Badlands Media - Badlands Daily: 9/24/26 - Press Credential Ruling, Fake Poll Fallout & Jim Jordan's Seized Records

Episode Date: September 24, 2026

CannCon and Alpha Warrior open with Alpha settling into a brand new studio and a bit of nostalgia about how far both hosts have come from laptops and YETI mics. The news starts with a Trump appointed federal judge temporarily blocking the White House press credential ban, and the hosts take real issue with the constitutional reasoning behind it. That pairs with an Iowa judge tossing the President's suit against a pollster, which leads into a sharp segment on why a firm can run a fake poll to sway an election but not a prediction market. From there they dig into new details on the DOJ seizing Jim Jordan's phone records under a gag order, plus Rand Paul and gain of function documents, Trump on Iran, and economics as a weapon of war. Expect strong opinions and plenty of brotherly ribbing.  

The Badlands, what are the Badlands? Explain those Badlands. That's a hell of a name. All right. Good morning. Badlandia. Welcome to Badlands Daily. It's Thursday, joined by my brother from another mother of another color.

Alpha Warrior. How you doing, buddy? I'm good, man. I'm good. Making the adjustments, but I'm good. All right. What do you mean the adjust? Oh, oh, I got you.

Yeah. Yeah. You're all settled now? Yeah, almost. It's the studio. It's a different shape. So trying to get the acoustics, you know, in line. So I've been telling the audience, you know, if you pick up on little things, let me know so I can make notes of it.

And hopefully you're there in the next two. Because it took me about, it took me a long time to get my sound in the last studio there. Did you shed it to your breaking down your old studio? You know what? it's pretty emotional man listen i'll cry baby i don't cry but it was very it was a it was a lot um going away from that house was um very symbolic for me you know for i don't know if you remember but that was the same house that my fto owned so you know it goes all the way back to it was literally putting like closing down an entire not chapter but like the first book or right or second

book because that's where the raid happened. That's where my two new babies were born. Like there was, you know, you know, all the struggles that happened at that house. So, you know, Taryn. And then like you said, the studio, I remember when it was just my laptop and my Yeti Mike. Like, that's what it was, you know, and we made it, we made it happen. And, you know, then came across, made all, you know, met all you guys and became a part of this community. And it's just, it's been a wild ride ever since, from. Yeah, I remember that I was thinking about that the other day. I had a, a, like, I had a laptop, and then eventually I moved to a desktop. And my desktop had a monitor, two monitors, right? I had two monitors, but my computer itself was like that big. It was just a little, little thing that my father-in-law,

he's a programmer that he built for me. And, uh, yeah, dude, come a long way, man. Now I've got this whole setup. I've got my soundboard, my computer. my, you know, Mike and everything else around me, lighting. It's crazy, man. It's crazy. And we're still only scratching the surface of what these studios could be. But yeah, welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to, we're going to unpack the rest of the UN General Assembly from yesterday today today, as well as some other news.

There was a report that came out in the House Committee. I was reading through it yesterday last night and made some highlights in it, because there's some really interesting things in this report. that we'll get to. But before we do all that, let's talk about our sponsors. And we've got a new sponsor on board today for the first time. Guys, if you want to drop some extra pounds, they call them LBs. If you want to drop some extra pounds, boost your energy levels or reduce swelling in your legs and feet, then you will love these two American made health supplements. First is the liver health formula, fat deposits in the liver can pile on the pounds and make you feel tired.

Liver health formula helps reduce fat deposits with nutrients like artichoke extract and milk thistle in a customer survey, almost 60% reported better weight management and 87% reported more energy. Next is the lymph system support. The natural ingredients in lymph system support help gently flush extra fluid and toxins out of the body, which can help help help help help reduce swelling in the legs and feet. And right now for a limited time, you can get 35% off the liver health formula and lymph system support, along with all 50 plus health supplements that Pure Health Research has to offer.

Head over to PureHealthresearch.com and use coupon code Badlands at checkout. Again, that's PureHealthresearch.com with promo code Badlands to save 35% on your order today. I'll tell you what, I could use the, I got to get the lymph system thing because one thing I noticed picked up on in Vegas, you know, a lot more standing than I'm used to, right? You're standing almost, you know, a good chunk of the day. My legs were like, they weren't swollen necessarily, but they were throbbing. Like my legs were like, like, I could feel them throbbing and I'm like, oh, no, am I getting, am I getting so old that I can't, like, too old and I can't stand up this long anymore? And yeah. Circulation, a lot of issues, inflammation and circulation. And we do a lot of sitting, a lot of sitting. So for anybody in the audience that just got into this, or was thinking about getting into it, go get some like cheap $200 treadmill.

Just something that, you know, after you've been working for two hours, you can go get on it, just walk for 15 minutes. Circulation and it's a huge issue. So. Just a heads up, not so that, because I know you're working with a news studio. When you have a noise gate on, I can tell.

When you talk, I can hear a humming. It's not like distinct or anything. And the audience probably doesn't hear it. But I can, you know, because I got the headphones on, I can hear just a slight little humming. And it's only when you talk. So it's like you have a noise gate on. So just a heads up, something to work on.

You sound fine in the meantime. I'll make some adjustments. You let me know if you hear the difference. I didn't do it yet, though. Oh, okay. In the meantime, guys, smash that thumbs up if you have not done so already. And let's go ahead and jump into the news. And we'll start out here.

Let's go to L.A. County. Let's go out in your neck of the woods. Leibor and Typhus is rising in L.A. County with the latest case reported in the Willshire Center. Real quick, Ash had posted something in a live chat and just remind me to get to it. I don't want to bring it up right now, but just remind me. And did the humming go away just a little bit? No, no, it did not. Does the thing that Ash brought up have to do with her pup?

Yes, that's why we'll talk about it. We'll talk about it later. Yeah, so fleaborne typhus is on the rise here. It says a fleaborne bacterial disease is on the rise in L.A. County. The disease is spread to humans by infected fleas that commonly live on rats, possums, stray cats and other animals. Symptoms include headache chills, muscle aches, and rash. The Wilshire Center case is the second.

localized typhoid outbreak this year. Is that what we call an outbreak now? Like one case is now an outbreak? Because it says this case is the second localized typhus outbreak this year. Then it goes on to say there were at least seven symptomatic cases, another descriptor they're putting in with all these diseases now, symptomatic cases, meaning there could be the asymptomatic cases, something you never heard of until COVID, right? Like asymptomatic. was never a thing until COVID. Like nobody freaked out about, you may be asymptomatic for the flu.

There were at least seven symptomatic cases linked to the outbreak. Six of the seven had to be hospitalized at one point. All have recovered. And then I love this. This is my favorite part. This is my favorite part. And this is probably more of like a public service. I don't think they're putting this out there to fear monger people into,

staying at home and voting by mail and all of those things. Although it may have that effect on some people. But this is my favorite part. quote, as flea-borne typhus cases continue to increase in L.A. County, preventing exposure to fleas on free-roaming animals and wildlife is more important than ever, said Muntu Davis, Los Angeles County Health Officer. Like, do you really need to tell people? Like, hey, you probably shouldn't be out there, like,

getting fleas all over you from infested rats on the streets on Skid Row. Like, is that really, we're that dumb now that we're like, oh, fleas are good? If you create an emergency, then there's going to be a grant that comes along to deal with it. And then there's going to be money laundering. And man, we'll have to figure this out because this was the same thing last night. Colonel says she could hear a hum, but the audience was like, we don't hear anything. So it's better now, but it's still just a slight, like it's almost like you have too much gain. like you don't have that crisp sound that you used to have but no trying to get there again we're

being OCD we're being OCD yeah yeah but that's what I want is not going to hear it unless they're like on the same speakers that my father-in-law sells that are like 20 thousand don't deal with that after the show spend some time with me we'll make the address we'll fine tune it after the show okay let's let's jump into the next story I just thought that was funny we do have another um medical store well medical adjacent story that we'll get to here shortly. But let's jump into this story from just the news. Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump from banning three news outlets from the White House. Strongly disagree with this. And where did my highlights go? My highlights disappeared. That sucks. U.S. District Judge Timothy

Kelly at Trump appointee said that the news outlets had met the quote unquote high bar for preliminary injunction and that the White House must, quote, immediately return, reinstate and restore. their access. The three outlets sued the White House earlier this week. The lawsuit argues that the presidents have long had adversarial relationships with reporters and haven't always agreed with what the press is reporting, but the quote, Constitution protects the liberty and property interest that

news organizations and White House reporters have in their press credentials and the access that those credentials afford them to cover the White House for the benefit of the public. After an initial hearing On Wednesday, Kelly kept the ban in place while he weighed both sides of the case, but seemed skeptical of the administration's arguments that the outlets coverage of the Iran War and the ballroom construction could amount to a national security risk. Then in the wee hours of Thursday morning, he issued a ruling granting a 14-day injunction, ruling that the White House needed clear standards for revoking media access, and that the national security grounds cited for last Friday's actions were, quote, so vague, it hardly does the trick. I think that's a crock of shit, man. This, this lawsuit, like, if they rule that these outlets have, you know, are guaranteed under the Constitution access to the White House, they just opened up Pandora's box.

Yes, big time, big time. Because now we can see you to get access. Yep. Then I'm going to be like, hey, here's my press credentials. You better let me in. Or. exactly. That was exactly the train of thought I was going, is if this judge is going to turn around and say that access to the White House is granted under the Constitution under a free press,

then guess what? Badlands media, we're in. You have to. You have to let us in at that point. The press pool is now going to be like Trump's going to be speaking to a stadium every single time he wants to do a press briefing. Because every network out there is going to want access now. It's not rational. It's not at all. It's not at all. And, you know, the constitutional grounds of a free press, like Trump's not saying you can't publish these stories about me. He's just saying, we're not going to allow you into my working space. This is, you know, I don't want to say a sacred place because I do think that, you know, the press should be allowed in there. But, you know, when you look at the stories that these outlets have been reporting on the way that they've been reporting, it's not a benefit to the public.

There is, you know, legitimate disdain for the president. There's legitimate concerns about inaccurate reporting. You know, Caroline Leavitt, we played the clip yesterday of her saying that they would come to me with sources familiar with and she'd be like, no, I was in the room. I'm telling you this is not accurate and they'd still publish it anyways. The one that I loved and did it, let me know if you notice the difference now. We'll fine tune it later because I noticed the same now. I noticed the simplest of things, my volume slider.

That's the problem. I know Alpha's OCDAF and I've been. brought it up and I shouldn't have brought it up. I apologize, guys, but we're going to get this worked out before the show's over. My slider was way above normal. Like, why not I just look at the volume? I don't know what we'll find you now. But here's the issue. It's, it's not feasible. Like, that's the first thing. And as a judge, he should know this. It's, it's one of the standards we use for, for almost everything. Would a reasonable person think that this is reasonable? And you can't because again, now I could understand if they said, hey, we want to do something where there's, you know, an 18th month rotation, you know, where you can't just have the same 30 press credentials in there.

