All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:16
GENERAL FLYNN FREED!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That was definitely the cussingest periscope I've ever seen from you.
And don't feel free.
Feel free to not hold back here.
It's kind of important.
Hi, everybody. Here with Mike Cernovich.
Cernovich.com.
Guerrilla mindset and all other kinds of cutie pie hairstyles that I can only envy from my post-50 vantage point.
But, Mike, great to have you with us.
I wanted to talk about the General Flynn situation, and I can talk about the old philosophy of law stuff, but there's a lot of details that you've been tracking for the last couple of years.
Can you just get us up to speed on the 4-1-1, I guess, the fast-forward version of what happened today?
Yeah, so today the Department of Justice moved on its own to withdraw the complaint against General Flynn.
So in other words, the way our system works is the prosecutor indicts you and you have a defense lawyer who defends you.
It's called the adversarial system, which is in fact not the norm.
In Europe, they have an inquisitorial system where the judge and the prosecutor is kind of like the same person.
So here we have judge, defense lawyer, prosecutor.
The prosecutor or the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the case that they had followed against General Flynn.
Now... Part of me, and it was a very, very brief part of me, and I killed it quickly, but part of me was like, a sudden attack of conscience.
And then I thought, well, no, no, I think it's because the next step in the examination of what the hell happened with his law firm, with the FBI, the next step is going to reveal even more horrible deep state innards, and it's going to implicate even more people in wrongdoing, so they're just putting a stop to it now to kind of staunch the bleeding.
Yeah, that's exactly what I think had happened.
Where it's not quite, you know, as cynical as I am, there's also a sense that conservatives were the people who were traditionally pro-law and order, and they just watched, I mean, you know, talk about following the rules.
You're a decorated military general.
His brother's a general.
This is like Americana.
And that doesn't matter.
They're still going to crush you.
So the FBI and the Department of Justice now have to deal with not only Black Lives Matter, and some of their complaints are valid, as we show notes.
So I don't want to be too dismissive.
But now they have to not only deal with sort of left-wing activists, but right-wing people who are just like, F off.
You people are evil.
So Bill Barr is trying to restore the legitimacy of the institution, which is ironic because the left is saying, oh, he's destroying the institution.
No, he's trying to save it.
Because you can't have a functioning criminal court system if everybody who walks in there, be they left-wing or right-wing figures, these people are just liars.
They'll say anything to get a conviction.
He's trying to restore some kind of public trust.
Okay, so... So let's talk a little bit about that.
You tweeted a while ago and it really sort of struck me where you said, okay, so just let's assume that they're all lying now.
Don't participate. Jury nullification.
Just assume everybody from the FBI who's up on the stand is not telling the truth and so on.
I know that's kind of a brinksmanship move and saying, yeah, we kind of need some reform here.
But I mean, how serious is that perspective?
Yeah, I admit that with all sincerity, and I still mean it to this day, especially if it's a drug case.
If we're talking, you know, very serious violent crime and the evidence is overwhelming, where you don't have to just rely on the agent, right?
Where there's evidence other than the agent's testimony, that's fine, but I'm Any kind of non-violent crime, any kind of drug crime, yeah, just assume they're lying to you.
Just assume they planted the drugs on the guy.
This is the way people who are...
Because me, you know, am I conservative?
Not politically, not really.
But my audience mostly is, and I think that they were seeing that.
the, the, cause I hear from a lot of law enforcement people who they weren't really liking some of the things I were saying.
And that was making his way around, which is do these, like, think about it like Dan Bajino, even, um, Kurt Schlechter.
He's a very, he's always been super pro LEO.
So the, the people who are sort of the classical, you know, we love the police back to blue and I'll saying, you know what?
Fuck these people, you know, go to hell that you can't, you can't, you won't get any more convictions.
The whole system crumbles, so Barr is trying to save the reputation because they don't need DC. This is the problem.
If we lost everybody in D.C. who was at the DOJ and FBI, everything would be great.
Those are the bread and butter, salt of the earth people making America function.
It's the people everywhere else, and that's who they lost.
