PBD Podcast - The Mar-A-Lago Raid w/ Stuart Kaplan, Ricardo Aguilar & Scott Perry | PBD Podcast | Ep. 187

Episode Date: September 23, 2022

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick, Ricardo Aguilar, Stuart Kaplan & Scott Perry to break down the raid on former President Donald J Trumps, Palm Beach residence. Stuart N. Kaplan, P.A., is a nationally recognized white collar criminal defense firm and civil litigation firm located in Florida and New York.  For the Law Offices of Stuart N. Kaplan: https://bit.ly/3S6zjsh Follow Ricardo Aguilar on Instagram: https://bit.ly/37zokDc Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

All right episode 187 and it's a special one because of what happened yesterday After attorney general latisha Jackson No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Yeah, civil fraud law sued talking about $250 million at best if not at you know higher end of three to four times and Baning them from doing real estate and business in New York permanently And one of them was five. I mean anyways. We'll cover the details on that But we have a special show here because today's show we have Stuart Kaplanon. Let me tell you who stood Kaplan is which the timing is we have Stuart Kaplanand. Let me tell you who Stuart Kaplan is, which the timing is, again, couldn't been better. He's a former FBI agent.

He received an appointment with the FBI as a special agent in 1995, was assigned to the New York FBI Special Operations Division and White Carler Squad. Then he worked on some of the most important cases and FBI history to include the Centennial bombing and TWA flight 800 investigation. In 2001, he received a special transfer to Miami division, where he was involved in the

anthrax and 9-11 investigations. In 2003, he was assigned to a long-term undercover operation, and he's now a criminal defense attorney. And we also have Ricky Aguilar in the house. He's back and will have Scott Perry at our 10 o'clock congressman whose phone was seized I think just a few days ago to talk about how that just took place But with that being said Stewart Ricky. Thank you for being on. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Stewart. How you doing? I'm doing fine. Good morning. So your accent sounds like your southern like Texas is it's Texas accent?

Yes, southern kind of like cross the cross Bronx Southern Bronx South Bronx like cross the cross Bronx. South Bronx. South Bronx. Yeah, I figured. So Stuart, when you see all the stuff that's going on right now, what are you thinking? Like half of this stuff, like one week at some hour of a log, next week is this. What do you think is going on?

Well, first of all, you know, when I talk, I talk facts because, you know, there's a lot of, you know, speculation, rumors. And so I tell people, when I go back to, when I came out of the academy, and I remember there were 48 of us in a graduating class back in 1995. Most of the individuals, whether they were men or women, and by the way, I apologize,

I hope I can use the French people in men and women. Well, I just read in the newspaper, if you come out of the Navy now or the Air Force, you can't refer to mom and dad. So I just want to make sure I don't piss. But I have the seamen and not the seamen or something like that. But most of us were, eight personalities, played competitive sports,

a lot of military guys, special force guys, real hard chargers. And I saw quickly after 9-11, where the mission of the FBI changed drastically, where it became more of an intelligence gathering community. They started to recruit more intellectual type of individuals. And the posturing, as I see today, for example, when I look at young kids going through athletics, my son plays organized sports, in particular, 12 years old, he plays football,

and they're more concerned about giving participation trophies. Our society has changed, we're soft now. In fact, I remember when we went through defensive tactics and they asked everybody in the class to raise their hand and ask, who's ever been involved in a fight? Basically, you saw about 50 or 60% of the people raised their hands. I can tell you without a question, because I've been back to

Quantical many, many times where you will see the same type of question being asked, and no one will raise their hand. Who's ever gotten punched in the face and you look around? Are you being serious? Dead serious. Today, absolutely. And how is that even possible? Because because the mission of the Bureau has changed.

We as a society has changed. We, the law enforcement as in the practice of law has become more of a sporting contest. It's about winning it all cost. Where when I came out of the academy, it was about the administration of justice. It was about equal justice, and it was about arresting bad people,

going after top 10 fugitives, people that were murderers, bank robberies. If I was to tell you that unless someone jumps the counter of a bank with a firearm, the FBI does any more respond. That's today in 2022. But if we have this political undercurrent where we want to go after a political figure, that seems to be the top of the priority at this point. And so the complete mission, the complete priority, and of course, the mentality of the FBI. And when I talk about the mentality, and I can talk because I still have one friend who is actually the second in charge, the seventh floor mentality that said FBI headquarters has changed. Its focus has changed.

