Nov. 13, 2021 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
50:43
20211113_Hour_1
|
Time
Text
You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is the Political Cesspool.
The Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Live broadcast of TPC.
It's Saturday evening, November the 13th.
I'm James Edwards, and this is the Political Cesspool.
For the third consecutive week, we are going to be weighing in heavily on the trial in Charlottesville, Virginia, which I think cuts directly to the heart of freedom of speech in this country.
We'll also be covering this evening the latest news from the trials of Kyle Rittenhouse and also the trial dealing with the shooting of Ahmaude Arbery in Georgia, as well as much more.
So stay tuned, and I should remind you that for those interested in the Charlottesville trial, and so many of you are, we are not going to recover ground that we have plowed over the course of the last two weeks.
We have covered this very comprehensively and very much in a chronological order, in a timeline.
So if you want the full and complete treatment that we've given this trial, you're going to have to go back to the archives and listen to the last two weeks programmings.
When we pick up on the trial now, we're going to pick up on it dealing with the events of just this past week and try to zero in and bring you up to date on what you've missed since last Saturday night.
And helping me do that this evening is Trey Garrison.
Trey is author of the brand new book, Opioids for the Masses.
We're going to have Trey back on in short order to talk about that very heavy and important topic.
But first, Trey is with us tonight in his capacity as a writer for National Justice, where he has been covering the trial extensively, writing articles after each day of testimonies and proceedings there in Charlottesville.
He has covered it as extensively, really more extensively than anyone out there for national-justice.com.
So Trey, welcome to TPC and your first appearance.
It's great to have you.
James, I appreciate you having me.
I think we'll have a good time tonight.
Well, there's so much to cover, so let's get right down to it.
And again, thank you for being with us.
If people are unaware, I got to say again, as a point of emphasis, nobody has listened to this trial more.
Nobody has written about it more than you.
And I've listened to, I would say, in excess of 90% each day.
Now, I will just say this about this week, and I guess you could say this about the entire trial in general.
But the plaintiffs are combing through social media posts for bad think.
Clearly, to me, this is not about conspiracy, but rather making the jury dislike the co-defendants.
Of course, many of the co-defendants didn't know one another at all.
They had never met or even spoken on the phone or through social media, much less entered into a conspiracy with one another to commit violence and anarchy on the streets of Charlottesville on that fateful day of August the 12th, 2017.
So to me, the entire case is absolutely absurd.
But what you've got here is activist attorneys going out to shut down the people that they hate.
If there's any hatred involved here, tell me if you agree or disagree with that.
And I need a mic.
Tell me if you agree or disagree with that and take it away with what you've seen this week.
Well, absolutely.
I think you're spot on.
I was really hesitant within the first two weeks to call it a solid trend.
And when I'm talking about this, I always caution people that are listening, manage your expectations.
How we see it sitting from the outside, not being actual juror members, 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty.
You just never know how they're going to receive these things.
I'm only going to speak about this objectively from how we, any reasonable-minded person would look at this.
And what has emerged both this week, kind of solidifying the trend, and what we've seen over the whole of the three weeks so far has been one part plaintiff's sob stories, One part, just bizarre expert testimony that has absolutely nothing to do with establishing a conspiracy.
One part, let's bring up everything these people have ever said on a podcast and social media, every private communication where they said the most outrageous things that would be the most obnoxious or, quote, unquote, racist to a normie's ears.
And present that before the jury, not as, again, any evidence of conspiracy, but rather to prejudice the jury against these people as individuals.
Yes, I think that's a fantastic assessment of what's going on there.
And we said this last week that in my opinion, and this is just my opinion, if the plaintiffs' attorneys really cared about their plaintiffs, they would have gone after the people that were actually responsible for whatever damages or rather whatever injuries they may have sustained.
And that's the city of Charlottesville, the Charlottesville Police Department, the governor of the state of Virginia, the state of Virginia, etc.
But they didn't do that because it's a politically motivated trial and a politically motivated trial.
Oh, absolutely.
I'll go you one better on the damages part.
You know, there were some people who were physically injured in the car accident on Saturday.
Absolutely.
And we're not ghouls.
That was tragic.
No one wants to see that.
But these defendants, if they did go after, rather than the city of Charlottesville, to a man almost, are either indigent or whatever little they do have is either protected or it's just not going to be enough to even make up one of the hospital bills.
So meanwhile, First for America and this activist group and the Jewish activist attorney Roberta Kaplan have raised $15 million to prosecute this case.
And they did this over four years.
If you went to the plaintiffs independently and said, would you rather have a victory in court and get nothing or next to nothing, or how about we just split this $15 million among the 10 of you and you each walk away with one and a half million dollars to compensate you for your damages, which would be objectively better for them?
So that's where you see it.
This is absolutely a political persecution.
It's a fantastic point.
That is a fantastic point.
And you state the facts there with regards to the amount of money they've been able to raise and what might have been better for their plaintiffs.