That's the trust that they lost.
Right. Now, of course, the Democrats are running around squalling that this is a politicized process.
I sort of tweeted and said, okay, so if you take aim and you shoot your enemies, that's not political.
It's only if you miss.
And this was just like a real supernatural, Pulp Fiction-style bullet dodge that happened kind of at the end here.
It's only political if you miss.
Let's talk a little bit How bad was this under Obama?
Because, you know, I tweeted the other day, like, what did Obama do to the FBI? Now, I get it.
The FBI under Hoover and so on, like, they've been involved in some skanky stuff almost from day one, but it did seem to accelerate in the same way it did under the IRS, under Lois Lerner, under Obama.
Yeah, so there's, so yeah, to explain my perspective is that there, you know, recently, and viewing me as a controversial figure, I was for many, many years, well over a decade, a pretty straight-laced, con law guy, legal guy. So that's why a lot of times people will see me talking with people that you, like, wouldn't expect.
People who are, like, very much never Trump, but they're lawyers whose opinions I respect on certain matters, and Likewise, their friends would be like, how do you know this Cernovich guy?
Don't you know he's blah, blah, blah?
No, you don't understand the guy.
So what I'm seeing is three kind of stories taking shape.
One is, our side, General Flynn was railroaded, but nobody else ever is, you know?
Everybody else, this is a one-off kind of thing to punish Trump and the coup and everything else.
And then on the other side, I'm seeing people on the left are saying Flynn was a traitor.
Can you believe this happened?
Yada, yada, yada. And then...
Third Strain is the most bizarre one.
The Third Strain is a hybrid of...
I mean, yeah, General Flynn got railroaded, but everybody gets railroaded.
That's just the way it works.
And they think that's like defending the system, right?
You want to shake these people and be like, no, no, no.
Actually, because that's, by the way, what I believe, except I don't believe Flynn was guilty.
So then there's me who...
I mean, Flynn got railroaded in a way that was not special.
Roger Stone got railroaded in a way that's not special.
This is just the way...
Look what happened to Ross Lubrick, right?
This is what they do to people.
They just... They framed Ross Lubrick.
They framed him for Murder for Hire that wasn't true.
And then they dismissed that.
Once they lost, they didn't need the leverage anymore because he had a life sentence.
His appeals were exhausted.
Then other agents stole his Bitcoin.
I mean, I think you've talked to Ross's mom before.
And plus, you've been into Bitcoin, so this is an old hat to you.
So to guys like us, we're just like, General Flynn got railroaded.
It was wrong. And it's wrong when it happens to Ross.
It's wrong when it happens to the Muslim mosque down the street.
It's wrong when it happens to the Black or Hispanic drug.
It's wrong. It's just always wrong.
But the guys that I used to follow, that I used to respect, lawfare people, Oren Kerr kind of people, these are, you know, the premier of the legal system.
I mean, these are the people who are going to be the future federal judges, maybe Supreme Court judges, and they're just like, well, you know, Barr is destroying the legitimacy of the Attorney General.
Unlike Obama and Eric Holder who didn't.
And you're just like, okay, well, I can deal with opinion, but the facts are Eric Holder in 2012 covered up Operation Fast and Furious, first cabinet official ever in history to be held.
So the way an honest thinker is, And it works its way of law and philosophy.
They're all the same. You have to deal with the bad stuff, right?
So if somebody came to you and said, Stefan Molyneux, Mike Cernovich said X, Y, and Z, and you're just like, well, he never actually said that.
I mean, you're not really, you know, that's not the answer.
The answer is, well, yeah, there's da-da-da-da-da-da.
So what they're doing is, like, well, I mean, Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for covering up, like, a murder.
A federal agent got murdered by a drug cartel by a gun that was sold to him through the ATF. I mean, this is bad.
That never happened. So now you're just lying.
Or you're not addressing the truth.
And I'm seeing a ton of that from the legal people.
I'm seeing a ton of people now where they're like...
We've talked about this many times before.
To live in this world, you have to play pretend.
You just can't notice patterns that are objectively true.
So the Georgia thing happens.