I think that if there was any mistake that Donald Trump made when James called me back in 2017 was escorted out of FBI headquarters, The one mistake he left is that he left the stench behind that continues to permeate, and he should have cleaned out FBI headquarters from top to bottom. And why do I say that? Because 99% of the men and women who were in the field offices throughout the United States

and throughout the world are incredible people, and they do an incredible job. But let's be honest, the mission or the signals are given from FBI headquarters. And so what you see played out now is like a sporting contest because people interject their political views, they interject their personal views. And that's not the FBI that I know. The FBI that I know looks at the facts were facts based. We run out facts to their logical conclusions

and we allow the facts to speak for themselves. We don't come to the conclusion and work backwards and create a narrative. And what you're seeing is now everybody has a foregone conclusion and just like you talk about the Attorney General in New York, who I know a lot about, Shuri said when she ran for office that this was gonna be her conclusion.

She just needed now to write her narrative. And so yesterday you see a get up in front of a podium and now she's gonna talk about her narrative, but she had already reached her conclusions. That's not what I'm all about, and that's not what the FBI should be all about. We had a CIA agent here last week or two weeks ago, and maybe three weeks ago, Andy Bustamante,

who's a former CIA guy, and I was asking a question about FBI, CIA, D.A., all these guys. When was it, you know how the whole approval rating would present as this, the whole approval, when was FBI's approval rating by the, you know, populist, the highest? When did America trust FBI the most? You know, I will tell you that sitting here today, and I can talk to you about Waco, Ruby

Ridge, the Centennial bombing, flight TWA 100, There were many times that they were isolated incidents that the FBI became front and center where there was some criticism, but it was focused solely on decisions that were made at the time on the ground. This is the first time, in my opinion, that the legitimacy or the integrity of the institution is now being challenged or being questioned.

And I do believe that in this particular situation, perception and the optics sometimes is our reality. And so this is a different FBI, and you have to question what their motivation is. I do not recall politics ever being interjected into any of the cases that I were involved in. And that's not to say that I wasn't involved in public corruption cases.

But the party affiliation of the individual was of zero consequence. The only issue at hand was whether or not there was some facts that supported the hypothesis that this person may have engaged in criminal activity. You run out those leads to its logical conclusion. Not because the person was Republican or not because the person was Democratic, but because the person either did or did not commit a crime,

and if the person did not commit a crime, that was it. The case died on the vine. That's not the situation we have today. Yeah, I wonder like, okay, so originally, when FBI got started, with J. Edgar Hoover, when you say not political, a lot of it, the stories you hear about them and Kennedy, Kennedy's coming over saying, hey, you better stay away from us

because let me tell you what picture we got of you. And whether it's true or not, the cross-stress and back in the days was a big deal. And if the world got out, so there was politics involved. The mob was involved. How much of this is factual or not? I wasn't there in the rooms to hear about it. But we've already read these stories and seen the movies.

What was the original outcome of why we started the FBI? Well, look, the FBI was started because there was a need, there was a, you know, we needed a federal law enforcement agency to oversee state and local agencies. And that really was then the infancy or the, how the FBI was born to come. I don't disagree with you. Look, the director of the FBI, regardless of who the director is, he serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States.

And I'm not going to say, I would be less than candid to say that if the president or one of his aides picks up the phone and calls the director and says, listen, I need you to do this, this, and this, I'm not going to say that the FBI director is not going to jump through, jump through hoops to try to satisfy the requests to the president. That's not what I'm talking about because that's in all life. That's in corporate America, that's in sports, that's in anything. You know, you know, you know, someone, you reach out to them,

you ask them to, you look, you get caught going down the turnpike and you get a speeding ticket and maybe you have a deputy friend and you call your deputy friend and say, hey, do you know this deputy, he wrote me a ticket, can you make a phone call and tell him to take easy? That's in all walks of life.

But that's not what I'm talking about. This now is an FBI agency that's been weaponized by the political incumbents, by the presidency, by the, you know, the over office. That's unprecedented in modern history. If I can ask you a question, I'm sorry, but when you say that, is that on both sides of the spectrum, both sides of the aisle, or is it just one? Have you noticed it more recently in the past 10, 15 years?