Like you do got to cycle them through every now and then. But at the same time, the White House press pool is a privilege. That's not an infringement on anybody's rights. It's a privilege. So I think one of the things that the White House is. could do to kind of, you know, make everybody happy is as either right before as the briefing's going to start or the second the briefing's done, just sent out a press release with everything that was sent to every media outlet that asked for one. It's digital. That's not the issue.

Just send it out to everyone that put in the request. So, yeah, they could do that for sure. One of the things I think we might see if this judge does end up ruling in favor of the news outlets is the same thing that they did to the Pentagon. And none of these people are going to be able to walk around without a liaison like a guide. Like they're going to have to have somebody that is, you know, like a monitor almost to ensure who they're talking to and that they're not accessing classified places and such. Do you remember when Biden did it? Nobody, nobody winked an eye.

Well, that's, I don't remember the number on it, but I remember it was a lot. It was in the headlines for like one day. like one day. Here's the next story from just the news. White House press monopoly exposes risks of news blackouts as Real America's voice steps in with a new pool feat, and it's going to hit on those things. After the White House blocks CNN from its assigned turn

in the five-network television pool, ABC, ABC, NBC, and Fox News declined in solidarity to fill the slot. As a result, there's no shared network video of Trump boarding Air Force One, additionally a South Lawn ribbon cutting for a new Marine One helipad, helicopter noise swallowed his remarks on the White House live stream. I mean, that always happens, by the way. Like, anytime that's one of the big concerns I have. Like, Trump will be speaking.

It's like, and he's like, it's miserable. Like get a noise gate, guys, like Alpha has. Americans were deprived of the chance to hear completely what their commander and chief said and did. And I apologize for anybody who's, I just. just blew out your eardrums with that, with those sound effects. One conservative network, Real America's Voice, is stepping up into the void to create competition and a backup plan.

The White House listed Real America's Voice as a secondary TV crew for the New York trip to the UN General Assembly gathering. Real America's Voice said it would offer its pool camera as a free, unbranded feed to any outlet. Now, here's the part that you were talking about, Alpha. For decades, a tight circle of Washington outlets controlled the shared feed, everyone else used the White House Correspondents Association, long ran the print and travel rotations. Separately, five networks ran the TV camera. When those five stood down together, the official

picture and sound of the president vanished. That is a monopoly single point. That is a monopoly's single point of failure. In 2009, the Obama Treasury tried to leave Fox News out of a pooled interview. The other networks refused to go without Fox, and the exclusion collapsed. In 27, it doesn't have the Biden one here. If you want to find the story on that one. I'm doing that right now. Yeah. It was like 400 networks or 400.

It was a lot, dude. It was a lot, yeah. In 2017, press secretary, Sean Spicer, held a gaggle that shut out CNN in the New York Times while admitting new or conservative outlets. In 2025, Caroline Levitt said that, quote, a select group of D.C. based journalist should no longer have a monopoly of press access, end quote. And the White House took over the pool selection, but the five network TV rotation still. sat on top of that change. Yeah, if you find the Biden thing. You know, in the meantime, there was the time with, you know, Joe Biden in the collusion between the White House Correspondents Association and the White House under the, quote unquote, Biden administration,

when I want to say it was Ian Sams. I want to say it was Ian Sams that was sending out letters to press outlets. And CNN published theirs. To be fair, CNN actually did the right thing and published a letter like, hey, this is concerning. And this was around the Robert Her investigation. And Ian Sam's, the White House General Counsel's office, was asking for the outlets to cover Joe Biden in a more favorable light and to stay away from certain things in the Robert Her report, and not to mention and to highlight that, it doesn't exactly say that he committed any crimes or, you know, whatever. They were influencing the way that these outlets reported on them. And these outlets do that or maybe maybe they didn't because CNN did you know published the letter um but

the outlets do these kinds of things because they're worried about their access like that like they feel like that's their duty to report what they are told um you know i don't know did you were you able to find so so here's here's what the system's saying um and it looks like the that deep state's still working man when it comes to it says uh no Biden didn't ban anybody, right? It's a play on words here. But there was a reduction in passes from 1,417 to 975. But it was because they didn't meet requirements. So that's what about 500. 440 is the number that I remember off the top of my head. So it's like, man. Well, we'll see. Here's the point I wanted to make to that. You know, I would think one of the requirements

is, and it's not about favorable news. If it was about favorable news, Trump would even have the press at his rallies. So it's never been that issue. It's outright lying to the American public. Go back to Butler, Pennsylvania. When they, it was an assassination attempt on the president. And what did you see political and CNN and, well, MSNBC,

I think it was at the time. I don't think it was MS now yet. Maybe it was. And a lot of the other mainstream sister stations, what they all put, Secret Service escorts Trump off stage after he falls. What? After he falls?

Like, no, no, after he was shut, they tried to kill him. And you, and you, and you minimize it to after he falls. Like, that's insane. They put that in the same category of Biden falling when he would go down the ramp. Like, that's, that's, that, well, no, that's the equity that they put right there, right? And no, that Trump, Trump, I think, is 100% within his rights to say, hey, you're not going to be in the press pool. I mean, he doesn't need a reason. I mean, if you get in a scuffle with, you know, the press secretary, even a back and forth, like a, you know, a hostile back and forth.

I mean, that should be grounds. You're not guaranteed access to that room. You know, that's not what a free press is. Because if that were the case, again, this is going back. This is going to be a very interesting case. Because if you go back to what you and I were just saying, if a free press guarantees you access to that room, Badlands Media should be in that room.

Every outlet that wants to be in that room that can provide the means to be in that room should be in that room. And the Trump administration has been one of the most open organizations in that room. You know, I said the other day, my colleague Jordan Conradson is in these press briefings for the Gateway Pundit. They've never had access before. Are you kidding me? This is the first time that, you know, Lindell TV, Gateway Pundit, Breitbart to an extent, you know, they've had access before just the news.

Like there's a whole bunch of new outlets that are now getting this type of access. And, you know, that's not a right. That's going to go away if, you know, depending on what the next administration in 2028 or 2032, depending on what the next administration is, that's probably going to go away. Like I wouldn't go buying a house if I was Jordan and I lived in D.C. You know, I wouldn't plan on being there for too long. I'm just being serious. They're not going to tolerate that type of, and, and, you know,

maybe this is the, maybe, just real quick, maybe this is a silver lining. If the press credentials are issued and Trump is not given the authority to revoke them, then perhaps the Gateway Pundit will be able to maintain press credentials through another administration. You know what I think this is actually, maybe maybe this is opium okay maybe this is opium because i acknowledge when i do have some hopium is this some just a little bit little bit is this the beginning of the end for the smith

modernization act another great point is this where you open the door for the conversations that are going to lead to that so so the only issue that i have with that and i've seen a lot of people bringing this point up. The only issue with that is technically, I'm pretty sure the Smith month deal specifically with the State Department. Like if you read the law itself, it's, it's supposed to. It's supposed to. I agree. Like, if you just, if you just read it and set second to the last paragraph, I think it's like the second or third sentence, like it, it makes that distinguishment. The issue here is the State Department isn't within the box that we believe that it used to be in either. And that's where it gets great with all these, you know, covert things that

are happening and these relationships have been established. I mean, we've always seen that NGOs are non-government organizations, but they're riddled with government infiltration and leverage. You know, so when you recognize that, it's, is that what's going on here? But per writing, you're correct. It's just the understanding of did it bleed beyond that? I think it's, most definitely has. Yeah. All right. Let's jump into another legal story here.

This one from the Associated Press, Iowa judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and Polster. Calling the case extraordinary, Iowa District Judge Scott Beatty said that allowing the lawsuit and its quote unquote faulty claims to proceed could have a chilling effect that, quote, can discourage others from reporting and debating public affairs.

end quote. He sided with the pollster in the newspaper and affirming that the poll and coverage of it were constitutionally protected political speech, not a commercial product. This is in reference to the 2024 poll released in October that showed, I think it showed Kamala Harris up 47 to 44 in Iowa, which is fundamentally absurd, right? Trump ended up winning, I think, like 56 to like 41 or something like that. It was like a 14 or 13 point swing. But it showed days before Election Day that Kamala was actually winning. Now, to say that a poll is constitutionally, well, let me finish the article and then we'll get back into it. Let me finish this. Trump's legal team said that the president will take his case to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Trump filed the lawsuit against the Des Moines, accusing the Des Moines, a register of fraudulently publishing inaccurate poll results to damage him and help Democrats saying coverage of polls is not protected speech and then it goes into the numbers there. So to say that a poll is constitutionally protected political speech, political speech specifically is concerning because like you remember when you remember when there was like a deposition I think that Tucker Carlson gave when he was still with Fox News and all the Democrats were like anybody that listens to Tucker Carlson, he's admitting here that it's entertainment. It's not news. It's entertainment. Yeah, they all would say that. Anderson Cooper would

say that. Wolf Blitzer would say that every single one of them. Why? I would say it. Yes. Why? Because it is a, it's liability. It protects you. You know, that it's that it's entertainment. Now, should we need those protections? I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. But to say that putting out numbers, you know, and something that does influence decisions one way or the other, or can influence decisions one way or the other, based on what is told to be, you know, scientifically formulated data, right? There's a, there's a scientific process, allegedly. And some will argue polling is not a science. It's an art. I think it was Mark Mitchell when he was on why we vote a little while ago.

It says polling is an art. It's not a science. Or no, you know, you know who was that said that? What's the guy, Frank? Is it Frank Luntz? I think that's the big pollster guy. He's the one that says that. Polling's an art, not a, not a scientific formula.

But I'll land that there. I want to add on to that, but I'll let you jump in. You know, early on in my podcasting career, this is a story. I don't think I've shared on ever. I've shared it in a couple spaces, but I don't think I've ever shared it on broadcast you know early on i'll tell you who uh after the show i won't say during the show um but i was going hard after a former cia agent right and this guy actually connects with me on on uh well twitter at the time and he goes look man uh you were wrong about me he goes and i could sue you if i

wanted to he goes but i know your intentions are good and i know it's like he said enough to say like I know who you are and what you're doing and that you just started. So he goes, so just look into this. And he sent me like these excerpts, you know, of, you know, entertainment only. These opinions are my own. He goes, if you're going to continue down this, this career path. And I don't think he said career pass or like career choice or something. He goes, you might want to study this stuff.

And so, you know, once I got past the like the hit to my ego, right? I said like two, three days. Let me look into this stuff, right? I was like, oh shit. I went back and I think I retroactively did, because I only had a couple shows at the time. But every show I have has that disclaimer at the bottom because it's so subjective, so subjective at what people, you would think that it's like, no, that that's a fact. But it doesn't matter if it's a fact. It's does your interpretation of that fact, do you do?

take it out of context. Is there more to that? It is, it's a dangerous road, this media world, if people want to make it there. Here's the thing. If you had something, and I'm surprised they having because you have like Soros money, well, you used to have the Soros money. But if you have a foundation that wanted to come after their podcast like mine and yours, Badlands and all that, they could financially shut you down just through the process. Yes, they don't even have to be successful. Just through the process. They can go and, and they can do some ex partees where you're shut down. Like you don't have a choice, right?

