Judging Freedom - Biden & Bribes_ Jan 6 Riot Updates_ Clarence Thomas gifts

Episode Date: May 4, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, May 4th, 2023. It's about 1.35 in the afternoon. Here are your hot topics today, and we have some very, very hot ones, including

allegations of bribery against the President of the United States of America, a bribe that allegedly took place while he was the Vice president, a former FBI agent who compared the Capitol Police to Nazis and who encouraged the crowd to attack them and who was just arrested yesterday, and a verdict in the Proud Boys conspiracy trial. They were convicted, even though they weren't physically present at Capitol Hill on January 6th. We'll start with the allegations against President Biden. Now, these allegations are very serious. I don't know if they're true, but Senator Charles Grassley and Congressman James Comer both claim to have seen a document from a whistleblower in which

the whistleblower describes another document in the possession of the FBI. And that document, the one that's in the possession of the FBI, shows the FBI's awareness of a criminal conspiracy involving then Vice President Joe Biden, who had money paid to his family members in return for affecting the public policy of the Obama administration. If this happened, if it's true, if there's evidence of it, if the document reveals it, this, of course, is devastating politically and morally for the president, but not legally, because the statute of limitations is five years for these federal crimes. And this happened, if it happened, when and how Senator Grassley and Congressman Comer say their source told them it happened. It happened

more than five years ago. So Senator Grassley doesn't have subpoena power, but Congressman Comer does, and he has served a subpoena on Chris Wray, the director of the FBI, asking for all documents in this category. The document has a fancy name. The name reflects not an analysis, but just the reduction to writing of what a witness told the FBI agent. So the question would be, if the FBI has had this for however many years it's had it, why hasn't it done anything? Why doesn't the Congress know about it? We'll see how Chris Wray responds. He rarely complies with these subpoenas. And the excuse that he gives is this is an ongoing criminal investigation and it can't be disturbed by sending parts of it out to the Congress. Okay, that's a legitimate reason.

If there is an ongoing criminal investigation of the president. That would be hot news if the FBI is investigating the president. We know there's an investigation of the president's use or possession, I should say, of national defense information, top secret data that was found at his home in Wilmington and at his beach house in Rehoboth. And it was at one or the other, not at both. So I may have misspoken there. I did misspeak. I don't remember which one. It was at one of his homes and it was at his former office in downtown Washington. The office was his place of work in the four years that Donald Trump was president. Between the time that Joe Biden ended his term as vice president and the time he began to campaign full-time for president and then, of course, began his term as president, he occupied

a rented office, a suite of offices in Washington, D.C., which is part of the Biden Pen or Pen Biden Center, a think tank established by the University of Pennsylvania and funded by donors, some of whom it appears were Chinese and affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. You can't make this stuff up. It doesn't mean that Joe Biden did anything wrong. It just means there was an amicable relationship there. So I don't know where this is going to go. I don't know what's going to happen with the subpoena. Republicans are obviously salivating over this. The White House says it's a lie.

It's a scheme. It's nothing to worry about. It just broke a few hours ago. We'll see where it ends up. This is quite literally a more as we get it. You all know about the drones that were destroyed on the roof of that domed building in the Kremlin. Underneath that dome is a private apartment used by the President of Russia. The same apartment was used by famous and infamous Russian dictators, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and of course the last leader of the Soviet Union, hardly a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev. This is a classic old Kremlin building. Now, the drones are a little odd.

Would they have been strong enough to have destroyed the building if they had landed? Could they have started a fire which would have destroyed the building? Could these drones have been fired from Ukraine, which is about 300 miles away from this part of Moscow. Did the Russians do this themselves, a so-called false flag, in order to galvanize anti-Ukraine, pro-Russian military sentiment behind President Putin? We don't know the answers to any of this. The Russians have blamed it on the Ukrainians and on the United States. If you were just watching Judging Freedom, you know that one of our former intelligence community experts, Ray McGovern, says for sure the United States knew about this. Probably

some of you claim I'm picking on her. There's a lot to pick on. Victoria Nuland probably knew about it. Did her boss, Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State, know about it? Ms. Nuland is the Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs. She's number two, three, or four, depending upon how you rank them in the State Department, but a very significant player with respect to Ukraine. President Zelensky has denied that he knows anything about it and denied that it came from Ukrainian sources. There are rogue elements in the Ukrainian military. There are these so-called Nazi elements in the Ukraine military. Do they have the level of sophistication to have fired this?