I watch the video and I'm like, looks pretty bad.
But I'm going to wait and see and get other stuff.
Well, version 1.0 of Trayvon looked pretty bad.
Version 1.0 of Mike Brown looked pretty bad.
And maybe it is as bad as everyone says, but I'm not going to say anything until I get more context, because otherwise what we do is we end up with Rodney King riots, hundreds of people get killed, billions of dollars of property damage, thousands of injuries, and for what?
For falsehoods. So I'm going to need to see a little context.
Right. But we have to pretend like those other things never happened.
We have to pretend like hands up, don't shoot, didn't actually start a riot.
We have to pretend like there wasn't a major shooting of Dallas shooters and it was actually a hate crime.
And if you read the case files, Micah, I forget his last name, I don't want to misidentify anyone.
But if you read the case file, he said he wanted to kill as many white police as he possibly could in retaliation.
And then there was the shooting in Tennessee where the shooter said this is retaliation for what Dylann Roof did.
So I'm here saying, like, hey, can we just all pretend like this stuff, or rather, to survive in public life, you have to pretend like none of that happened.
This one video you see is the totality of reality, and that the media doesn't want to gin that up for drama, whereas me, I'm like, yep, video looks pretty bad.
I want to see more evidence.
I'm glad to, you know, look at all the, oh, how dare you defend them?
Okay. And so everything about this world is pretence, and now people are pretending that the judge doesn't have to accept the prosecutor's decision to dismiss the case.
Oh, I saw this. Like, actual legal writers saying, oh no, maybe he just won't listen to the DOJ, and what is he going to create?
Some alternate dimension DOJ, which gives him the go-ahead for this?
I mean, that's not really within the realm of possibility from a legal framework, as far as I understand it.
Right, and I'll explain why not.
The way the Constitution is structured, separation of powers, three branches of government, and the prosecutorial power is delegated to the executive branch, and the federal court power is delegated to Article III courts, and what they're allowed to do is supervise what happens in their court, but you can't tell the Department of Justice to prosecute or not prosecute someone.
So what people are doing is, and this is where lawyers are clever.
Lawyers are very clever at being dishonest.
And there's a little line in Rule 48 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that say the Department of Justice with leave of court can move to dismiss an indictment.
And people are like, see, with leave of court means you need to judge his position.
Well, if you're a layman and you stumble upon that rule, I would say that's a perfectly rational reading of the rule, like completely.
But if you actually read the cases, there's a case for Naldi v.
United States. That part was put in there because what prosecutors were doing was they were saying, oh, we're going to dismiss the case against you because it's not looking so good for us, but then we're going to refile a month later on better terms for us.
So that line was put in there to protect criminal defendants from gamesmanship of the prosecutor.
It doesn't give the judges all this kind of power.
So you can read cases from the 70s.
There's a whole long line of cases where They're saying, no, no, no, we'll leave a court.
That just means that the prosecutors can't play little games as to protect the defendants.
So here with Flynn, they're saying, we're dismissing it with prejudice, which means we can't refile it.
So what's the judge? The judge has no power to say, well, you have to go forward with the case.
That goes against bedrock, day one, comma, 101 separation of powers and principles.
So if you're not a lawyer, you didn't go to law school, you're not a common law scholar, you don't really understand this, I'm very patient with people.
But if you're a legal reporter, And you're like, boy, the judge just might not do it.
It's like, okay, you're a legal journalist.
You're either lying, or you're not qualified for the job, or you're playing pretend.
Because we have Neil Katow, Solicitor General, the cream of the crop.
That's why these people frustrate me, I guess, because when it's people like Professor Kerr, people like Neil Katow, these are, like, I know who these people are.
They are the best of the best.
So they're not being...
Ethical. They're not playing it straight.
Because if you're playing it straight, you would say just what I said, which is, Judge Sullivan doesn't have any inherent authority to order a prosecution to go forward after the Department of Justice is declined to prosecute.
The end, full stop. But you want to play into that fury, oh, maybe 11th hour, Hail Mary, Sullivan's going to come as a hero, when in fact, as bad as Sullivan has been at the case...