And let's go to another country. And then there's another means that they'll come after you. So yeah, Mockingbird Media versus the truth community, right? Well, and then they go after you financially. And it's not just they get like some ex partees where they shut you down, although interestingly enough we're going to talk about ex parte shutting people down today. But yeah, it's not even like. like the judge ordering you to be shut down. It's you not being able to keep the lights on anymore.

And, you know, because of the financial burden of this, because lawyers we all know, or, you know, especially lawyers in that, you know, in that field, you're talking anywhere from 300 to $1,000 an hour, an hour. One of the best things our community could have done was went and got a pool of lawyers throughout the country, you know, try to get so many in every state that were willing to use their pro bono to help the community that was being attacked, whether it was regarding the COVID or elections, to have all these pro bono lawyers that were going to say, hey, we'll take you as far as we can take you after a charge. That alone would have removed a lot of the fear. And it probably

would have stopped a lot of these attacks that were meant to us to financially shut people down. A lot of, you know, a lot of people have tried to do that. Like I know Harrison Floyd was trying to do something similar. He was one of the RICO defendants in Trump's. case in Georgia. That's a bad boy right there. Yeah, he was trying to do, we've had him on sit rep and why we vote, and he's a fantastic. Green, her. Green, yeah. I believe Jeff Clark just announced something similar, an organization that's fighting against weaponization, especially in the field of disbarment, but in weaponization in general in the lawfare. But, and then there's the option, you know, and hat tip to Ash, you know, what she did, going in learning the law and

representing herself pro se kicking ass unfortunately you know there's things that have happened and there's you know continuation of this process but you know that that was in my opinion that was a case that was made to morally bankrupt these people but also to financially bankrupt them you know to literally drain them of any financial resources to the point where they you know they basically capitulate and say whatever when it gets and this is the same thing they did to you. When it gets to a point where they're like, we just want the victory, no money, no financial burden, in your case, no crime, you know, no time behind bars, no felony. We just want to start the expungement process the next day.

Exactly. Insane. It's crazy. Like when it gets to that point, again, this is something, you know, we've got to have this conversation in the United States about processing. and leveling the playing field in this lawfare because, you know, and I propose the idea, like, what if there's something along the lines of if you're, you know, going against a state entity, meaning local all the way up to the federal government, you have to be a lot of the same resources that they expand, expend in prosecuting you. You need to be granted the same resources to defend yourself against that. And I think you see a lot of the criminal justice in this country get, you know, cleaned up and wrongful prosecutions. And you're not going to see nearly as many

people taking plea deals because they can't afford to. They did this to J-Sixers and so many other people. But yeah, I'll land that there, man. Yeah, well, two things. And I don't know what the exact number would be. But there's an issue, you know, I've been working on this. You know, there's two legislations that I'm working on for people that don't know. And one of them has to do with the police system exactly for the reasons that that Brian's talking about right now. And I'm trying to address it two ways. And one of those options is in the event that they don't want to do it a certain way, then this is a contingency for that. And it's any case, any case where the sentence breaks the threshold. And again, I'm just going to throw out a number here because I haven't really

been able. And I've talked to a couple of people and all the answers I get are so wide range. It's made it even more difficult. But we'll just say any case that's, you know, a sentence of more than 10 years. The plea deal is off the table. You can't plea a case like that. Now, the reason being people will be like, whoa, you know, but people would. No, what's going to happen is one or two things. It's going to force the prosecution to look at the way it does charges because they're going to be like, well, if we go beyond this 10 year, you know, consequence, there's no deal. We're going to a jury trial. So let's keep it at an eight year or a nine year. So it'll prevent them from putting out a sentence out there that's going to make people plea out of sheer fear.

Interesting. Like if I lose this 15 years, 20 years, you know, for some people, depending on their age, that's a life sentence, right? So it's going to create that. The other thing that it's going to create is now these cases are going to go to court and they're going to go before a jury. You know, and so that exists. So again, there's a lot that's going into. and I actually probably wouldn't mind talking to Ash about this. So the other thing I wanted to say, you brought up Ash,

she has impressed me so much with what she did. Because listening to Ash taught, you would not be able to tell the difference between her and an attorney that's been doing it as a career for their lifetime. That's impressive. The other thing, and I know it sucks this next phase that she's moved into with it, but she's also in a lot of uncharted waters because most people without attorneys would never make it that far.

So that alone is a testament to the threat that she represents for them. So yeah, keep asking your prayers, you guys. Yeah, I mean, I got to witness it. I was in the courtroom and got to witness, you know, the work that she did. And it was, it was, I've seen several trials now. I've probably seen a dozen that I've sat in and witnessed. And right up there, you never would have known she was a pro se litigant during that. And for those that don't know, Ash was sued by an NGO conglomerate and over going out and what do you call it?

Canvassing, canvassing following the 2020 election, knocking on people's doors and just asking them simple questions like, did you vote in the 2020 election by what method, you know, those kinds of things, not asking any infringing questions or anything along those lines. And a group found one witness that they went out there and they were like, yep, she felt intimidated. It turns out the whole thing, whatever. Ash ends up winning on a directed verdict at half time essentially, right? Like when they switch from that. That is bad. Yeah, it was. It was.

It's unheard of. And especially when you consider that the judge in that case was the first female LGBT judge west of the Mississippi and a Biden appointee. And Ash still won it. And the judge was, the judge was pretty fair in the trial. She yelled at me for laughing. At one point. Well, a lot of us laughed, but I was definitely the loudest.

And yeah, but anyways, we'll land that there. I want to get back to the polling part of this, though. You know, so saying that a poll is politically constitutionally protected speech is the epitome of, you know, solidifying us arguing that polls are faking gay. It's basically saying now that a poll does not have to be accurate. There's no obligation or even there isn't even like a, um, like a, an ethical obligation for the polls to be accurate. Now they can say whatever the hell they want.

It's constitutionally protected. And so you know what that brought up in my head, Alpha? You remember in L.A., like a month or two ago, we were talking about that poll from median strategies that was completely fake. Like they acknowledged that it was an experiment. Social experiment. A social experiment. And so I went looking this morning and I was like,

hey, did anybody ever sue or were they ever criminally investigated for doing that? And I found this article from LA Times. The L.A. mayoral poll was fake, but was it illegal? And let's jump down here. Quinn Yergan, a professor of the law of democracy at Michigan State University College of Law. What the bleep is the law of democracy? I don't know. Said Medians intent would be a decisive factor in determining whether any law

were broken, if the poll was truly a social experiment meant to test the poll literacy of media outlets and campaigns, there would likely be nothing to prosecute. But if the goal was to affect markets, some have speculated that the aim was to influence prediction markets such as Calshare or polymarket to affect odds on the mayoral race, then it could be considered fraud. Justin Levin. Before you go any further, I just want to remind you in the audience, while Brian reads this, go all the way back. Where were these arguments when what was that gentleman's name that did a social media meme? Doug Mackey.

What was the name? Douglas Mackey. Douglas Mackey. It was a meme. Everybody knew it was a meme. And they said, no, that was election interference. Yep. Where were these arguments then?

They prosecuted that guy. Yep. The day he was exonerated, we had him on Badlands Daily. He came on Badlands Daily and talked. about yeah i wrote extensively about him so he knows he knows who i am that's awesome when he was exonerated i reached out to him and i was like hey would you come on our show and he was like absolutely he came on for like 15 minutes and talked about it with me and i think it was me and ash um yeah man yeah that's that's a fantastic um but yeah that's a fantastic point look at you know all the political

speech that's been prosecuted and your political speech prosecuted you know and and here's the crazy part. Well, let me finish because they're going to double down on that point that that professor of law of democracy made up. By the way, if you ever need a lawyer for law of democracy, then the democracy is broken. Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola, Merrimount University said that a potential interest in investigating, there may be a potential interest investigating whether the fake poll was created to affect prediction markets. Quote, if the intent was not to financial gain by depriving others, then it's almost certainly not illegal, although not everything that is a big problem is illegal. Cali she said it did not see a bump in trading in the

L.A. May oral race around the time that median strategies released its fake poll. Keep that in mind for a second here. So the takeaway from this, at least from these law officials, right, these authoritative sources on law, it's okay to influence an election, to influence people's opinions to create a mass, you know, a mass formation psychosis environment where people are like, oh, everybody, because remember what the poll was about. The poll was about people that voted for Spencer Pratt, instead of voting for Raman, Nithia Raman, they were voting for Karen Bass. And so that is telling, that is influencing people who may not know otherwise and saying, hey, my ilk, right, the people I associate with, Spencer Pratt voters, are going for Karen Bass rather than Raman. So she must be.

be the logical choice in that progression that I would I should vote for Karen Bass that is that is election election like that is influencing an election based on a known fake experiment like you are now allowed to experiment on people by manipulating elections yeah you can do that but you manipulate markets a relatively new concept in American society right these these prediction markets that's only the last couple years that you can't do What? Now, let's get into the next part. It's that old saying what rules for thee, but not for me.

It's that, man. So check this out, Alpha. So remember the part I just read around the time? Cal she said it didn't see a bump in trading in the mayor or all race around the time median strategy released its fake poll. Well, why do you think that you wouldn't see a bump around the time median releases fake poll? Because they had no following. They had no following whatsoever. So of course you're not going to see a bump when Median released the poll.

It wasn't big until the California Post picked up the poll and published the poll. So what was the bump around that time? So it says here the survey was reported on last week, this was back in August, by the California Post and others. But after inquiries by the Times, median strategies admitted it was all fake, claiming it was a, quote, social experiment to examine how purported polling information could enter and spread through the political information ecosystem. system. So a couple things here. One, did median strategies coordinate with the California Post or any of these other news outlets and say, hey, we have this poll, you might be interested in publishing this poll. Was there any coordination in how the California Post somehow found an account that I think had like 112 followers on X, right? It wasn't a well-known. It's a relatively new company.

Like the whole concept is new. So was median strategy? in any way were they working with the news outlets to give them this and be like, hey, you might be interested in publishing this. That's number one. You know they were. Can you prove it? But you know they were. Right. The other big thing right there is median strategies did not acknowledge. There's no footnote. There's no disclaimer. Nothing. They didn't acknowledge that this was an experiment until the LA Times reached out to them. So they would, if LA Times didn't reach out, we would still be perceiving, well, we wouldn't be at Badlands because we know polls are faking gay, but others would be perceiving that poll as,

as, you know, a legitimate factual representation of a sample size. I don't know how that's not a crime. I honestly don't. And if it's not, then, and again, I'm a free speech absolutist, but there's a difference between free speech and putting out downright false information and purport like as as an experiment presenting it i i'm against making it a crime because then we're adding more laws what i would like to see is civil lawsuits make make these people pay and and and have that accountability on that end so when you have these companies that do it go go after them because the the

issue the issue becomes when you make a new law out of it, then it's going to get weaponized against people that were like, I'm a satire site. Like, why do I have to put a disclaimer on it when my site says satire? Like, you just, that's the disclaimer. That's the disclaimer. Your site says satire. Your site says it. You know what I mean? I get it, but it would still get weaponized. You know, I just, I, I, I, I, this is AI watermark argument all over again. It is, bro. It is. I was thinking about that. It's like, got in my got in my head man it is like i i'm there with you on the argument i just we got to be very careful with the solution i look i the civil thing for sure for sure you should absolutely

be subject to uh civil lawsuits you know if you knowingly publish a social experiment to influence an election i i think the election influence uh aspect is already a crime i think there's already uh crimes on the books that you can that you can turn to to to look at this. And again, this, I mean, this is, I'm with you that like political speech, you know, if you go out there and say, you know, something that's of your opinion, right, your opinion about a political candidate or something like that. You can't go out there and say, you know, ex-candidate, you know, raped a 12-year-old girl.