Now, interestingly, I think this week, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I heard.
Some of the plaintiffs, and I don't want to target them.
I'm not going to name any names, and I'm not going to joke about whether they really were or really were not injured, especially with regards to emotional damages.
But I think one had testified that she couldn't open a book after the events of Charlottesville, but yet she went on to pass the bar and become an attorney herself.
And I think one of the gentlemen said that he sustained such injuries that he was not able to play basketball anymore.
Yet there's pictures of him on the internet playing basketball five years removed from Charlottesville.
Now, assuming that's a picture from 2019 or whatever it was and not in advance of Charlottesville or before Charlottesville, but I believe it to be afterwards anyway.
Right.
Well, it was much worse.
If you were just to talk about this last week's events, again, I obviously have a bias.
You know, I write for nationalhyphenjustice.com.
I come to this with a certain perspective and who I think the good guys are.
I do too.
And I mentioned that.
And listen, and that should be stated.
And I said that last week, and it should be restated.
There's no doubt I have a vested interest in this.
I'm biased.
And there's the side that I'm rooting for.
And that side is the side of truth, justice, reason, and logic, et cetera.
But go ahead, Trey.
Yeah, but I try to set that aside and be objective in my reporting and in discussing this.
And on Monday, I got to tell you, the plaintiffs had probably one of their better days when they played some video depositions by two men, Vesolius Pistolis, formerly of Adam Waffen, the glow-in-the-dark psyop that the feds pulled.
And the other guy is, don't want to draw a blankets from Vanguard America, Dylan Hopper.
And yes.
While throughout this trial, they have presented either communications or posts or jokes or memes.
From the bulk of the defendants and tried to, uh you know, and try to say, well, this is how evil these people are.
They say these kind of things, they laugh at these kind of things.
The defense so far, for the large part, has been able to contextualize these things.
Uh, provide you know this is a joke, this is humor, this is, you know, obviously i'm speaking metaphorically here.
Um, but these two guys are like Fed Posting Spurgs who uh, double down, and they are, I mean, i'm not gonna lie, you know.
I like to say no, white man is beyond saving, but sometimes we got to cut ties at some point with people who are just I tray you are reading from my notes and I said some of the same things last week.
We'll be right back with TRAY Games.
Stay tuned.
As a parent is receiving a faith-based, character focused education for your children difficult to find.
Do you believe that godly principles should be a central component in your child's education?
Imagine a school where faith and integrity are at its center, where heritage and responsibility instill character.
For over 40 years, American Heritage School has been educating both hearts and minds, bringing out academic excellence.
This is the school where character and embracing the providence of a living god are fundamental, where students' national test scores average near the 90th percentile.
With American Heritage School's advanced distance education program, distance is no longer an issue.
With an accredited Lds Oriented curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade, your children can attend from anywhere in the world.
American Heritage School will prepare your child for more than a job.
It will prepare them for life.
To learn more, visit American Heritage.org.
That's American-heritage.org.
As the United States boldly stepped forward in the glorious light provided by its new constitution in 1787, the nations of the earth were in awe of the newfound strength and hope of this free land.
Today, the nation stands at a crossroads.
A divergence from the original intent put forth in the United States constitution has brought grave threats to our beloved nation.
A miracle is needed if the United States is to survive.
That miracle is again the pure application of the United States constitution.
I'm Scott Bradley.
In my To preserve The Nation book and lecture series, I bring forth truths that will help raise up a new generation of statesmen like those noble Americans who founded this land.
Vigorous application of these principles will invigorate and restore the nation, and we may become again the freest, most prosperous, most respected and happiest nation on earth.
Visit topreservethenation.com to begin that restoration.
Okay girls, about Finished with your lesson on money.
Daddy, what is a buy-sell spread for gold coins?
Well, when you sell a gold coin to a coin shop that's worth, say, $1,200, you don't actually get $1,200.
But don't worry, we're members of UPMA now, so we don't have to worry about that.
Daddy, why is some of my silver gold?
We don't have any gold at the house.
It's stored safely in the UPMA vault, securely and insured.
But the SP 500 outperformed gold.
Daddy, gold is a bad investment.
Some people do think of it that way, but actually, gold is money.
And as members of the United Precious Metals Association, we can use our gold at any store, just like a credit card.
Or I can ask them to drop it right into Mommy and Daddy's bank account because we're a UPMA member family.
Find out more at UPMA.org.
That's upma.org.
It's time to jump back into the political cesspool.
To be part of the show and have your voice heard around the world, call us at 1-866-986-6397.
Well, we're back now, everybody, with Trey Garrison.
Don't forget to be on the lookout for his brand new book, Opioids for the Masses.
And before the end of this hour, we're going to get all that contact information and give it a good plug.
Also, be sure to follow his articles at national-justice.com.
There every day, he's recapping the events in Charlottesville for all of us and doing a fantastic job in doing so.