There was a motion he filed, or rather not a motion, an order he issued with Covington and Burlington saying, proceed forthwith, which is like a legal term to get your fucking act together, because Covington kept fining new documents, and then they're like, oh, we're fining more, and then it turns out Eric Holder's at Covington, and he was trashing Flynn, which is like a legal, ethical thing that's just like a no-no of no-no conflict of interest.
So I think, if anything, Judge Sullivan has just pissed at everybody now.
I don't think he's like, Flynn's been railroaded, but I think he's not happy with anyone.
So, let's talk a little bit about these Brady violations or what seem to be Brady violations.
So, I'll give you like 30 seconds on my sort of philosophy of exculpatory evidence and then see if it makes any sense.
So, the government, of course, has awesome powers of investigation, right?
They can subpoena, they can search, they can go through your bank records, they can go through your cell data, they can just lift up every nook and cranny, your tax returns.
And so, the defense doesn't have really those powers, at least until you get to trial.
And so, because the government has such incredible powers of investigation, they've got to turn over everything, because otherwise it's completely a lopsided situation.
And not turning over this stuff is, to me, it's not just professional misconduct.
To me, it's, you know, in the criminal realm of misconduct, because it's going to get people thrown in jail unjustly and unfairly, and you don't know what you don't know, right?
If they don't turn over documents when they're supposed to, you don't know.
So what the hell is happening that...
Thousands of documents are just bubbling up to the surface.
Oh, look, I checked under the couch, and oh, you know, it was in my other jeans, and then it went through the laundry, but I was able to get it back.
Like, what the hell is going on?
Yeah, par for the course, really.
I mean, that's where I agree with the lawfare people, which is, yeah, they do it to everyone because they get away with it all the time.
They almost got away with it for General Flynn.
I mean, when General Flynn hired Sidney Powell to be his lawyer, one reason they did that is because I had been tipped off that the 302 is an official.
This is another thing about the FBI. Let me see if I can find the quote while we're talking.
Oh, this is the, they take notes rather than record, which to me is about as squidgy as you could, like, why wouldn't you want to just record it?
Why do you have to take notes later, which allows you to put whatever the hell you want in to some degree.
Yeah, and I'm trying to find a quote.
There's actually a quote from a leaked manual from the Department of Justice and the FBI that made its way out there.
And the quote went something like, the reason we don't record is that perfectly lawful means of obtaining information might be misinterpreted by lay juries as coercive.
Yeah, the quote really is that bad.
Well, why don't they do that with depositions then?
Why don't they do that with everything else?
I'm going to read the exact quote.
This is from the FBI field manual.
This was a story that the New York Times wrote 20 years ago, back when they cared about this kind of stuff.
Here's a quote. Perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants.
So in other words, we tell you, we're going to prosecute your kid if you don't plead guilty.
Most people would be mortified.
Like, wait a minute. I mean, if Michael Flynn Jr.
did something, then he did it, and that's his own case and everything.
Like, we're going to go after your family.
And they say worse than this. They're like, we're going to go after your family.
We'll destroy everybody in your family if you don't plead.
That's perfectly legal, by the way.
Judges have allowed that to happen.
But if you recorded that, and that's why people are mortified by the Flint stuff.
If you're like, wait a minute, they threatened his son?
Like, why would you be able to threaten his son in an unrelated case to get a guilty plea?
Because that's what they do.
Because fuck you. Because bull the power.
Because we live in a Nietzschean, satanic world where Adam Schiff and anyone else who gets power, they're going to support Joe Biden.
In the New York Times, now they're admitting, well, yeah, he raped her, but, you know...
Orange Man bad. I'm a joke.
They're just admitting it now, which this is after they ignored it.
So remember first, the podcast, April 25th.
Terry comes out April 26th.
You're talking about it. I'm talking about it.
Tim Pool, even lefties like him are talking about it.
A month later, you know, or maybe rather March.
So I got off by a month. A month later now, late April, the rest of the media has talked because they tried to ignore it.
And now they're like, well, we just...