You can't say that unless you have some sort of evidence, you know, supporting that. But you can go out there and say, oh, he's a piece of. of shit and he thinks that, you know, like he thinks that children should be sexual objects, right? You can say that if, you know, you might run into some lawsuits there, but to go out there and represent numbers and say that this is a factual, this is an experiment we did, or not an experiment, but a poll that we conducted and put this out there and influence an election by making people believe, I think that's, I think that's criminal. And I don't know about you guys, but Cancon just froze on my screen, or maybe I'm the one that's frozen.

So if you're in the live chat and CanCon's frozen and I'm not say, Alpha, you're good. So I can know what's going on. There's going to be a little delay in the chat. So I'm waiting to see what you got. Yep, Cancon froze. Okay, folks, I'm sure he's hopefully recognized this, but just. in case he didn't. I'm going to shoot him in text, and then I'm going to start running solo until he comes back. But let me just make sure he's somewhere, because he might not be,

because he hasn't disappeared off the screen yet. We're doing it live. Okay, he recognized it. So he should come back. All right, to the point that he's making it. And here's here's my concern with, if we all of a sudden we just make it straight out criminalize it is go back to the Dutch Douglas Mackey case that we're talking about. Do you open the door? Thank you guys. I see that you guys are your goods. Yeah,

there's usually like, you know, we're between 30 seconds to a minute delay. So, but I love that you guys are on it, got my back. It is the second you go, you make it an actual formal law,

like something that, you know, the people demand and in Congress passes and it becomes, you know, law. And this goes to the argument that's presented against me a lot of times from people like, like Ash,

right? you know, the Patriot Act, then it gets weaponized. And that's my fear here that let's just say, and I don't believe this is a case, but let's just say that nothing gets fixed. And we go back to a dark, you know, you know, dark Vader regime, you know, Biden, Obama 2.0. What do you think they're going to do with us in that law? They're going to exploit it. They're going to come for us. They're going to say, oh, you did this on the website. That was election interference. You did this. You made this post. That's election interference. And then before we know it, it, it's, it's, It's another way of purging people's voices from addressing something or just straight censorship.

And so that's my issue with that, although I do believe there needs to be some type of deterrence. And so with that, I kind of understand Kankans argument, but I don't know. Now, as far as stories, I don't know what we're going to move into because that's on Kankans and that I don't have access to. And I haven't gotten a message from him. so I don't know if there's I will try CanCon let me see if I have access to that and I do not

I do not have access to that let me get a oh you know what let me see I don't think I can because I don't have access to the background I don't so sorry brother I can't do that so until you come back since I can't play the soft disclosure ad

I'm going to do my, what would this be considered, you know, when people sing and they do it without background music. Someone help me out here. What's that called? Acapella. Here's my Acapella soft disclosure. Folks, I got some heartbreaking news. This is going to be crushing. But you got to take advantage of this heartbreaking news.

The super size right here, right? This is the tangerine vanilla, I believe. vanilla tangerie, right? Soft disclosure lip balm. All all the soft disclosure lip bombs, this huge shotgun size, this is like a three inch shotgun gal right here, are going away. It's going to go into a smaller size. Okay. So if you want the big boy, the big boy that lasts forever, folks, this is going to be discontinued. Okay. So go to soft disclosure. Use whatever promo. we're running right now is, which I don't know which one it is. But use one of the promos, right?

You guys know, you guys, somebody in the chat, I'm sure we'll, Acapala, thank you, Sammy. But get this stuff. You know, people are like, you're always putting that on like that. One is, it's, somebody said, if it's so good, why are you always putting it on? Because I love the way it feels on my lips. So you could, there's times where I'll put this on, I'll forget it at home and it lasts forever. But I'm telling you guys, this, this, this is.

is a bad lands brand right here. And if you guys really want to help us out, one of the things you guys can do is go to soft disclosure.com, go pick some stuff up and then do this. All right. And on top of that, it, when we get to say, oh, it's badlands daily or, you know, sit rep that push it. It's bragging rights. Like, if you guys want me to be able to continue to talk a little smack to my counterpoints, then you can go and do that. The next thing that I want to bring up is, and I'll take this moment to say it earlier in the, in the show, you know, Ash had brought up that she started using Pet Club. And in as quick as four days, as a matter of fact, I think it took a screenshot of it. She said in little four days, she noticed the difference in her pup. So one, super happy for you, Ash, because, you know, our pups are like our kids 2.0, but it's legit folks, you know, I got to meet Kurt and Christian. They're the owners of Pet Club. I got to meet them for the first time at this cart.

And one, they're freaking tall like that. So that was pretty cool. But they have changed my life. They changed the lives of so many people. But I just remind you guys, it's not just for your pets. It's also for you. And with that, that is our soft disclosure. And that's our pet club.

And I think he's back. I am back, but I'm on my phone as a hot spot. So I'm going to play. Did we play the soft disclosure ad? No, but I did soft disclosure. So, I mean, the ad's cool. If you want to play it, it's cool. Yeah, let's play the soft disclosure ad just because I'm trying to get back on my normal fiber optic Wi-Fi instead of my cell phone hotspot.

So let's go ahead and play that. In a realm divided by ancient houses, a war has begun in the house of Lipbaum. Jonathan of House Drake. You stand accused of defying the decree of Madam Margie or refusing the razor. I've never heard of what the actual consequences are if we don't shave off our beards. Waiting to find out, because I have no intention of shaving. In this realm, even the beards may fall. You're one of us now.

House of lotion and tallow. House of mini tallow. House of beard oil. And house of deodorant. She can't get away with this. This would have never happened if she had Bitcoin. Eat a bag of Dragon Deas, Jean. Puntured it filled spice.

Wait, Mitch, he's a flash rock down! Looks like you guys could use a little help. Not Emperor. First of all, I've got to say, supporting six small American businesses, huge fan. Big fan of America. But I came here to tell you, you have a big problem at your border. A very big problem.

An army of dry skin walkers is coming into your lands. And trust me, you do not want them here. They're dry. They're cracked. They need to be hydrated. This is going to take conscious strength and lots of hydration. We have to spread the word. Promo code Walker, 17% off at soft disclosure.com.

What about Madam Marjorie and her beardless son? Already handled. I've got the brush on it. Put this on your beard to soften it, motherfucker. The most epic, bro. The most epic. I got to grow my hair, bro. I'm going to order that hymns.

I gotta grow that hair, man. I dig it. Oh, man. You guys have like this like pure white. Like you guys look like you're all like the oligarchs of the kingdom. And me and Cam are just like still dealing with our own steel and forging swords out of it. And you and Josh are just chilling up in your white little castle. I see how it is.

Yeah, the beards work harder. Softdisclosure.com promo code walkers get you 17% off. House beard oil for the win. House tallow can eat a bag of Dragon Dees and House Mini Tallow as well. You guys go hand in hand. That's so epic. That's it's really good. I know they said was it Green Star.

Green Star. Is it just Green Star that did that? I think so. I think so. He needs to make mini films, man. You need to do for sure. Like the guy's got skills. That's impressive.

Yeah. So just to wrap up that story, you know, I thought that was a pretty good discussion on it. And unfortunately, my power decided it wanted to surge on me. And power comes right back on. It's just the modem takes forever to kick back up. So all right. Let's jump into the next story here. And from just the news, Senator Rand Paul drops Fauci bombshells,

as more record destruction and gain of function research has been found. Homeland Security Chair Rand Paul said the revelations were including communications on Fauci's phone, computer and diary, and were the reason why his committee tried but failed. On Wednesday to pass a measure granting prosecutorial immunity to a former top aide to Fauci so that she could testify freely. Quote, we will have more explosive information next week. Some of the communications between Fauci and his assistant involve some programs, that are very worrisome gain of function programs that we did not know existed until we just came

across these emails. Paul said that he was frustrated by Democrats on the committee for refusing to help get more answers by granting this immunity, but he also singled out a Republican Senate colleague on the Intel Committee, Intel Committee Chair Tom Cotton for criticism, saying that Tom Cotton is doing everything he possibly can to prevent us from getting information about these programs. He has written to the DNI and said that he does not want any information paired with our committee. Well, isn't that interesting? Paul added that when I oversee this, I asked, Paul added, quote, when I oversee this, I ask the opinion of scientists because it's classified. We have no assurance that any scientist with any kind of skepticism are actually looking over

this and saying whether we should be doing this or not, and if you want to be alarmed by this. So in other words, we don't even know who's looking over this shit. Paul said he found more evidence of the culture of secrecy inside of Fauci's inner circle, including possible destruction of documents mentioned by the assistant. Quote, by looking at Fauci's logs that he was keeping on a government computer, we discovered his assistant was bragging to him in one of the emails, Hey, Dr. Fauci, I was able to destroy tons of your emails this weekend. Well, that's illegal, Paul said.

We brought her in last Friday, and she brought lawyers and pled the Fifth Amendment. So once she pled the Fifth, it was never our intention to really try and have her indicted. So we wanted to get, we wanted to know who gave her those orders. How many years had she been doing this, whether it was hundreds or thousands of emails, what kind of topics. And so really we're more interested in the guy who gave the orders because I think there were, I think that's where most of the culpability is. And so we wanted to offer her immunity. So long story short, there's an aid that has now been directly implicated, according to the emails and everything, in destruction of evidence, destruction of records.

They're trying to get her immunity so that she can testify about this without worrying about going to jail. Democrat said no. Tom Cotton said not only no to that, but also we don't want to share any of these gain of function research stories. with you. Rand Paul's doing some pretty good work at exposing at least, you know, the potential corruption that were, you know, from these classified experiments. Listen, you know I'm not a Rand Paul fun at all, but what can you say? Action speak.

And those are those, he's, he's kicking ass when it comes to that. Now I would make the argument that when he saw what happened to his homeboy, your BFF, Did that light a fire under his stats? Because Trump said, you want to be the next one? You know, that could be the case, too. We don't know. You know, that's obviously speculation. The timing's interesting.