So, yes, you were saying before the break there, Trey, that, look, I'm rooting for these guys.
I stand with all of them, but I think, and I spent a couple of minutes talking about this last week, that they've made it a little bit more difficult on themselves, some of them.
Now, again, you're dealing with about two dozen people and entities here, many of whom had no association or contact with one another whatsoever in advance of being put here in the Nuremberg-style docket together.
So, it's hard to paint them with a single brush, but some of the people have made it a little more difficult with some outlandish, hyperbolic commentaries.
And I came at this as an activist with a more Buchanan-esque type approach, having worked for the Buchanan campaign in 2000 before running for the state House of Representatives.
So, I always came at my work a little bit more seriously.
I know some people prefer to be a little more edgy, a little more irreverent, but we see now how the system can certainly use that against them, and that's what's going on here.
So, the last two weeks, I think you've seen a lot of mudslinging to see what will stick.
And this is something that others have mentioned.
Well, it's something that you mentioned in the last segment yourself.
So, let's go, though, to this week.
This week has been interesting again.
Another cross-section of co-defendants being called up by the plaintiff's attorneys, as well as their own witnesses.
And for instance, this week, Matt Parrott has testified Elizabeth Sines, who is the namesake of the entire lawsuit along with Jason Kessler.
We heard from her.
We've heard from obviously quite a few different people this week.
Which of the people who took the stand this week stood out to you the most, Trey, and why?
Matt Perrott came across, and this is actually true of most of these defendants.
The longer they're in front of the jury, they come across as more relatable people.
Meanwhile, the longer they deal with these New York Globalist attorneys, the more they're exposed to them, the more irritated it's got to be for this jury.
This jury is largely southern, ruralite, black and white, blue-collar people.
And even if they come into this with a bias for or against the defendants, you know, to the southern ear, hearing the New York lawyers kvetch constantly.
And then meanwhile, somebody like Matt Parrott being on the stand, he comes across as Ernest, kind of an introvert, a little bit nerdy, but a very just genuine guy.
Or you have somebody like Christopher Cantwell.
He just comes across as entertaining and charismatic.
You know, all of them kind of, you know, have come across.
Well, Matt's role was he really made a put a really reasonable face on the defense case in general.
I think the most important thing that happened, though, this week, it's actually a tie between Peter Simmy and Seth Whispelwee.
Right after the plaintiff's really good day on Monday, they brought on one of their own plaintiffs, this quote-unquote reverend, the antifi pastor, Seth Whispelwee, who's also, he is a plaintiff in this case.
He claims some injuries.
And this man, he had a day on Tuesday, I think it was much like Gage Gross Kreutz had on the stand in the Kyle Rilton house trial, and that he just, he epitomized all of the plaintiffs.
They get up there and they have this theatrical recall, this very dramatic recall of all the details and how everyone around them were students and moms and clergy and no one was armed on their side.
All we were there to do is to peacefully voice our opinion and support local businesses.
And here comes these screaming, angry, armed Nazis, and that's where all the violence came from.
Oh, I saw blood on a child swing set and oh, the moms and children running away and the clowns.
And then as soon as they're cross-examined, their memory just goes to hack.
I mean, it just goes downhill.
And it's like, and here's where, like, say, Cantwell, when he walks them through the videos and pictures that the plaintiffs have provided, he's like pointing out that everyone around him is like usually wearing these red anti-fib bandanas and half of them have billy clubs or guns or mace.
And wow, it's not at all the picture you painted.
And this happened to this guy.
He also got deconstructed even by, you know, when Richard Spencer can land some really good body blows on you on the stand, you know, you're really not doing well at that point.
Nothing against Richard, but he's just kind of stumbled a little bit during this whole thing.
But he had, you know, because this guy was preaching these sort of cocky universalist Unitarian type Christianity.
God is love.
It's one of them to Christian Christianity.
It's fake Christianity.
Sure.
Because he introduced that, Richard was able to bring it up on cross, you know, so do you believe that Jesus is without sin?
This guy who's supposed to be a pastor could not say that.
That's right.
And then he, because he had talked about, oh, God is love.
God doesn't hate anybody.
He was like, well, what did God order done to the Canaanites?
And the guy didn't even know the story.
You know, and I'm not sure.
Richard actually did that one.
You know, Richard, being a self-described atheist, I know he went to St. Mark's down in Dallas.
And so some of that rubbed off.
You know, I think Richard has Cantwell, as I said about Cantwell last week, it's as if as though he's an actor playing the role of an attorney in some movie.
Yes.
It's just been so entirely enthralling.
He has no peer.
I don't know if I've ever seen anybody perform like that, whether they're a trained attorney or an actor or whatever.
It's just been mesmerizing.
But I think Richard has done well.
He especially did well in that exchange when he was quizzing the Whisperwee on some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.
And Good on Richard for that because you might not expect Richard.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That was something.