We just admit it. Who cares, though?
We've got to keep power.
We've got to get our power.
That's shocking to people, but to people like us, it's not shocking.
It's just the nature of government. So there's something fascinating to me that you touched on in your earlier live stream and really would recommend.
I'll put the links to it below.
Follow Mike's live stream. So you were talking about how...
So General Flynn, you know, I mean, he looks like a military-aged Ken doll.
Like, he really has the look.
I actually met him. He's a really great guy.
But... Yeah, sit down with the FBI without a lawyer because they're just, you know, they're your friends.
They're just there to have a little chat, you know, like they were with Reality Winner and all that.
And this lack of sophistication, this lack of knowledge, this lack of concern, I guess maybe he's grown up in the army where there's all these kinds of rules that you kind of have to follow and he's got authority and so on.
And maybe that's what the conservatives are seeing.
Like, here's a guy who trusted the cats in blue.
And it could have destroyed his entire life, could have destroyed his family life.
Certainly it's destroyed his finances for the foreseeable future.
And I think that's, you know, there but for the grace of God go I. I think there's a lot of wake up that's going on.
I mean, not just with the arresting hairdressers during the pandemic, but also because of what happened to General Flynn.
How is it possible that he just, I guess he has positive interactions with law enforcement all throughout his career.
And it's like, sure, here's another one.
Yeah, and that's why the evidence that came out was exculpatory.
It showed in the memo, Flynn told him, this wasn't handed over now, it just magically appears.
He told them, he's like, oh yeah, I mean, you guys are recording the conversation.
You know what's in there. You know, it's just kind of like nonchalant.
That was why he got caught up, is because in a way, he knew so much about That he is thinking, what's the big deal?
Like, oh yeah, you want to come in and chat?
They even said he was looking out the window.
He's like, okay guys, I don't mean to be rude.
I can do a few minutes. Come in, what's going on?
Oh yeah, this is the thing. Did you ask about that?
Oh, well you guys have a recording.
You guys have all that information anyway.
So... For him, because he knew they already had it, and that's of course why we know he didn't lie, he knew they already had it, so for him, what's the big deal?
These are my colleagues, these are the counter-espionage people, because that's how you would see it, but that's how you should see it.
We don't see it that way anymore, not that you or I ever did, but if you're the national security advisor, And the head of the counter-espionage, or the second in command, McCabe, calls you and says, hey, will you talk to these FBI guys and help them out?
If you told them no or lawyered up, that would be, like, to me, more suspicious.
Because you're just colleagues, you know, working for the greater good of America.
And when he didn't realize, and this is what Jeff Sessions didn't realize, remember Jeff's like, I'll do the honorable thing and accuse myself?
Like, well, you're a Stark, and you went to King's Landing and watched maybe Game of Thrones season one.
To find out how that works.
And that's what happened. General Flynn was an honorable man.
And he got killed by all the Lannisters.
Now, he was obviously allowed to talk to an ambassador, and it was an incoming administration.
And there's this really chilling clip where people say, you know, how did these guys get into the White House, these FBI agents?
And Comey says, well, I sent them.
You know, I sent them.
I knew I wasn't supposed to.
It was against protocol, but, you know, I wouldn't have got away with it.
Obama, I wouldn't have got away with it with Bush.
But, you know, it's chaos, and I thought I'd just kind of slip these guys in there and so on.
I mean, it's to me fairly unfathomable that this stuff is all operating in plain sight.
It's like Biden's confession of strong-arming the Ukrainian prosecutor.
I mean, you don't have to somehow transcribe ancient Aramaic or figure out the Rosetta Stone.
This is all stuff that is publicly talked about, that is publicly discussed.
It's not secret.
And... Now what?
Okay, hang on. So when we get to the now what?
So all of this stuff is going on pretty early on.
And I think it is just an unprecedented situation for General Flynn, right?
I mean, this kind of stuff, this kind of entrapment, this kind of targeting of senior people of a new administration.
I can't recall it happening.
Now, maybe it happened. We didn't see it.