But no, man, it's, he's got a great argument. What I would say is, is if she's aware of it, then that means IT can also get the access to answer the questions that they want. IT can't answer the intent, but IT would be able to answer the timeframe that they're that they're looking for. And so charge her, charge her, and then bring in the IT guys. It's still so remarkable. Here we go. Yes, here we go. Because you guys are like, oh yeah, he totally doesn't want to get Masseyed. Well, what if Massey and Paul distancing themselves from President Trump to libertarian-leaning,

you know, politicians traditionally libertarian? I mean, Rand Paul is never going to be Ron Paul. He's never going to be his dad. but traditionally libertarian leaning coming out doing a lot of things being ashe reviewed massy's bills that he's introduced and co-sponsored over over time everything that aligns with trump's agenda why is it so hard to believe that trump distancing himself from these people while those people continue to do the things that trump wants done and therefore you know distancing himself from the trump derangement syndrome of the media and the scorn of the media because they're aligned with Trump, why is it so hard to think that this is a legitimate op?

The way you present that argument, it's not hard to think because we know that that kind of stuff's happening. But then you've got to take it to the next layer, right? Pull that layer of the onion off and get to the next one. From an operational mindset, you're never going to deploy an operation that you don't have a high degree of confidence in what the outcome or certain outcomes can be. And some of the things that Massey's done, there's no way you can say that we're very conclusive on what the outcome could this be. It's too dangerous. For instance, the dude just try to

impeach the Secretary of War. Now, I presented an argument of why I think, why think I go anywhere. Go ahead. I agree with you that he would never, they would never happen. My argument, something different is because the, the objective was never Hegset. The objective's Trump. They just want to see who on the playing field that they can leverage and you know you know you saw the post that I did but not but nonetheless it's it's when Massey does things like that it that those are too dangerous you don't know the outcome of that and you can rewind the clock back to a bunch of other different things that he did and if Massey was good he would have won but he did it's not it's not it's not too well our elections are totally compromised so there's that there's that I agree it's not that it's not that

Massey going against Hegsseth. Again, if you're distancing yourself from Trump and the Trump administration, that would be a logical step. Not saying a legitimate step, but a logical step. It makes sense that you would do that. Massey has been avidly anti-foreign involvement in wars. Like, that's not anything new. Exactly.

When it comes to his donation. But now would be the ideal time to do something like that, because you still have Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, and it's highly unlikely to succeed. It's impossible to succeed under this administration. Now, say the Democrats do win in 2026 in the midterms in two months. Say they do win. They're not going to win a super majority in the Senate. So they're not going to have enough votes to remove eggsets if it were brought in the next Congress. So now would be the logical time to do something like that. And by the same token of you saying that Massey, and that's the thing that gets me is you only look at this as Massey's trying to see, Massey's out of Congress. Massey's

done. He's gone. Almost. Almost. Almost. Well, it can create damage on the way out. Nothing's going to happen on his way out. But for you to say that Massey is trying to see where people are going to align on the political spectrum, who might be a compromisable position, who might be somebody that's vulnerable to some sort of influence in order to get an impeachment across, Trump's side can still use that as well. That is not. Trump already knows? No. Well, hold on, hold on. He probably has an idea, but actually putting proof of concept and putting it in motion to see what actually,

like this is where you're looking for kind of those sleeper cells, so to speak. And he probably has a good idea, but Massey is going to bring it to, you know, is bringing it to light with actions like that. It's a do nothing impeachment that's not going to go anywhere. And it's also he's not going to be a part of the next Congress. So he's not going to be able to bring it. And we don't even know what allies he has, you know, assuming your perspective is correct. We don't even know what allies he has in the next administration.

I would agree with you on that part. But the thing about it is him doing it on the way out is the perfect cover to do it instead of somebody that's going to remain there. and then that person, you know, all of a sudden, now we get pissed off about them. So, no, him doing it on the way out is perfect cover for what I would call the deep state. But the other thing is, yes, nothing's going to happen at the political level. But look at all the chaos that it's created in the influencer social media propaganda world. All these people just clutch onto the things Massey does as he's the only one that would have made our forefathers proud and this. And then that spreads out there.

And it does have an impact on the community of Americans that participate in social media. There is damage that's being created there. I still say this is a full-fledged. If Massey comes out, the dude that was seeing these chicks as soon as his wife died and all that stuff. If it comes out that that dude is a good dude and he was playing a role for the president, then I'll buy him a beer and I'll say, hey, thank you for subjecting yourself to the criticisms of people like me and maintaining it, but it's not. You're going to see Massey live out the rest of his life in shame and disgrace. I don't think so. You're going to see a presidential

bid from him in 2028. Oh, you're going to, and we're going to laugh. We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if you see some pretty prominent MAGA figures come out and support him. Oh, all the all the face. No, I'm talking MAGA. I'm not talking to America first. You're your faction. that you guys want to believe is really real. You don't think MAGA was infiltrated? Maga was infiltrated too by people doing what you said Massey did. Well, deliberate.

He passed, he was trying to pass all these laws. Here's the thing. I can go in there and present legislation or present a bill for a law. I know it's not going to pass, but the American people want it. So this way, I know in five to six years when I go to subvert the president,

people are going to say, no, this guy is completely America first. Look at all these bills that he tried to pass. Once again, if you know they are not going to pass, if you know that the numbers you need to even push it into the Senate don't exist, then all it is is a facade. That's all that is. You're developing credit with the base that you're going to need support from for when you do go and get the activation orders to then subvert the president. That's what the is.

Yeah. You have to introduce, and this exists before President Trump was even in office, you know, and especially before there was any feud between Trump and Massey. That is longstanding. You have to introduce things like this. These are how you put a spotlight on these politicians that they don't actually represent their people, that don't actually represent the Constitution, that don't actually represent a system as it was intended to be. The prior, the Federal Reserve Act, case and point. Prior to Trump's 2024 election run, or just what to say is his 2.0 presidency. When has Massey ever gone this hard after the after the establishment? The answer that's never. Are you kidding me? The abolish the Federal Reserve Act is the epitome. I'm not talking about I'm not talking about writing a bill. I already said the

argument for writing a bill. So you're more concerned with the social media clicks than actual legislation. That's not what I'm saying. Just disregard social media. Disregard writing a bill. When have you seen Thomas Massey do the level of attacks that he's he's done against any administration like he's done to this one, going news conferences, all this. When has you ever... That's part of the plan. No, that's just as lazy as all the people that say everything's scripted.

No, it's not. There are bad people and there are good people. And when they show us evidence of being bad, it's our job to respond to that. There are 50% of independents who have Trump derangement syndrome. I'm not talking Democrats and Republicans. Independence. There are people who do not belong to a political party that's, see Trump as toxic because of the indoctrination from the mainstream media over the course of the last

decade. When Thomas Massey, MTG, Tucker, well, maybe not Tucker so much, but when you see these people distancing themselves from Trump and going publicly disparaging Trump, you are now allowing that 50% to look at the ideas the same exact principles of MAGA, the same exact principles that Donald Trump has been talking about for 10 years. All independents are manipulation of the mockingbird media so that this way the Democrats and the rhinos can have that plus or minus

error. Once the elections are secured, independents are going to be completely irrelevant to the process. This is how you carry on MAGA right here. Independence are people that just have commitment issues. No, no. Independence are people who checked out of the two-party system like myself. No.

There are people that are like, I can't take over the parties. So, I'm I'm just going to sit here with my ball. That's what that's what an independent is. This is a well-orchestrated plan to continue MAGA in a post-Trump era. I agree. I agree. But if, if Massey has involvement, it's not through his, it's not through him volunteering.

You might not. It's through Trump weaponizing his idiocacy. I know. So see, I think, I think there is, I think there is engagement from people like Massey, but especially from Marjorie. Taylor Green, Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent. I think these, those people are deliberately involved in this, I think. They are, the deep state, the deep state actors. No, no, I don't, I don't think so. I don't think so. So this is part of the operation to let me ask you this. MAGA in a post-Trump world where you have to have, Maga has, dude, I'm telling you, people

with Trump derangement syndrome that still have our principles and ideas, but just don't know it yet, they won't listen to anything with Trump's name attached will be open to the idea of somebody that scorned Trump over the last year or two. So let me present you with something. You tell me how retarded this sounds. And disclaimer, at the beginning at the end of this, because people will try to clip it and weaponize it against me. So this is an extreme hypothetical that I don't believe in.

I'm just trying to prove a point. Jeffrey Epstein is a white hat, folks. Jeffrey Epstein was running this operation in order to expose the deep, state. Jeffrey Epstein was doing all these horrific things that we hear about, not because he's bad, but because he was trying to show the connections to all these different, to to Mossad, to big tech, to Jeffrey Epstein folks is a white hat. Disregard all the negative stuff that he was doing. That was just part of the plan. That's the end of my extreme hypothetical. How retarded does that sound? Maybe you're talking about somebody that's been orchestrating crimes, like actual crime.

You don't think trying to subvert the president is a crime? You know, we call that treason. What? You don't think what Massey and MTG and Joe Ken and them? No. You don't think that's treason hell yet? No. If Joe Kent was leaking classified information to people.

Okay. Now you're talking about unsubstantiated claims. That has never been substantiated. I'm talking about what their political speech is saying. It hasn't been substantiated yet, but we do know that Joe Kent's under investigation. That part has been. That part has been acknowledged. She's under investigation.

We do know that Joe Kent and Candice Owens had a mutual, I think her name's Mal something, have a mutual friend that Joe Kent was at her wedding. The night of that wedding celebration, all of a sudden she comes out and says, hey, the next day I have very important stuff that I'm going to let out that I hear from somebody within the Trump administration.

The following day, Candace Owens comes out with the cell phone conversation. To me, is that speculation? Yes, it's absolute speculation. But it's very, very precise on the timing of that. And I think that's all part of the investigation. Look at what MTG and them are doing. If what they're doing is, and they're doing it together,

because we've seen the relationships with them all hanging out with Tucker and all these other people, if they're all doing it and there's evidence to support that they are trying to derail this administration, there's conspiracy, felony. This absolutely is treason. God, that's yet to be moving. That's almost as bad as your Jeffrey Epstein. hypothetical. All right, let's jump into this next story.

That was bad, dude. That was bad. Accusing somebody of treason when there's not even a single shred of substantiated evidence is really, because you just got done talking about free speech and political speech and how you don't want more laws. And now you're taking political speech and calling it treason. 100% believe what they're doing is treason.

Wow. I have a right to have that opinion. Have the authoritarian alpha meme up because that is not, that is definitely not treason. You have MTG out there talking about Trump is killing innocent people in Palestine.

You don't think that's a version of the president? What's the exact quote? I don't have it memorized. I'd have to go find it, but she said it more than once. You don't think so anybody that says a president, so when we said that Obama is going, no, no, no, because now you're, now you're, now you're, well, you know, you're putting words in my mouth saying anyone. No, I don't say anyone.

I think people who were in government, who were having conversations with the president, that people then say, well, these people know because they were right there next to him. And then outright lie? Was she in government when she said that? No, she was out of government. Oh, so you have every single right to the First Amendment? She does. She does have every right to the First Amendment. And it can't be treason.