According to Ray McGovern, they do. But Ray McGovern also believes that this is more likely than not a planned, plotted, hey, we can get into your bedroom, Vladimir, attack, foolish attack, because the response could be catastrophic, by the Ukrainians, known by Ukrainian military leadership and known by Ukrainian political leadership. Colonel McGregor is off this week. When he comes back, I can't wait to pick his brain on this one. We'll see where it goes. It's hard to believe that if this was done by the Ukraine military that it did not have the direct approval of President Zelensky, and then it's hard to believe that if it had the direct approval it did not have the knowledge and consent of the United States State Department or Defense Department or both. To add to the mystery here, where was

President Zelensky when this happened? Finland. So if there had been a direct response in Kiev, he was not there. And instead of flying home from Finland, where did he go? He went to Germany, unannounced to Germany, in a United States military jet. So it makes you wonder if he's concerned about his safety, if the United States is guaranteeing his safety, and if he felt the need to get out of his own country because of a potential immediate response by the Russians. Well, the Russians don't respond immediately. President Putin is a patient person. He probably follows that old Sicilian one-liner, revenge is a dish best eaten when it's cold, meaning we'll wait, we'll bide our time, and when we retaliate, you will know it. That's just my suspicion from having observed President Putin very closely now in the past 14 months and generally during the years of his presidency.

He practices restraint. criticizing him for practicing too much restraint, for killing too many Ukrainians, for taking too long to go west into Ukraine. He killed a lot of Ukrainians in the battle for Bakhmut, and they continue to move, the Russian troops continue to move westward. About an hour ago, a federal district court jury in Washington, D.C. convicted the Proud Boys of seditious conspiracy. This is a terrible, terrible case. These people were not, this is a seditious conspiracy over January 6th. Seditious conspiracy is a redundancy because sedition is a conspiracy to overthrow the government by force. If you overthrow the government by force, that's an insurrection. So I don't want to get too technical here, but the courts have been using this redundancy phrase, seditious conspiracy. Seditious conspiracy and sedition

mean the same thing. They're basically an agreement to overthrow the government by force, even though the five people who were allegedly involved in the agreement, four of whom were convicted of it, were not even physically present in the Capitol on January 6th. In fact, the leader of this so-called conspiracy, Enrique Terrio, has the best excuse in the world as to where he was. He was in jail. He had been arrested the day before for something else by the federal government. Question, should somebody be prosecuted for a conspiracy that is impossible to carry out? I think everyone will agree, even a federal prosecutor. It's impossible, impossible for five people to take over the federal government by force, no matter what weapons they have, given the ability of the

United States government to defend itself when attacked. Nevertheless, they were convicted of a conspiracy. There's a famous one-liner from a famous criminal case by the famous trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow. As some of you know, I'm about to do an off-Broadway show called Clarence Darrow Tonight. It's just me as Clarence Darrow. I'll tell you more about that later. But in rehearsing my lines and in reading the two classic biographies of Darrow, here's a famous line that he uses. Obviously, this is when money had a different value than it does today. If a boy steals a dime, he's not going to go to prison. A small fine more than a dime's worth will suffice. But if two boys conspire to steal a dime and then don't do it, they are candidates for prison because the government is aggressive in wiping out conspiracies. That's what you have here. At best, at best, you have five people

talking about something they didn't do. As a result of their talking, there was no harm. In the modern world, every definition of crime requires an element of harm. The government must prove that someone was harmed. You rob a bank, the bank was harmed. You stick somebody up, the person was harmed. You engage in an act of terrorism, property was destroyed, or a human being was harmed. Who was harmed by these five proud boys sitting around boasting about it's the spirit of 1776 all over again? Answer, no one, except perhaps the pride of the federal government.

Convicted today for something they did not do. Yesterday, a former FBI agent was arrested for his behavior on January 6th. Yesterday, two and a half years after January 6th, the present FBI found out about their former colleague. He is alleged to have shared the crowds on. He is alleged to have said, well, the police here are Nazis. They're Gestapo. Protected speech. Go get them. Protected speech. You guys are Gestapo, protected speech. He is not alleged to have engaged in any violence. He's not even alleged to have trespassed. He is alleged to have egged the crowd on to harm the police. Charges against him are misdemeanors, meaning maximum time in jail is less than a year. He was released on his own recognizance.