This guy's not.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead.
No, you go ahead.
I was just saying it exposed that he was a pastor in name only.
The bulk of his life experience has been in organizing.
He's a left-wing activist, and it really revealed, you know, it was kind of like just started pulling away this facade of innocence and, oh, we were just there to hold hands and all this.
And so I think Spencer did a great job then.
And of course, Cantwell followed it up, sort of like the one-two punch and just showed, you know, just how violent his intent is.
And this guy has written entire sermons based on blog posts that ends going down, which is an antifa blog, a website.
I just absolutely shredded this guy's credibility.
I just wanted to say this about Cantwell.
For anybody, it's impossible, I think, for people who haven't been listening to the trial live as you and I have to really comprehend everything we're trying to describe here.
I think we're doing the best we can without the people listening having the opportunity to listen to the trial for themselves.
But what makes Cantwell's performance all the more incredible is that if people don't know, he's in prison right now.
And so he's had to do all of this, all of this prep, all of this research, all of this getting ready for the trial from behind bars.
And he's going back to the regional jail there while the trial is in session, and then he'll go serve the remainder of his term.
For him to have done all that while being incarcerated, it has blown my, I don't know if, forget what he's done here in the trial.
I don't know if I've ever heard a story comparable to that on any level.
It's just been, of course, something else, something else.
And that leads me to, well, I'll give you some of my takeaways from this week, Trey.
You mentioned a couple of them that I had taken note of.
One was when Miss Sines was asked by Richard if she knew who he was, and she said, you're the leader of the Nazi party.
So, you know, I mean, this is how far removed from reality, unfortunately, some of these dear people are that they literally believe this stuff.
And you mentioned Parrot and how, hopefully, I guess from our perspective, unsympathetic or perhaps, well, I'll tell you.
I'll tell you when we come back because I hear the music, but how bad we hope the plaintiff's attorneys are coming across to the members of the jury from that Western district of Virginia.
A couple of more takeaways.
We'll bring Keith Alexander on.
So much more to cover with Trey Garrison.
Hey, if you like what you're hearing from Trey, go read what he's been writing after each day at national-justice.com.
We'll be right back.
Stay tuned.
Protecting your liberties.
You're listening to Liberty News Radio.
USA Radio News with Chris Barnes.
The legal back and forth continues as the Biden administration tries to impose its vaccine mandate on employers of 100 workers or more.
A U.S. appeals court now reaffirming its decision to place the order on hold for now, saying that it is probably fatally flawed, referring to the mandate.
That decision will probably be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Another successful launch of a Falcon 9 SpaceX rocket.
This one carrying 53 more Starlink satellites from Cape Canaveral into Earth orbit early today.
After a one-day weather delay.
This is the 87th overall successful recovery of our Falcon 9 first stage.
And next up will be paid.
Saturday launched the 31st Starlink mission with the goal of eventually providing worldwide broadband connectivity.
This is USA Radio News.
Rockstar Radio is looking for a co-host.
Yes, you heard me correctly.
Nationally syndicated radio show and popular podcast.
Rockstar Radio with Billy Girard is looking for a co-host.
In fact, two segment co-hosts.
One will join Billy Weekly talking about all things financial and another for a weekly review of the national real estate at mortgage mark.
Co-hosting with Billy Girard could be the move that pushed your career into Overdrive.
For all the details and to schedule an audition with Billy, send an email to bill at rockstar.today.
That's bill at rockstar.today.
Or go to rockstar.today/slash co-host for all the details.
Rockstar Radio is looking for two expert co-hosts.
It could be you.
Email Bill at rockstar.today.
Or go to rockstar.today slash co-host.
Being on the radio with Billy will make you the expert in the field.
It could take your career over the moon.
Get all the audition details at rockstar.today slash co-host.
UCLA's athletic director is admitting they were not adequately staffed last night when, with the Houston concert stampede tragedy fresh on people's minds, a bit of a stampede broke out among fans waiting to get into the arena at Pauly Pavilion for the game.
Nobody was in this case injured, though.
A popular musical artist who began as an American idol star is halting his band tours temporarily after the unexpected death of his oldest daughter.
Chris Daughtry's band Daughtry is not going to be touring until further notice.
Chris Daughtry himself asking in a statement for privacy for his family as he announced that all upcoming shows have either been canceled or postponed after his wife posted pictures of his daughter Hannah to her Instagram saying they are awaiting an autopsy result to quote hopefully determine what caused the injuries that led to Hannah's death.
And this is USA Radio News.
Welcome back.
To get on the show, call us on James's Dine at 1-866-986-6397.
All right, and welcome back, everybody.
So right before the break, I was talking with Trey, Trey Garrison, national-justice.com.
Been covering this trial extensively about some of my takeaways.
Some of the things that stood out.
And one was when Miss Sines responded to Richard Spencer by saying, you're the leader of the Nazi Party.