But I think this level of counterattack to an incoming president was kind of new because the whole Trump phenomenon was kind of new, too.
Oh yeah, objective. What they did to him is, like Scooter Libby got caught up.
There's been little cases here and there where somebody's caught up in the game, but there was never something like this.
No, because Trump was, you know, Trump blew it.
Not blew it and got it wrong, but blew up the system.
The idea was, well, you're going to have Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.
Now we all love George H.W. Bush when he does a video on some stupid viral campy video.
And then you have people like Katie Hill who are like, oh, I wish...
I miss George W., you know, Katie Hill who's sexually harassed staffers.
Oh yeah, I wish we had Bush back.
You mean like the war criminal Bush who lied to get us into weapons?
And that's what frustrates me about these people.
And frustrating is like a real emotion, I feel.
Because I know people who are like otherwise intelligent where I'm like, okay, I get it.
Trump is a compulsive. Everything you're saying about Trump, I agree with.
Explain to me, though, how he did anything worse than lying about WMDs in Iraq.
Well, they'll go, that's what about us?
And it's like, no, it isn't. I'm in good faith gonna say, yeah, dude, there's just a lot of things about Trump that I don't think are particularly savory, you know?
But how is it worse than Obama's drone strikes on weddings and the record drone strikes Obama did?
What's your moral bearings?
Or tell me how what William Barr did today, allegedly, is worse than what Holder did and be in contempt of Congress.
Show me where the moral boundaries are.
And that's the remaining negativity I have, that there is some kind of moral boundary work, and that it isn't just will to power.
And it is just will to power.
And it's good to remind our side that it is just will to power.
The terrorist stuff with Joe Biden is another stark reminder that it is just will to power.
So when they, oh, Trump's, that's why what I say is when people say Trump's, I'm like, I don't, I know, I don't care.
You know, I'm not gonna, I don't care.
And people are like, what do you mean?
I'm like, no, I just, I don't care.
Because politics is about alternatives.
And I can have Donald Trump in there, or I could have had some cackling witch who destroyed Libya, has been a part of every destruction of every country in the world, caused karmic suffering hard to comprehend, and wanted to do that in Syria.
Or I can stay with Trump, who he resisted those high-pressure campaigns with the gas attacks, you know, and then a gas attack a year later, of course, in the anniversary.
And he hasn't escalated any kind of war.
So it just doesn't impress me when they try to play this kind of, you know, moral posture and moral high ground stuff.
There is a moral high ground. Do you think that Flynn was targeted to some degree because he might have been the front man for Trump's de-escalation of imperialism?
So the best writing that I've seen in a long time on any subject And about Flynn's arrest is by Andrew McCarthy, and I never linked to the National Review, but I did on this one.
You have to be the last resort for me to ever link to the National Review.
I did one of those recently, too.
I'm just like, oh God, okay, but the article was so good.
And the real reason it went after Flynn is because as national security advisor, he would be briefed on all these coup attempts.
And he would have full authority, and he had a full team in there at the NSC. Remember I did all this early reporting at the NSC and how, because once they got rid of Flynn, oh, we got this traitor, they didn't stop at Flynn.
Then they started purging all of his people who were loyal to him, and therefore the MAGA people, And then they tried to bring in people who, they tried to bring in this one girl, Diane something, I forget her last name, but she was part of the Benghazi hoaxes.
When she was at the CIA, she wrote the hoax memo from Benghazi, the so-called Benghazi talking points about how it was really a YouTube video that decided this and nobody could have known.
So that's the real reason.
The real reason it went after Flynn was And McCarthy wrote about it in such a beautiful way, is he would have known everything.
He would have known the coup was going on.
He just would have said, hey guys, you know, knock it off.
And then Trump has a completely different presidency.
Yeah. And I also wonder, and we've talked about this, you know, as you sort of mentioned, a satanic world and so on.
Something that is criminally underreported is how much Trump is going after sex traffickers, pedophiles, pedophile rings, and so on.
And man, those people are going to fight dirty when they fight back.
I don't think it's all just about politics and power.
I think it's a lot about some really seedy and nasty personal sexual predilections and predatory behavior and so on.