Why it took two and a half years to find him, who knows if he hadn't been an ex-FBI agent, we probably wouldn't even be talking about the case. I don't even have his name, just that he's an ex-FBI agent from a town called Bend, B-E-N-D, Oregon. And the FBI alleges they just found out about him the other day, two and a half years after the event. In the continuing media efforts to drive Justice Clarence Thomas from office, efforts that, in my view, will not

succeed at all, but it does give the Democrats some hope that President Biden will have an opportunity to replace Justice Thomas with a Democratic Senate. I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think he's going to resign. I don't think he's done anything that even approaches resignation. But they have another one of these things, this GOP megadonor, a fellow named Harlan Crowe, C-R-O-W-E. I really had never heard of this guy, as wealthy as he is, before it came out that he's a longtime friend of Justice and Mrs. Thomas. Now it turns out that Mr. Crowe paid the private school tuition of a great nephew of Clarence Thomas. I say, it's not like he paid the tuition of Justice and Mrs. Thomas' children. It's a great nephew. Is this relieving Justice Thomas of a financial burden? Is there a tit for tat? Is there a bribe? No, no, and no. It's just a gift that he wanted to give because of his friendship to Justice and Mrs. Thomas.

Or so I understand, but we'll see where this goes. But you'll hear a lot more about it because the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have found a bunch of ex-Republican judges, of which I'm one, but they didn't call on me, to testify and say, we need a new code of ethics and the Congress should write it. Well, guess what? The Congress can't write a code of ethics for the Supreme Court or for the federal judiciary. Only the court can do that. We have in this country what's called the separation of powers. Congress can write a code of ethics for everybody that works for the government except for the judiciary. It's really up for the court to do that. If the court does not have a code of ethics on itself, then its credibility will be diminished. The court has imposed a code of ethics

on all federal judges in the country except for the nine on the Supreme Court. Why they have exempted themselves, I don't know. But under our Constitution, they have the lawful, legitimate, constitutional authority to exempt themselves, and they have done so. To me, exempting themselves diminishes their credibility. I know what these rules are like. You can't make contributions to political causes. You can't write letters to newspapers. You can't stand on a street corner. I don't know who stands on a street corner and gives political speeches anymore, but you can't do it. You can't affect to move the dial, the political dial, the political needle, if you will. You really have to have an almost monkish, almost Ivy League, lowercase i, lowercase l, ivory tower, I should, ivy or ivory tower, I should say, type existence, because justice must not only be fair, it must appear to be fair. And jurists, whether federal district

court judges or circuit court of appeals judges or Supreme Court justices, must not only be completely neutral, they must appear to be neutral, because a lot of justice is appearances. And so justices should appear to be as neutral as the lower court federal judges are. Stated differently, their credibility will suffer without the same rules imposed on them as are imposed on the 12 or 1300 other federal judges in the country. Having said that, Justice Thomas has violated no rule, has committed no crime, has violated no regulation, has violated no principle of ethics of which I'm aware, and I wish the media and the Democrats would leave him the hell alone, but they won't. It's the reason we have lifetime tenure in America. It's the reason you can only

be impeached if you commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. We all know those standards from the Clinton and the Trump impeachments. Where this will go is, in my opinion, nowhere. But you'll hear a lot more about it. There is legislation in the hopper, in the Senate, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, in my opinion, a decent, honorable guy. I disagree with him on many things, but I believe he's decent and honorable and really is concerned about this. But the legislation is blatantly unconstitutional and would be invalidated as soon as Joe Biden signs it into law. It basically orders the Supreme Court to appoint a committee to investigate the members of the court. Congress can't do it.

Even if it's the right thing morally to do, even if it's the palatable thing politically to do, Congress can't do it. This is another one of those examples where Congress will enact legislation it knows is defective, it knows is unconstitutional, but it lets them say to the crowd back home, look what we did for you. Look what we did to protect you against these venal, avaricious jurists who write laws for everybody else but exempt themselves from it. And then the whole thing will die. There you have it, my friends. More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24 seven

and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.