And then he responded by saying, but you know, I'm not really that, right?
And she said, no, sir, I don't.
So this is, you know, you wonder really what's going on in the minds of some of these people if they could believe something that absurd.
And she's an attorney for one of the most prominent firms in the country.
Oh, yeah.
You can talk how negatively her life has been affected.
Her life has been obviously very negatively affected.
She's working for one of the top 10 grossing law firms in that area.
It's just like, oh, poor thing.
How did she die?
There's that.
And then Matt Parrott, you mentioned Parrot.
They were talking about some of these.
Again, you got to ask yourself, does it benefit our cause to speak in certain ways or not?
But they were talking about the quote-unquote gassing of Jews.
And there was this one part, I just laughed because Matt Parrott responded to the examining plaintiff's attorney by saying at no point during the event were Jews gassed as if it was a serious question.
And then one of the plaintiff's attorneys objected during one of Mr. Cantwell's examinations or cross-examinations rather of one of their witnesses.
And it was an objection, Your Honor.
I'd like to ask that Mr. Cantwell stop dancing.
You were playing a clip and he was dancing.
If I'd have been a member of the jury, they would have had to have escorted me out.
I mean, I don't see how they're keeping straight faces and not laughing at some of the sheer absurdity that I've heard in listening to this.
Yeah, another standout was, I think it was Thursday, they brought on Peter the Mind Reader Simmy, who is a psychologist and he's called as an expert witness.
And he, in the course of his testimony, we discovered that he does consider himself an anti-fascist.
That in his mind, white nationalism, white advocacy, any group of whites advocating for their own interests is inherently violent.
And that any efforts, even politically, for white nationalism, inherently involve violence, inseparably involved violence.
So it's sort of that the ability to say, I therefore decree that anything you say to advocate for your side is violence, and that will justify our violence against you.
Your free speech is violence, and our violence is free speech protecting ourselves from you.
That's what they want from this, to kind of put white nationalism, white advocacy, Christian advocacy, all of this into a box where it cannot be, you know, it cannot exist but for the existence of violence.
They actually considered the 14 words that simply say that, you know, we must secure the existence of the white race and future for white children.
That is somehow inherently violent.
That is somehow inherently anti-Semitic.
And in a certain way, I kind of agree with him on the latter part, but not for the right reasons, I guess.
But yeah, so he was another one of these witnesses brought on.
He to basically to prejudice the jury against these defendants because he admitted during his testimony that nothing he said actually contributed to the making the case there was a conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence, which is at the heart of this case.
Excuse me, this is Keith Alexander.
Come on, Keith, you got to turn your mic on.
Is it on?
Is it on now?
Here you go.
Okay, Trey, this is Keith Alexander.
I'm a co-host on the political cesspoll with James and have been for many years.
I'm a lawyer.
I understand you're a lawyer too, right?
No, no, no.
No, sir.
No, sir.
I'm a journalist.
Okay.
What has really stood out to me about this thing is that how basically incompetent plaintiffs' counsel are in this case.
They don't seem to be able to stay on message.
They seem to be, it's a case where give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
Am I wrong?
Of course, I'm not listening to the trial every day like you and James, but would that be an accurate description of what they're doing?
Or do you think they're making solid points with the jury?
I don't see it.
And again, I do caution that as a non-lawyer, a lot of us can't always tell what's really a successful, effective tactic or strategy in the courtroom.
But if I'm I'm looking at just some basic metrics, which are the number of times the plaintiffs have been overturned on their objections, the number of times that defendants' objections over all these word games and tactics they're doing have been in turn sustained.
It's easily about six to nine on that.
I mean, the plaintiffs are not doing as well just on that score.
And then beyond that, the judge has increasingly expressed his exasperation, not with the whole trial.
I mean, with the whole trial, I think he's thinking this thing's ridiculously long, but specifically with the plaintiff's tactics, because they're bringing these people up to the stand, the defendants, when they call them as hostile witnesses, and they're asking these questions from previous depositions, and then they're acting like, if your answer doesn't exactly match what's on this deposition, somehow I'm impeaching you.
And after a while, he's just like, just read the answer and get on with it.
Let me ask you just a 10-second, and we talked a little bit about the background of this judge, Judge Moon.
Give me just a 10-second answer on this.
Do you think he's been fair and impartial?
I do.
Based upon what I've seen.
Now, I know that he's had a clerk.
He's had a clerk behind the scenes that was associated with the Antifa.
But based upon what I've heard.
Two of his clerks were best friends with Elizabeth Signs, the chief plaintiff in this entire action, and one was an Israeli citizen.
And it's my opinion, just based on, and I'm not alone in this, on his on-the-bench rulings versus his on-paper opinions.
The man's 85 years old.
I don't think that he's doing most of the writing of the pretrial decisions he made.
I think that was his clerks who were in the paper.
Interesting.
I don't think that is unusual, Trey, although I think it is a shame that it is.