And I think that there's a lot of that stuff kind of mixed up.
Like if you're a really, really bad guy, you kind of want to be on the throne because then you get to, or at least not have the guy on the throne see you for who you are.
And I think while Trump is kind of a hound dog and kind of plays fast and loose with his marriage vows sometimes, he's not that way inclined.
And I think a lot of that stuff, you know, like the guys at Harvard and Weinstein and anyway, I think that there's a lot of that kind of slinky, really tentacle stuff going on in the current world scene.
Well, here's something I didn't know.
Somebody told me Julia Brown of the Miami Herald who broke the Epstein story didn't win a Pulitzer.
I was like, that can't be right.
That's the kind of thing...
Because my mind is pretty...
That can't be right. It wasn't even nominated.
So is there anybody on this stream listening now who can give me a rational, non-conspiratorial reason...
Why Julie Brown was not nominated for Pulitzer.
The Epstein story, by far the biggest story of the year.
Nothing was even close to it.
And the hardest. By far the most impactful.
I mean, you name it, right?
Just however you measure these things, you can disagree about some things, and there's always disagreements at the margins.
Just impactful, led to all kinds of follow-up reporting.
Harvard just issues a report about the Epstein's case.
That's all because of her. Oh, that's all these Harvard people who...
It's okay. They only went to Epstein's ghetto aisle to recreational.
So it had nothing... Is that the tweet?
I think I saw that. Yeah.
No, they said that in the report.
They said that people visited...
Harvard people visited Epstein in jail...
But only as a friend, and that doesn't violate university guidance.
But meanwhile, imagine if I tried to speak at Harvard.
All these fucking same people would be like, I can't believe you're going to let them speak.
This is a monster.
But you have professors literally visiting and colluding with pedophiles doing God knows what on campus, and they won't even name them on campus, right?
Harvard gave him an office after his conviction.
After they give him an office, he visits 40 times.
Right. But Julie Brown doesn't get, and to return to her, I guess their point is, everybody knows who Jeffrey Epstein is in the United States of America.
That's all because of Julie Brown.
I'm happy to take some credit for things and blah, blah, blah, but without Julie Brown, we don't have the outcomes that we have.
So how do you not give her a Pulitzer?
How does she not win a Pulitzer?
Right? Well, that tells you what the system is doing.
Because the system is protecting, they're protecting pedophiles, for sure, at every level.
Harvard, government, and media, even.
Yeah, sorry.
I think they visited Epstein in jail.
I think I referred to his island.
I don't know if they went there, but they went to go visit Epstein in jail.
Yeah, they visited his house, too.
Okay, so let's just close off by talking about what Flynn's options are going forward.
I mean, the guy's, what has he got, $5 million in legal fees.
His family's been dragged through living hell year after year after year.
What are his options?
I mean, it's hard to say what he will do, because obviously he's going to have to consult his own conscience regarding that, and he might just be kind of burned out at all of this kind of stuff and want to enjoy his grandkids, which I certainly wouldn't fault him for.
But what are his options going forward?
Yeah, he's got massive lawsuits against the federal government, against the prosecutors, against the FBI, and he's got a malpractice lawsuit against his prior law firm.
There are various degrees of complexity and difficulty as to each of these lawsuits, but he has highly plausible, highly credible lawsuits.
So I anticipate Covington is what, because they're just, there's no defending.
So quick background.
So, it's almost impossible to sue your lawyer for malpractice in a criminal case.
The only way you can sue them, and when, is if you prove that you were actually innocent.
And if you like Flynn, you say that he's actually innocent, but as a lawyer looking at the legal standards, it's a little more complicated than that, okay?
But Covington with Eric Holder talking shit on Flynn who's a client, that's grounds for disbarment actually.
That's like conflict of interest. So the way it is is if you and I have a law firm and you just have the person I hate more than anything as a client, guess what?
I can't say shit because we're in a law firm and that's a client and that's law, legal ethics 101.
That's not even like nuanced or complicated.
So Covington is going to have to give him a check, a seven-figure check, whether it's $1.5 or $5.5 million.