Well, no, no, no, there's where you're wrong. Everybody has the right to First Amendment. However, if her speech is part of a coordinated act. effort of more than two people, conspiracy, with the objection or the objective of trying to subvert the president, absolutely that is treason. That is political speech. It's the same thing we did to Obama. It's the same thing we do to Biden. This goes back to the article that I said, where were these people for the Douglas Mackey guy? What they say, we need to be able to prove intent. if you can show, if you can show a conspiracy, the act of more than two individuals working

together with an objective, if you can prove that, if there's evidence to support that and prove that, that is conspiracy. And if the objective there was to derail the presidency, that is treason. Douglas Mackey was conspiracy against rights. They argued that they were conspiring to stop people from voting. It was 18 U.S.C. 241. It's a very strange application of that particular law. You are saying that news agencies that report specifically, that is what you're saying. If it's more people conspiring against a president or against a politician, any politician in this point, which happens every day in our republic. What you're saying is the words out of my mouth for is of a news agency.

So let me be very clear, whether it's a person or an entity, if there are two people or more involved, and it's a formal plan to subvert the presidency. Yes, that is the definition of conspiracy. And if they're trying to subvert the presidency, that is the definition of treason. Let me pull it up. The only way it would rise to treason is if they are using classified documents that they obtained illegally and they're using information

that's not just publicly available information. So if you prove that, maybe I'll give you a little bit of credence, but right now you are talking absolutely absurd. Here is the definition of treason. Treason is the crime of betraying one's own country by trying to overthrow its government or helping its enemies. So again, with the understanding of treason, if you have two or more people,

and this, in my opinion here, Massey, Joe Kent, MTG, you know, that's my opinion. I can't prove it, obviously. But if these people formally got together, Let's just say hypothetically at Tucker Carlson's house and said, hey, how do we get Trump out of presidency and said, hey, well, we can do this. We can use our current positions, our prior positions, our relationships. We can use this to create a narrative and push an agenda to, you know, support the Democrats to support whatever state it is to get this man impeached or worse.

That is definition of conspiracy and treason. Well, I can go back and watch every episode you did during the quote unquote Biden administration and I can find treason that you've committed. Yeah, that's why they came after me. No, well, I'm not going that far back. The difference is I was defending my country going after an entity that infiltrated my country. See, that's your perspective. Democrats and people against Trump right now have the perspective that you had during the Biden administration. That's called political, that's called political discourse.

That is a normal function of American politics historically. And anybody out there saying that Alpha is right here, you guys have Trump in re, enlargement syndrome. Like you're about to throw away your First Amendment rights because you're so embodied in Trump that you don't even see that what Alpha is proposing right here would be the gravest infringement on the First Amendment to accuse somebody. of treason because they're speaking out against the president is bonkers. First of all, you're taking, you're, you're, you are misrepresenting what I'm saying. No, you're saying that they're treasonous. You just said, what you just said is a lie. You just said that anybody that goes out and speaks against the president, that that is treason.

Never said that. If you guys want to come out and say Trump's an asshole and he's the worst president in the world, you have, you are constitutionally protected to do that. I support that 100%. I think you're an idiot, but I support that. What I'm saying is, if you and another person, two or more people, get together, and you start planning, conspiring a plan,

an agenda to do something, in this case, push a narrative to subvert the authority of the president, that is the definition of our existing law, conspiracy. Check, two more people. Check. A crime of betraying one's own country or trying to overthrow the government or helping its enemies. Check. That's the difference. What I'm saying is there's the conspiring of a plan to subvert the president. We're not talking free speech. Free speech is that a mechanism of these people trying to influence their plan. Now here's, but to a point you said that, well, you were doing treason during Biden's administration.

Do you believe that President Biden was the legitimate president and was not a stolen election? It was not part of the deep state. Do you think that that was a 100% true American president by everything being up on the up and up? Or do you think that President Biden obtained the position of presidency because there's crimes, there's fraud, there's everything that we always talk about? And I would think the latter is what you that you agree with me on. Yeah, he was illegitimate. But that's not a reason to say so. I'm not saying that that's treason.

What I'm saying, it wasn't treason for me to fight against that. That's not me fighting against them against our country. That's me fighting against the people that are trying to overthrow our country by infiltrating the ranks of our government. And so where are you talking, where are you going with this? So you're saying Trump's trying to overthrow our government. No, what I'm saying is there's a difference between what I'm doing. do or what I was doing when I did it versus what MTG, Joe Kent and Massey are doing right now. You can't even say what we're doing is the same thing.

You were trying to say that what Joe Kent, Massey, and MTG are doing is the same thing that I was doing. No, it's not. No, no, I didn't say the same thing as what you're doing. I'm saying that if you're going to call that treasonous, then any political speech that would that would call somebody illegitimate and raise the concern of illegitimacy, as long as two people have talked about this prior to the announcement of it is conspiracy to commit treason, seditious conspiracy. And that's absurd.

That's the definition of it. No, it's not. It is not. People conspiring together to push a plan is the definition of conspiracy. Oh, my goodness. How can you tell me that's not conspiracy? Can you articulate any sort of a bona fide plan to overthrow Trump from them?

No, that's why I said. It's my opinion. I can tell you all the things that they've done. So this whole thing is being qualified over your opinion. No, then that's every conversation we have on anything we talk about because none of us are in the DOJ. There's a big difference between throwing out calling somebody treasonous and then having an opinion that they could be putting treason if there's an articulated plan. When I can look at over 18 months of Thomas Massey lying about President Trump, if I can look at 18 months of Joe can't lying about President Trump and possibly leaking classified information, the same team with MTG, if I can show that Tucker and all of them are due. If I can then go and show that these people had some rhetoric that they were talking about when it came to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine and Middle East, that they all had a certain position.

But the second Trump takes presidency, they all shift their position. There is so much information out there that I can use of substantiate this position that I have. We could do it in a three, four hour show. And I could prepare and I bring all that stuff for you. I can bring you clips. We got to move on. We got to move on. This is, I'm just saying.

All right. Let's jump into House Judiciary Committee, released a new report. on it's a lot of the same stuff, but I actually read this report and some new some new new or things at least, you know, stuff that might have been out there before. How Jack Smith and the Biden Harris DOJ disregarded the separation of powers to spy on their political opposition. And I've just got some highlights because I don't, you know, want to talk about the whole entire thing because some of it's crazy. But, um, so let's just do this. This is a real quick summary. As part of the investigation related to 2020 presidential

election, the DOJ sees the phone records of at least 17 members. of Congress. In May of 2022, investigators for the U.S. Attorney's Office of D.C. began seeking subpoenas for members' phone records. We know all this between certain executive branch officials. The FBI, DOJ, Inspector General, seized Representative Scott Perry's cell phone capturing a full image of the contents of his phone. That's crazy. I didn't know they had a full image of it. I thought they just got like, you know, certain text messages and things. Smith and the, and the DOJ barely considered the Constitution as they seize the records. Subject matter experts within DOJ warned them that they might be on constitutional subpoenas.

Instead of carefully considering the constitutional implications, they obtained non-disclosure orders, gag orders, to prevent the members from ever learning that the administration had seized their records. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Through the NARA, the National Archives, Smith's team gained unfettered access to the content of text messages between the White House officials, and members of Congress, bypassing constitutional safeguards. Some of the keys here.

Brian Burnett, the OIG Special Agent, who served Chairman Jordan subpoenas, testified that the DOJ prosecutors did not inform him that he was serving a subpoena for Chairman Jordan's phone records. Burnett also explained that this investigation was unusual. He explained that never in his 30-year career had he received top-down instructions from an assistant U.S. attorney dictating

all investigative steps in conducting an investigation like he did during the Arctic Frost investigation. Burnett testified that had prosecutors informed him about the true nature of the subpoena, it would have given him pause to know that he was serving subpoenas for sitting members of Congress. So 30 years, he's never been told that this is how you're going to conduct this investigation and not told the subject of his subpoenas. I don't know if that's normal. I don't know if you've ever. You know, there's just a lot of questions on this because the other question is that why would you do it?

I'm not going to write a say. If I had one of my federal counterparts tell me, hey, I need you to write paper on this. But we're not telling you the subject of the search warrant you're writing. I'm going to be like, well, my signature is going on there. So you're going to tell me you're going to find someone else to do it. Like I don't understand why he did it. Like I agree with, with, you know, his, he recognized everything as he should. You know, three decades, 10 years, I've never been told to do this.

That should have been major red flags for him where he should have said, am I ultimately acting outside the scope of my duty? And for people that would, you know, because I know a lot of people are like, well, why does it matter if it's a government person versus another person? Because there's other policies in place on there's different steps you're supposed to take to protect the way this information isn't disclosed. So you need to know that stuff. So it's not that, well, he wouldn't have done it.

It's just, if he would have done it, he would have done it through the proper channels and the proper way. And none of that was followed here. Hold on one second. Sorry, dealing with some administrative stuff on the back end. Yeah, I agree with that. But that's where the whole fear within the government, that's where it all comes from. I mean, what happens if you refuse an order like that after a 30-year career? And they're like, well, you're insubordinate.

You're going to lose your pension. I understand that, but not everybody is going to stand on principles like that. Well, yeah, we saw that. And that's the problem. Exactly. I'm with you. I'm with you on that. But I'm just saying that that's probably what his mindset was, as long as I do this, and I don't ask these questions and I don't know, I have plausible deniability. And I can, you know, say that, you know, whatever. Let's pause right here real quick and hit a, and hit a sponsor.

and because I've got to get this taken care of here. So, all right, guys, this is a paid advertisement from Rumble. They are sponsoring this portion of the show. All right, chat, real talk. If you actually want to grab our attention, there's now a clear line to it. Here's how it works. We are prioritizing rants sent through Rumble wallet. If you send one and we see it, we will respond.

It's as simple as that. For limited time, you can start your wallet with $20 in U.S. stable coins for tipping Rumble creators like us by entering our exclusive promo code Daily 20. when you sign up now. Questions, hot takes, stuff you really want us to react to. Don't bury it in the chat. Put it in a rant because let's be honest, regular chat flies by. But when you use Rumble Wallet, it cuts through everything. So here's the move. Scan the QR code or use the link in the description down in the description down below. Download Rumble Wallet and try it for yourself. And don't forget to use promo code Daily 20 and claim your $20 for tipping in U.S. Stablecoin. Sending a tip is easy. Open the chat like you're sending a Rumble rant. Hit the pay with Rumble wallet. And it's basically the VIP link. If you want to shout out, if you want us to actually engage with what you're saying, use Rumble wallet and claim your $20 in U.S. Stablecoin with promo code Daily 20, then send the rant. We will be watching for them. Restrictions apply.