But do you think he's done, pardon the interruption, Keith, but do you think he's done?
And again, I don't want him to do the job for us.
What I've heard, I think he has been impartial and fair is what you would hope a judge would be.
And it's to hope for a lot in this day and age that they'd be that.
I don't even know what his politics are per se.
I know he was a, I think he was a Clinton appointee to this ninth district court, but what I could say is the man's 85 years old.
Even if he has a left-leaning political position, I think decades of being on the bench, it's just a knee-jerk reaction to be fair or to try to at least present the appearance of fairness.
And the plaintiff's case is so bad and they're so annoying.
And the defendants are coming across really well so far that, you know, that's why he seems, he's being fair.
Even if his clerks are stepping behind the scenes, he's on the bench.
His on-the-scene rulings have been really, I'd say, pretty solid.
I wouldn't have a complaint right now.
He's been in during.
Now, I really don't think any 85-year-old with the possible exception of Noam Chomsky would be on the same page as the plaintiffs in terms of their leftism or their wokeism or whatnot.
Right.
He might be an old school Democrat.
That's all speculative, you know.
But in any event, based upon what we know, what we've heard, I think there's been some balance there.
Now, let me ask you this, if I could.
This is what's called a slap lawsuit.
Are you familiar with that concept?
Yes, sir.
Can we talk about the action against public participation?
Yeah.
Yeah.
In other words, this is not what the law courts were intended to handle.
This is basically using the law courts as a kind of legislative body.
They're trying to, and they're also not trying to recover for their clients.
They're trying to harass the defendants.
Yes, sir.
And they don't care if they get a hung jury because that means it'll be a mistrial and a retrial.
Well, God forbid.
And see, that's what they're doing.
They're trying to basically litigate against public participation by people on the right.
And they are soliciting clients, which is a legal ethical violation.
They are involved in barretry, which is another violation of legal ethics.
And I'm wondering why, has anyone considered bringing a type of ethical complaint against the people sponsoring this litigation?
Well, you got to have money to do that, and then you got to pretend that the courts are fair, which they're not.
But no, courts, it would be by the ethical plan.
But that's not going to go anyway.
Yeah, it's particularly interesting.
I just want to say this.
We've known from the beginning this was a slap lawsuit.
They said that Jewish activists in the Jewish Daily Telegraph, rather, Roberta Kaplan said they're going after this to punish Nazis and right-wingers and shut them down and make it hard for them to meet in person.
And today, or two days this week, we had plaintiffs get up on the stand and say right off the bat, they wanted to send a message.
They wanted to, this was not about getting damages.
They wanted to send a message.
And the judge even had to admonish Elizabeth Sarnes, you're not here for a higher purpose.
You're here to get damages if these defendants are found liable.
And so it's an open secret.
This can't think of a slap lawsuit.
It's right.
Well, that's wonderful that the judge is basically holding their feet to the fire on this because, see, this is what everything in the civil rights movement from the Montgomery bus boycott to the arrest of Rosa Parks and all that stuff is basically on the same pattern.
It's theater, not real litigation.
All right, we've got to take a quick break.
We've got one more segment with, are we all ready to the end of this hour?
Still so much more to cover with only one segment, my goodness.
But Trey Garrison is our guest, and what a guest he's been.
Follow his writings about this trial, his reports, his daily reports, his daily recaps at national-justice.com.
We'll be right back.
Why don't we say to the government writ large that they have to spend a little bit less?
Anyone ever had less money this year than you had last?
Anybody better have a 1% pay cut?
You deal with it.
That's what government needs, a 1% pay cut.
If you take a 1% pay cut across the board, you have more than enough money to actually pay for the disaster relief.
But nobody's going to do that because they're fiscally irresponsible.
Who are they?
Republicans.
Who are they?
Democrats.
Who are they?
Virtually the whole body is careless and reckless with your money.
So the money will not be offset by cuts anywhere.
The money will be added to the debt, and there will be a day of reckoning.
What's the day of reckoning?
The day of reckoning may well be the collapse of the stock market.
The day of reckoning may be the collapse of the dollar.
When it comes, I can't tell you exactly, but I can tell you it has happened repeatedly in history when countries ruin their currency.
You know where the solution can be found, Mr. President?
In churches, in wedding chapels, in maternity wards across the country and around the world.
More babies will mean forward-looking adults, the sort we need to tackle long-term, large-scale problems.
American babies in particular are likely going to be wealthier, better educated, and more conservation-minded than children raised in still industrializing countries.
As economist Tyler Cowan recently wrote, quote, by having more children, you're making your nation more populous, thus boosting its capacity to solve climate change.
The planet does not need for us to think globally and act locally so much as it needs us to think family and act personally.
The solution to so many of our problems at all times and in all places is to fall in love, get married, and have some kids.
The Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit legal foundation committed to protecting our unalienable right to publicly acknowledge God.
