resources are being transferred from the old economy, pre-Bitcoin, to the new economy, Bitcoin and post.
But more importantly, from a cultural standpoint, Lionel, there is...
A great migration of eyeballs.
There is a great migration of mind space.
Away from these compromised, bought out, corrupt, late Roman, decadent vomitorium, watching the gladiators tear apart the Christians, old media, well, to people like you and me.
And the more that they get hit with the corruption, the more that advertisers pull out, the more that they lose half a billion dollar Golden Boy, Grabby Hands, Matt Lauer, the more that these horrible, wriggling, disgusting, cockroach-like vermin are dragged up out into the light, the more people are going to flee.
As stomach-churning and stomach-turning, they're going to flee this cesspool of pretty people, and they're going to go to people where they can trust.
They're going to go towards outlets that they can trust.
We have in this, here we have Cumulus Radio, by the way, Cumulus has been delisted and their stock hit nine cents a day and they're going Chapter 11.
iHeartRadio, these are two of the monsters.
I need a cash infusion or they're dead.
What we're doing right now, believe it or not, by virtue of what seems to be rather simple, you and I are speaking friend to friend, person to person, without being interrupted by some stupid whatever it is.
We're not having some floor director giving us countdowns.
Wrap up your 45-second point of a complex issue.
We are not in any way limited.
And what we're doing is simply this.
We... And I feel just so blessed to be able to be possessed with this idea that I just want you to hear our truth.
And if you don't like us, we will find out.
And this is so big.
This is Brobdenagian, colossal.
They don't get it.
You've talked to people before, and I'm sure people say, Stefan, what do you do now exactly?
You have a what? What is this?
Do you know? And you, and I'm sorry, in the pantheon of the biggies, I mean, you're, this is just, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, I can't even put into words.
And what we're doing is we're seeing people from all over the world.
And what are we doing? By virtue of the way we're speaking, we have this veracity, this verity, this honesty that people say, you know what?
I dig him.
That's it. Look at your set!
Look at this set you're on!
What is this? I have no idea.
I mean, that's it!
And what it is, it's you and it's truth.
And we are so lucky to be alive right now.
Yeah. Because these are the greatest signs.
It's the Gutenberg Press moment where the information is pulled from the clergy and given to the people.
And it's a great line from, I think it's about Bob Dylan's song.
Isn't it? Where he says, all I have is three chords, three chords, and the truth.
What have we got? We got a webcam, we got a microphone, we got a screen.
But we got the truth. And I think that's where the market is going to go.
So thanks very much for your time.
I wanted to remind people that you can, of course, check out Lionel Nation.
We'll put the links below. Follow him on Twitter as well.
Very engaging, very entertaining, very spontaneous, very informed.
So thanks so much for your time, my friend.
I really, really appreciate it. I'm sure we'll do it again soon.
▲
Export Selection