There are a limited number of entries available. Terms and conditions apply. See the description below or visit Rumble.com slash promo official rules for details. All right. And as soon as we get done with this portion here, we'll run through the Rants real quick before we get into the UN stuff. The scope of the subpoena was far more expansive than the initial record. that PIN approved two and a half years of telephone records, including records almost a year

in advance of the 2020 election, undermines any legitimate assertion that the Biden DOJ subpoena was a target, targeted attempt to investigate matters surrounding the 2020 election. Timothy Dure, the DOJ prosecutor responsible for seizing Chairman Jordan's records, struggled to defend the scope and necessity for the subpoena, admitting that the subpoena's 27-month-long time frame could have been a quote-unquote mistake. claimed and he also claimed that the purpose of the expanse of subpoena would have been identified, would have been to identify chairman Jordan's quote-unquote networks and communications patterns over an extended duration of time. He could not justify exactly why the DOJ would need to identify

network of communications among senior Republican members of Congress, instead asserting without evidence that it was a standard investigative step. I don't know if you want to comment on that at all. I have a same position. The DOJ also applied for and received a non-disclosure order, putting a gag order on Jordan's phone carrier and ensuring that he was left unaware that the DOJ, the agency which he was charged with overseeing, had seized his phone records when applying for the NDO. This is crazy. When applying for the NDO, prosecutors did not inform the federal magistrate judge that they sought phone records from members of Congress or that the potential of the speech and debate issue would arise from the subpoenas. and a gag order. In response to the abuses, the DOJ changed its policies. Prosecutors are now required to tell the judge if the subject matter is a member of Congress. That's crazy to me. Like what kind of magistrate judge doesn't ask who the, you know, who this is for? Like that in and of itself, like the judge should be looked at for that.

Dude, that is, that is wild, bro. I mean, that was my first reaction to that. And again, I don't operate at that level, so I don't know what their exact SOP is. But I would imagine it's something very similar to us. There's no information that is going to be withheld from the judge that's signing it. You make your case, you know, whether it's, you know, in some form of sealing. You know, one of the ones we used a lot was Hobbs. You know, it's, that's where you make your case, but you don't conceal it. this just screams corruption bro.

Agreed. Agreed. And not only that, corruption from the personnel that should be kind of a buffer between the corruption, right? A magistrate judge could be well aware before he issues a subpoena, who the freaking subpoena is for. And when he sees Jim Jordan,

and I don't know how they worded the subpoena, did they put the honorable Jim Jordan? Like, it would be pretty obvious. Like, hey, you're a D.C. attorney and this guy's name is directly in line as the chairman of the judiciary committee. Are you talking about Jim Jordan, the representative from Ohio? Like, how does that not happen? This is why it's important, too. And again, here's an assumption, but I don't think it's, you know, I don't think it's irrational.

Do you not think Jim Jordan has conversations with the president? Of course. I agree. And you don't think that those conversations are privileged and protected? Of course. for that we're going to get to that so because my assumption is they use salubrite or something similar to salubrite which is going to extract everything on this phone so it says according to an internal memorandum on july 13th 2023 smith briefed attorney general merrick garland on proposed additional

toll record subpoenas for members of congress including speaker of the house kevin mccarthy attorney general garland knew that his prosecutors were planning to subpoena toll records for currently serving members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House pertaining to their deliberations in advance of the certifying the 2020 presidential election. Special Counsel Smith's team candidly admitted that they sought toll records of members phone calls from carriers because, quote, it is unlikely that many of those members will cooperate and they likely have a valid speech or debate privilege immunizing them from compelled testimony. So they knew again. But here's where the part you were just mentioning about the extractions.

Where is it? It's a little bit further down. Come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on. There it is. Smith's teams violated DOJ's own internal policy and obtained the context of messages between members of Congress and executive branch officials that may have included privileged content

without any screening by a filter team for potential privileges. This violation included messages with 44 members of Congress implicating both Republicans and Democrats in both chambers. According to the DOJ's Justice Manual, prosecutors should use a quote-unquote filter team to protect legally recognized privileges

and ensure that any potential privilege material gathered during an investigation is not compromised. From documents produced by the committee Smith's investigation initially attempted to comply with the filter protocols, repeatedly checking permission settings to ensure that, quote, no one on the substantive team from SCO or FBI had access to anything for any search warrant return. On August 21st, 2023, Senior Assistant Special Counsel Thomas Windham received an email from Gary Stern, the General Counsel of the National Archives, in response to the special counsel's request for NARA to produce, quote,

presidential records of the Trump administration. In his email to Wyndham, Stern attached, quote, 54 spreadsheets containing requested custodians text messages from the House White House phones. 54 pages or spreadsheets. It doesn't say specifically how many pages. Spreadsheets can be a lot of pages. 54 spreadsheets containing text messages from White House phones. NARA just handed it over.

No custod, no filter team. It says Wyndham reviewed the text messages and proceeded to forward those contents of the text to fellow prosecutors on the team. There's no record in the documents produced to the committee that Wyndham transmitted the records to a filter team for review. Instead, according to the documents, Wyndham passed the entire production along to fellow investigators within an hour of receiving it from Stern. So there's likely...

Crazy. Exactly. There's likely no way that you could go through 54 spreadsheets by a filter team in an hour. Wow. There's no due diligence there. Even if the person was trying to argue that they were doing their job right, you cannot articulate that there was due diligence there to make. There's just that that is not feasible. Dude, that is now you want to talk about seditious conspiracy. That's seditious conspiracy. Not going to go there. I mean, it is. It is. It's plain and simple. I agree with you.

I just don't agree with the way you prefaced it like something else wasn't. That's all. Not going to go there though. I'm going to go. This is going to close the lid on Pandora's box. I think that's the end of that document right there. But yeah, so I don't know how much of that, you know, is all new. This is a new report that came out.

But a lot of these things we've seen indications of, you know, previously. But the 54 spreadsheets right there of White House communications is absolutely. the mind blowing. And, uh, let's see. All right. Let's get into, actually I said I would go through the, the, uh, the rants real quick. Oh, am I going to get them? Yeah, super chats too. Just, I'm, I'm actually not going to be able to get them because of that hiccup that we had earlier. I, I had the rants open since we started and there's, uh, only one. Okay. Okay. Is it from Mr. Fischy or Miss Fishy. Okay, Miss Fishy says, I can't get the live feed to back up to show's start. So I don't know if you talked about it, but hubby and I are going to the Tennessee, Texas game, where they're saying Trump is attending going to be epic, go vals.

Heck yeah. And then ECW was here rated the stream. So thank you, ECW. Yes, EC's awesome. That's every morning he raids the stream after his own stream. So you could check that out. You got the super chat? No, I'll pull that. That I do have because that's that's contained here. in a in um whatever but it doesn't say anything it's just 1999 and it's probably like a star probably a cool sticker or something like that we can't see that through here so well thank you for the rants guys uh we're going to get into the u.n general assembly talk now and again i had some time stamps march yeah another another super chat i do yeah i don't have that one if you want to show It doesn't let me

So I'll read it This comes from C-shaft 0812 $5 super chat It says Ghost just went on Rich does politics And blew open

The Maduro Swiss banks Yeah we've talked about Me and Ghost Have talked about that On daily When he was doing the segment With me We've talked about it

On my show I know you've talked With Ghost about this I mean he's a wealth of knowledge When it comes to that specific Like Especially well

broadly he is a wealth of knowledge with geopolitics but that specific thing his theory is very fascinating and i i was listening i'm about halfway done with uh with his show with with rich does politics um and uh it's it's it's really good it's really really good um yeah that a bunch of badlanders have been on that show lately so um pretty good pretty good stuff i would 10 out of 10 recommend that so far so far um all right let's get into the UN General Assembly stuff. And again, I apologize, there's going to be some clips here that aren't, you know, time stamped where they should be. And we're also probably going to run out of time. So maybe some of these we'll talk about tonight on sit rep as well. But this one, so this is Trump talking about Iran. And I don't know if you catch, there's something he says that's really interesting, kind of shocking to me.

And I went from your team with the Iranian delegation, anyone from, or plans to meet with their, what you said? Yeah, could any? How was that conversation, Mr. President? About an hour ago. Okay. How was that? It ended an hour ago. It was a meeting that lasted for three hours.

It ended an hour ago. What was a very good meeting. I mean, I must say. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to do it. It's a greatness, potential greatness, or obliteration. What do you mean? In one case, it's obliteration and the other alternative is potential greatness. It could be a great country. Do you think it's interesting that he met with Iran for three hours?

Like nobody gets three hours of the president's time. I thought that was fascinating. I mean, I don't know if he was specifically in there for three hours, but he says it just ended an hour ago. I was with him for three hours. a point to say that he was with him for three hours. So what kind of information Iran was providing him. Hold on one second. I don't know why this won't.

Sorry. Say that again. I'm sorry. It was playing in the background. No, I said, I wonder what kind of information Iran was providing him. Hmm.

Let me see, because now I'm discombobulated here. And, uh, I, well, you're, well, you're getting back on pace.

You all kind of expand upon that a little bit. And again, it's pure speculation, but, you know, what normally takes that long in meetings? Well, if you're listening to an audio file, if you're watching a video file, if you're reviewing transcripts, Intel would take up some time. And if it's Intel that Iran wasn't going to send out, you know, over the airwaves digitally, you know, communicated, you know, some type of digital fashion, you know, because of operational security. And you're holding that until you actually met in person with the president. and that would make sense to me.

And so, you know. I mean, that's an interesting concept that it was because they had to, they had some, something that they had to go over. Interesting concept. There's also a language barrier, I would assume. Yeah.

I would also like to know which Iranians were privy to that medium. Because as we know, with many other factions of countries, there are two different factions within Iran, right? you have the traditional, you know, Peseshkian government, and then you have the IRGC aspect of Iran. And so I'm sure that the IRGC was not invited to the UN General Assembly, but I believe Peschian and his delegation were. And so was Peschian subject to that meeting? Interesting. Okay, so let's play this clip here. I like this clip. And then we'll probably wrap up with this one.

So this is President Trump laying out. Actually, maybe not. We'll probably play one more. This is him laying out like how he's been able to successfully navigate. And this is something that I have, I mean, most of what he's done, I have tremendous admiration for. But this is one of the most accomplished, the biggest accomplishments. I think he's been able to, to kind of project to the world. Since I took office, it has been my great honor to settle eight wars.

and in so doing become friendly with the leaders of many of those countries. It was a great honor to do it. Numerous of these wars have gone on for many years and even decades. The reason I was able to make these settlements was the use of my relationships, very special relationships to this day, very, very special, trade, the use of tariffs and the threat of tariffs and various other reasons depending on the country. among them.

Okay, so from there, he's going to go and name off all the other ones. But when you think about what a president is the commander-in-chief has the authority to use in terms of weapons of war, President Trump is making economics part of that warfare. And, you know, Congress is, they've generally given the president those powers over history. It's only now when President Trump is actually using them effectively. That's the key is effectively. I feel like other presidents have used those powers to either, you know, continue wars to keep them, you know, going or to fuel these wars. Whereas President Trump is using them to stop, you know, these wars.