The Foundation for Moral Law exists to restore the knowledge of God in law and government and to acknowledge and defend the truth that man is endowed with rights not by our fellow men, but by God.
The Foundation maintains a twofold focus.
First, litigation within state and federal courts.
Second, education.
Conducting seminars to teach the necessity and importance of acknowledging God in law and government.
How can you help?
Please make a tax-deductible contribution, allowing foundation attorneys to continue the fight.
You may also purchase various foundation products as well at morallaw.org.
Located in Montgomery, Alabama, the Foundation for Moral Law is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501c3 founded by Judge Roy Moore.
Please partner with us to achieve this important mission.
Morallaw.org Welcome back.
To get on the show, call us on James' Dime at 1-866-986-6397.
So much more to cover.
Only one segment remaining.
So we're going to make haste here with Trey Garrison, national-justice.com, also author of the book, Opioids for the Masses.
You mentioned in the last segment, Trey, the length of this trial, the relative length.
I found it very interesting that I think, relatively speaking, a more high-profile case, the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
It's a criminal case.
This is a civil case, so there's some differences, but it's certainly gotten much more media attention.
And it started later.
It started last Tuesday.
And here we are on Saturday night, and the prosecution has already rested, and the defense has already rested.
And the jury is about to go into deliberations.
That all happened within the span of a week.
Here, we are now still two weeks into the Charlottesville trial, two full weeks, and the prosecution or the plaintiff's attorneys have not even rested their case yet.
Give me 60 seconds response to that.
Well, we've already had to see the jury lose their Veterans Day holiday.
They're going to be going another minimum of another week beyond what they had said.
They might push through Thanksgiving, which means they'll only take Thanksgiving Day off.
Most people, you know, usually get to enjoy Wednesday and the Friday after of Thanksgiving.
It's got to be weighing on these jurors' minds to some degree that these annoying, nebbish, covetous Jewish attorneys from New York with the way they stretch things out with these tedious interrogations over minutia.
It's got to affect, and that's the reason this trial is lasting so long.
I think you have to weigh on their minds just a little bit.
Just a little bit.
You know, Trey, you would have to think that these big law firms that are hiring people like this, what planet do they come from?
Do they really think they're going to be effective lawyers if that is their outlook and they are this repulsive to we don't know how repulsive they are to this jury of $15 million might not be wrong.
And this is something that VDARE tweeted this week, Trey and Keith.
They had the article halfway into the Charlottesville trial and still no conspiracy.
And then it continues, of course, no one can tell what a jury will do, but the verdict in Signs versus Kessler will be a test on whether truth and reason can still be panned out amidst lavishly funded law affair mounted on the basis of lying regime media narratives.
That's a great assessment.
And that brings me to a question for you, Trey.
And that question is, I've read the articles that have been written each day after this, not just yours, but also the Washington Post, Slate, some of the system organs, some of the system mouthpieces.
Listening live to this trial and then reading an article written about this trial, there is no compatibility whatsoever between the two.
In fact, I was reading these articles about how devastating the plaintiff's attorneys have been.
That's not what my ears are hearing, but I guess the only ears that matter are the 24 that belong to the 12 jurors.
But the articles being written about this and the Kyle Rittenhouse case, too, by the way, for that matter, totally alien to what I think I hope normal people are seeing and hearing.
Yeah, I mean, I've always said a jury trial is like where you have a horse race where you have professionally trained horses, a professional track, you got the professional rules, and then to pick the jockeys, you go to the crowd and just randomly pick 12 people.
And maybe if they're a little bit reasonable, the horses and the rules and everything else will kind of do the work to bring reason into it.
But as we've seen with so many other trials, it can be a S show, if you know what I'm saying.
Trey, Keith Alexander here.
Yes, sir.
You know, the whole idea of a slap lawsuit is a slap in the face of traditional concepts of due process.
For example, what they're doing is they are not going after the people with the deep pockets to try to recover for their clients.
Now, that can be abusive in and of itself.
If they had wanted to do that, they would have brought simply what's called a 1983 action saying that the defendants were suppressing the exercise of their constitutional rights.
Of course, that's really on the other side in this case.
James had a question for you.
I'm going to let him ask you that question.
Well, the question was this, and it can tie into what Keith's saying as well.
And that's going to be your prediction's as good as anybody else's, Trey, but I know you followed this more closely than just about anyone on how the defense will fare.
The defense will finally get there at bat beginning, we think, on Monday.
We think on Monday the defense will begin to, well, mount its defense and present its case, their case, collectively and individually, because you're supposed to differentiate between these different individuals and entities, which I think will be difficult to do for the jury.
But in any event, the defense is going to begin on Monday.
We talked to Jason Kessler last week.
I know he's been gagged since then from speaking publicly or posting to social media.
But he was telling me last week that it's still not necessarily a slam dunk that the Hefey report done by this former federal prosecutor, this gentleman who was hand-picked by the city of Charlottesville.