But Flynn's not going to leave millions on the table.
More importantly, his lawyer, Sidney Powell, I'm sure is going to be like, okay, Dad, you know, Queen took care of you, got you out of this.
It's time for me to get a nice paycheck.
It's time for me to get a nice thing.
So God bless Sidney Powell for winning what I viewed as an impossible case.
No way I thought Flynn would.
Just thought he was screwed.
You know, it sucked for him and unfortunately is where it was.
So Sidney Powell is going to want that lawsuit.
Yeah, so Covington, that'll be seven figures.
Low to mid.
Federal government, five to ten million probably.
Is that for the Brady violations or something else?
The wrongful prosecution.
Yeah, you're just wrongful prosecution.
The government has defenses to it that are pretty strong.
But they don't want to bring a...
They don't want more evidence to get out.
Because what happened today I don't think was some kind of noble thing.
What happened today was very much stop the bleeding.
More stuff is going to come out.
Worse stuff is going to come out.
We're just going to fall on our sword here.
Otherwise it's going to get worse and worse and worse and we'll try to store some kind of institutional trust.
I think they come up with a good number for him just to get him not to settle.
And just to make it kind of go away.
And I think it'll be a sizable number.
But you can't deal with corruption through financial settlements unless somebody loses a house, at least, right?
Because the Covington's going to have legal insurance and the taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for what happens from the federal government.
So nobody's hurting from the people who've done it.
I mean, that's the paradox of all this, is that the guilty people don't pay.
The people who went through this didn't want to go through it.
Like when General Flynn has $5 million in his account in another three years, he's not going to be like, woohoo!
That was worth it. Oh, wow!
You know, he much rather would have not had the hell of that and just lived a nice life and run his businesses and everything else.
So, yeah, nobody wins.
As Clarence Darrow has said, there's no justice in this life or in the next.
Although, I might disagree as to the next.
Well, hopefully we have a long time to find out.
Okay, well, listen, Mike, I really, really appreciate that update.
If you could just remind my listeners where to get a hold of your material and your products.
Yeah, sure. Just go to Cernovich.com.
Oh yeah, we meant to talk about this.
We forgot to. It's hilarious.
Brian Stelter of CNN wrote a book.
The book's title is Hoax.
I swear on my life.
I thought it was a joke.
Somebody texted me a screenshot of this tweet.
Oh, this is funny.
Hoax. Even a bunch of reporters are like, yeah, when I got the press release for that and it said hoax, I immediately thought of your movie.
I think that's pretty humorous.
It would be interesting to know if the book title changed after Hoaxed, which is a documentary that Mike made.
I'm in it a little bit, but it's hoaxedmovie.com.
You've got to watch it. I mean, it's timeless.
It's beautifully shot by Scooter Downey and John Dutoit.
And it's a fantastic movie.
And you should go and check it out at hoaxedmovie.com.
But yeah, it'd be interesting because after that blew up, right?
After the whole Amazon thing, it really blew up.
And it'd just be interesting if you're like, hmm, maybe I should change the name of the book.
Yeah, it has a life of its own.
And then remember, too, the first subtitle for the book was Hoax, the Deadly Consequences of Fake News.
And then Brian's is Hoax, Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth.
Come on, dude. Get out of here.
I ended up changing the deadly consequences of fake news to everything they told you is a lie because I just kind of A-B tested it and the other one performed better.
Come on, bro. Literally no one believes that He's like, oh, I think I'm going to write a book.
We're just going to call it Hoax.
And I just came up with this idea all by myself before this movie ever came out.
Yeah. Oh, anyone.
Brian Stelter writing a book called Hoax is like me writing a book called Bald.
It's just like looking in the mirror, man.
And by the way, for those of you who are saying that they envy my haircut, it's just a pair of sheep shears, man.
I don't have any issues to deal with there.
And I'm done.
But all right. So Surnovich.com.
Thanks a lot, Mike. Always a great pleasure to chat.
All my best to the family.
And we'll talk again soon. Perfect.
▲
Export Selection