And just that is probably one of my favorite accomplishments by this administration ever. Like that is, you know, a huge thing right there for me. And I think the the quickness that he's handled it. And he's opened up American eyes to be like, okay, we're doing this in a matter of a few days, a few hours, few days, a few weeks or a few months. And look at what we're accomplishing. Why do these other wars last 10, 20 years? Like, he's, it's going to be very hard for someone to sell a war that's going to ever at last that long again. exactly exactly and uh they're already trying to you know kind of see the narrative that this war

is this war is over this war's been over the kinetic aspect i still think there is a an economic war going on but the kinetic aspect has been over for quite some time um there's a shadow war that's going on but that's that's kind of outside this particular like this is a very specific conversation to you know wars that as we've known them, right? Correct. The Iraq war, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Like, this is very specific to that.

Right. And they want us so bad to be discussing and arguing over boots on the ground and, you know, that kind of stuff. And I, again, I don't think there's a chance that it gets to that point without some serious intervention. And I broadly agree with President Trump that following the midterms, this war goes away. This war is all but finished. Or at least they're done talking about it in the same light that they are right now. And that's what Trump kicked out the media outlets for because they're trying to make this war.

Oh, they're going to invade Karg Island. We're going to have Marines on the ground. We're going to have a forever war. And Trump has said that that's not going to happen. This is the other aspect of this war, the economics of the war. And I had this stamped at a specific place, but I lost it when I got my boot. So this is about Venezuela and the oil. The largest oil deal in history covering 65 billion barrels of oil, which will benefit both Venezuela and the United States enormously and help drive down the cost of energy all over the world.

And that is starting to perk right now. It's coming out. The biggest oil companies in the world are going in. And the numbers are absolutely incredible. when you add the United States and Venezuela together, we have more than 60% of the oil in the world. So it's perhaps the biggest deal. It was a war, but it's perhaps the biggest deal ever made to the victor along the spoils. You've all heard that.

What is he talking about there? Because Venezuela was not a war. That was an operation at best. That was an operation. I mean, it was a very, quick war if you want to call it war I mean I'll give it a I'll give it a war because we it snatched up the leader but me you know that that it was a single operation war like what was it 16 hours you know good I was just saying from the time of of leaving to everybody

being back at it was like it was not even a full day like the actual like intense part of it was like less than four hours. But, you know, the, you know, the point out, yeah, man, I'm with you on that. I think he's talking about the war against the globalist banking system. Again, and he makes a very key point right there. And I was thinking about this. If Venezuela and the United States combined, the United States is the largest producer of oil in, in the world. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world.

world. They don't have the ability to, uh, to, to extract that oil right now because of the infrastructure. It's crippled over the last 30, 40 years. And so Trump, you know, obviously doing this massive investment in the, in the oil infrastructure down in Venezuela. This is going to take a little while, but futures might, you know, indicate this. When, when the United States and Venezuela are operating in conjunction and have, you know, potentially 60% of the world's oil. You know, production, OPEC plus goes away. It doesn't go away, but they lose their ability to manipulate the prices the way that they're capable of now. So the way it works right now, OPEC can just turn around and be like, hey, we're going to shut down oil production right now because the cost

per barrel is getting a little bit too low. And we don't want it to drop into the 60s. We don't want it to drop into the high 50s. And so we're going to shut down production. We're going to limit the export of oil for right now and drive that price, markets of elasticity, markets of demand, we're going to allow that price to go up. Well, guess what? When the United States is not operating under OPEC's umbrella as a cartel, and we have independent oil producing, you know, companies, because we have a shit ton compared to essentially state-run producers in the Middle East, that is going to open up those markets. And we're going to see, I think we're going to see oil prices like we've never seen in our lifetimes.

I'm going to be happy about diesel. You're not right now. I'm not right now, man. It's a beautiful truck, but you cry every time you have to fill it up. Every time. Every time. And you just bought it. What's that?

And you just bought it. That's the worst part. I got faith in my president, man. I got faith in my president. Yeah, but you should have held out for a better deal. You should have been like, bro, have you seen the price of a diesel? You ain't moving this truck. You ain't moving this truck.

There's only so many and I wanted to get it. So, oh, man. But I mean, but that, I mean, this goes into a conversation we've all had on different shows to, you know, the energy race. You know, this changes that. You know, the AI race. This changes that. Like, it goes beyond just the pump. And I'm not saying just the pump.

Like, I'm not trying to min on a, you know, middle. don't minimize it, you know, that obviously affects our groceries. It affects a lot of things. It's just, it's so much bigger than that steel is the point that I'm trying to make. It's huge, man. And when you look at what he's doing in Alaska and I've been telling people since last year, pay attention to Chile and Argentina, you know, these places matter and there's a reason that they matter. Agreed. Agreed. Brazil. But Argentina, I think specifically, I think you're right on that. We were talking about that in Vegas. The Falklands specifically. keep an eye on that right there.

I think that's all I've got. There was one point I wanted to make, and I can't remember what the heck it was. Oh, oh, I also think that's why President Trump has been taking so much Middle Eastern investment in the United States and transitioning them into other. Like, Trump, and this is because he's a nice guy, and I genuinely believe, you know,

he has, there's coordination with MBS and other leaders in that particular region. But as we start to pull out of that region, which I think is going to be happening pretty soon here, pulling, you know, military out of that region and being able to manipulate, I don't want to say manipulate, but being able to influence oil prices globally, they're going to lose a lot of productivity and a lot of market share when all of this starts to happen. but Trump has been introducing them to technological, you know, giving them technological opportunities and AI and other infrastructure, getting them off of oil, right? Promoting them getting civilian nuclear infrastructure, excuse me. I think you're seeing kind of a whole reshaping, and this goes back to his national security agreement or, excuse me, not agreement plan strategy where he wants the Donne Road doctrine.

and you're going to see, you know, kind of the reshaping of that, of that influence. Any final thoughts before we get out of here? No, no, man. Good conversation. Yeah, most always. Mostly. We had another YouTube super chat. CanCon wake up brother from Arben Sella 615.

I am plenty awake, sir. I will stand on my principles no matter what. No matter what. and that's all I got to say about that without rehashing a whole other fight fortunately Alfa and I have a show at 9 p.m. tonight where we can do that same exact thing what are you doing your hopium back there

like covering your moment I just got to do the hopium I'm just holding it I'm holding it to sit rep I'm holding it to sit rep you're going to make me broke to get that message to you just an update to the audience me wait whoa whoa whoa he says he's going to I'm going broke to get that massage to me.

Wait, there's a massage coming. Hold on. Okay. Now, now, now, now we're talking. Where's the massage? Like, where am I going to get my massage? Well, am I left out of this conversation? Like, that's missed up, man.

You don't want massage too? You all tired and stressed off has been. Actually, I haven't been. That's the great thing. Tired, yes, stress to know. Before you go, it wouldn't actually go into this. This is important. You're going to tell people to smash the thumb, hit the heart, right?

Smash the thumb, hit the heart. what's alpha about to do. No, I wasn't going to do anything. I was going to give everybody an update on my little one. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, because a lot of people were talking about it. So no grandbabies just yet, folks, all right? So I'm watching my phone like a hawk if you don't know so I can jump in my truck

and head over to Arizona. But keep her in your prayers. Everything's good. She's healthy. Obviously, her and her new husband are all monitoring that. So as soon as these twins are born and I've had a moment to, get my breath back, I will make sure everybody knows. So please keep my little baby and her babies in your prayers. All right. So Alpha is preparing for a potential quick last minute cancellation

of sit, for good reason. Yeah, I was just saying, you guys can't hold that one against me. I will not, dude. I will not. In fact, you know what? I'm hoping for it because my Packers play the Falcons tonight. So. Oh, baby twins. Come on, baby. So it's crazy, man. You go over there and like and tell her husband, like, massage the belly. Like, let's get this thing going.

The Packers are, I'm glad I'm not betting on them because they would make me lose money. The game I expected them to win, right? Literally just I said, I'm going to go back to sleep. I don't feel good. And then they just, they come back and lose. And then this game, I'm like, ah, they lost. Like, this game's over. And then they win. It's a confusing team, bro.

Which, by the way, you and Cam need to send me your picks. From this week? For this week. Oh, yeah, yeah, I will. I will. So we got to do that. We got to do it before tonight. Yeah. Well, you know who I'm going for tonight.

So yeah. That's a given for me. And it's Atlanta. So you know who he's going for. So there you go. There you go. Well, I don't know. You just don't.

No, he's been loyal. He's no. He says he's always. going to be loyal to and I'm always going to be loyal to Green Bay. So there we go. By the way, I predicted that Niners by 30

and you only got 28. Listen, I told you. I told you at Gart. I wasn't going to jinx it. I told you at Gart 30 points, bro. Look at hindsight, I agree with you, but there was no way I was going to jinx it.

There was no way. I was going to, them Niners look good, baby. They do look good. I told Chris. Especially when he saw the way the Rams played this week. damn they look good i know i know i was that's that was actually one of the shocking things to me was how good the rams played this week compared to how bad now granted it was in australia so you know

you never know what what went on with that but but yeah that was that was pretty crazy um man the the the nfc west is going to be that's going to be a fight it's going to be a fight because the seahawks are badass yeah you know it's we we will see so uh just real quick guys GART 14 tickets for St. Pete are now on sale. It's going to be middle of November, November 12th through the 14th, for the 14th stop on the Great American Restoration Tour in beautiful St. Pete Beach, Florida. Connect with Badlanders from across the country for an unforgettable weekend of freedom, community, and good times.

And don't miss the limited time, Gart 14 merchandise packages. Visit Badlandsmedia.tv slash events to grab your tickets and join us in St. Pete Beach. I'll be driving to that one. It's in my neck of the woods. And I'll tell you what, it is a beautiful, beautiful time of year to be in St. Pete, Florida. Take a break. The cold's going to be setting in wherever you're at. Get that one last, you know, kind of weekend of warmth and feel the soft sand under your feet and hang out with some fantastic badlanders. It is a great time. Hey, you sold that good, bro. You got me, I'm over wiggling my toes in my shoes, man.

I'm like, this is. Got your toes in the water. Ass in the stand. All right, guys. Thank you all so much for tuning in. We'll see you. Me and Ash, will see you in two hours on Badlands Book Club covering the creature from Jekyll Island.

Alpha still needs to understand the deep state. So he will not be tuning in because he chooses not to understand the true nature of our deep state. But if you want to figure it out, we are now covering, we just, got done with World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution and I think now we're going to be covering FDR I think is where we're getting to

in the reconstruction not the reconstruction the progressive era of our country the expansion of the bureaucracy and all that so today's episode 2 p.m. We'll see you guys there and then sit rep of course as long as the babies don't

come which I am rooting for as if they were the Green Bay Packers. In fact, you're going to have to convince her to name them Matt and Jordan for Matt LaFleur and Jordan Love. I don't know if I can say their names. They're beautiful names. They're very unique too. The boy names are very strong. I like that. But dude, I'm going to be a grandpa and my girl would do it in an epic way by twins, a boy and a girl. A boy and a girl. Like, I just, life's good, man. God has blessed me. Life is good. That's badass, man. All right, guys, smash that thumbs up and we will see you this afternoon.