Can't repeat that enough.
And he basically exonerates the defendants in his report.
But while Deborah Lipstadt was able to come in and bring her expert testimony, don't you know, a few days ago, the Hefey report itself has not yet been declared admissible, which is just bizarre.
Because I think if you have that, if you have all this video evidence, this video evidence that exonerates the co-defendants, man, it'd be hard not to see their point of view, I think.
How do you think the defense will fare when they get their turn starting Monday?
Well, I think that they need to bring to this focus that, yes, you have proven that we tried to organize a rally that was legally permitted, that was about the speeches.
And yes, you have proven that there's occasionally some communications between the people trying to set up this massive rally.
And yes, you can say that, Well, yes, we have most of us have either committed wrongthink or committed wrong speak in private or public communications or in podcasts or in social media, whatever.
But what they have not done is proven a conspiracy to go there specifically to commit racial violence.
And I don't know how much they had efforts they have to put into disproving it so much as highlighting that.
And then in turn, because there was violence, there were scuffles.
You know, there was a car accident.
If they can just show, you know, the defense has or the plaintiffs have tried to make this all one-sided.
these innocent angelic uh uva students and moms coming out to just wave a few signs and show some solidarity versus the attacking angry hordes of nazi commandos or whatever well you know i gotta There was a little bit of scuffling on both sides.
It happened.
And it's sad.
We don't want to see anybody hurt.
We don't want to see anybody that ended up to anybody.
But, you know, the situation with the car accident happened quite a long time after it was declared an unlawful assembly and the state of emergency was declared.
Again, that falls at the feet of, number one, the protesters who are down there coming in and refusing to leave.
And number two, the law enforcement of the city of Charlottesville for not enforcing it.
If they had enforced it, it wouldn't have happened.
But Keith, there's one thing we haven't mentioned here, and that's the Aesop factor.
Can you explain?
Will the Aesop factor come into play here?
Yeah, James had a defamation suit that he brought against a Detroit newspaper because they said that he was the head of the Nazi party.
Well, the Ku Klux Klan.
Or the Ku Klux Klan, excuse me, yeah.
The leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
They're almost interchangeable nowadays in leftist parlance.
But even though it was proven and the judges on the appellate panel, this was a Michigan state court, appellate court, that he was not either a member of the Klan, much less its head, that a man is known by the company he keeps and therefore they were going to dismiss his case.
Now, unfortunately, there's a long precedent for this.
This is just like the Brown versus Board of Education case.
What they have in due process is that an appellate case is supposed to be decided by starry decisives, previous cases that would be analogous to the situation before the court.
Or if you don't have that, then legislative history.
For example, in the 14th Amendment about segregation, did they allow segregation or did they intend to disallow segregation in public education?
Well, of course, in Brown, they lost on both of those.
So they decided to base their opinion on some sociology professor's half-baked sociology project.
In James's case, they resorted to Aesop's.
Well, this is the thing.
See, this is what the problem is.
We aren't being denied due process because they don't want you to decide the case on the facts or on case precedent and things like this.
They want you to have a, this is street theater between who is the good guys and who are the bad guys.
And this is what is so bad about these slap lawsuits.
And they are money whipping these defendants.
That's what they're intending to do.
That's their purpose.
They're intending to basically suppress their first, I mean, their constitutional rights.
They should be the ones making a counterclaim against the plaintiffs for a 1983 law.
Well, that's the thing, Keith.
Great points.
I mean, the point in bringing that up is anything can happen in court.
Wildcards come out all the time.
In my case, it was the judicial panel actually said libel law stands in favor of the defendant, but we must also consider Aesop's fables and judge him by the company he keeps.
But I got to get this to Trey.
We hope nothing crazy like that happens here.
But you just never know in these system courts.
Trey, give us the contact information.
I want to thank you again first for being with us tonight, for helping us break down the third week of this trial.
We hope this is and expect this to be the first of many appearances you make with us and a long-lasting partnership.
Opioids for the masses.
How can people get it?
Antelopehillpublishing.com.
Antelopehillpublishing.com is you can get it there for 15% less than on Amazon, but it will be available on Amazon as well.
It's Opioids for the Masses, Big Pharma's War on Middle America and the White Working Class.
And it was by me and my top partner, Richard McClure.
It's a big topic.
It's an important topic and one that I'll admonish ourselves for not covering to the extent that we should.
And so we will have Trey Garrison back on specifically to talk about this book in the very, very near future once we wrap up some of these trials.
And hopefully that'll be done soon and hopefully justice will be served in Charlottesville and in the situation with Kyle Rittenhouse as well.
Looks like one way or another, Kyle Rittenhouse is about to get an answer.
We'll see how much longer it takes in Charlottesville.
Thank you, Trey.
We'll be back to talk more.
Still two more hours to come.
Don't go anywhere.
There's more to come right here on the Liberty News Radio Network.