When did you notice that shift? And if so, has it been one side of the aisle more than the other? So look, if we talk specifically about the then former president, Donald Trump, Donald Trump was an icon in New York City before he even thought about running for public office. There were a lot of people that loved him and there were a lot of people that hated him. And that's because of his verbost and taginistic, just bombastic type of attitude. In fact, I was laughing last night.

He was on Sean Hannity. And there's a perfect example where I can comment as a criminal defense attorney. That's why sometimes he puts his foot in his own mouth because the lawyers have no client control. There is no reason why he should have gone on that program yesterday, given what was said early in the afternoon. But the bottom line is he was loved and he was hated at the same time.

When he then decided to enter into public service or to enter into the arena to run for president, no one really took him seriously. I mean, that's the reality. He was either the laughing stock, or as you saw quickly, people said, wait a minute, this guy may be able to go to Washington, D.C. and shake things up. And then all of a sudden, the fear started to permeate.

This could be real. This could be real. And for the first time, you have people like Pelosi or Chuck Schumer who've been there forever. And by the way, they have taken full advantage. And even Biden who's been there forever. And you know, the interesting thing is when you talk about Biden, why don't we talk about the last 40 years that he was in public office? Let's talk about the lack of success. He never did anything successful. And the funny thing is even when you talk about healthcare and you know, he talks about

we're going to try to bring down healthcare costs Well, how come no one ever refreshes his recollection when he stood up with Obama and they talked about you could keep your own You know keep your own health insurance and it's gonna be a lot cheaper Well, all of a sudden that all of a sudden that went out the door and so for the first time the institution That was so ingrained and was untouchable started to get really nervous that this guy is going to come in and he's going to kick us in our rear end and he's going to expose us for what it is. That's when you started to see people start to reach out. And for example, utilize the FBI. And here's a perfect example, the attorney general in New York.

This is such a meatball type of case. I mean, it's really meatball. Look, Donald Trump is a very successful businessman. I don't know anybody at his level who doesn't have teams, lawyers, teams of firms who are embroiled in litigation. That comes with success. Whether you're Donald Trump or you're someone else. It just is amazing. And by the Donald Trump or you're someone else, it just is amazing.

And by the way, those cases in New York, you would never hear about them. They would be so quiet and they would all be resolved. Maybe a fine would be paid. Maybe there would be a discouragement of some money's paid back. It would fly under the radar. But here's a perfect example who, here's a woman who took the platform now and she's going to run with it and making a nothing out of a federal case here.

Are you basically saying, but I wanna do this, to finish this up and then we gonna go into our friend James here. We're gonna go into it here. This is what I wanna ask. We've all had investments before. You've had investments, you've had investments, Tyler, I'm sure has had investments

and you've had investments. Okay, at what point you sit there and you say, yeah, shoot, I mean plus minus, I'm not, there's no benefit to me. I'm not making money on this thing here. If we look at some of these agencies, ATF, which stands for, I'll go to back of firearms, which all are like, what do you mean we need ATF,

employing 50 to 100 people, how much money our taxpayers paying for ATF? We can go away with ATF, okay? DEA, FBI, CIA, which one of those organizations, and I kind of have an idea which way you're gonna lean, but I wanna hear what you're gonna say about this. Which one has done more harm than good for America? If you have to choose one, let's put DEA aside.

Let's just do CI and FBI. Which one's done more harm than good for America? Well, look, the Central Intelligence Agency does not operate domestically. They work strictly, internationally, and they are a critical component of our national security. The FBI is tasked with protecting our national security here domestically. And so I'm not going to suggest that either one of them is not valuable because they both come with tremendous value. And I will tell you, especially after 9-11, and especially when you see that when there

are separations of state and local law enforcement, and even separateness from federal state and local, the only way we are going to be safe here in the United States is to have federal partners that work with our state partners, that work with the local partners. And I talk about terrorism matters. Terrorism matters, believe it or not, police officers that work each and every day may contact with you and I, may contact with people all day long. That potential crumb that may be picked up could be noted in a traffic stop, in a citation, in a police report, in an incident report. And all of a sudden that

one thread of information, a year, two, three, four, five years down the road, may become a critical component in a federal investigation. Our success, and I will say this because we have been very fortunate since 9-11. Leave out the active shooters and the mass shootings because we have failed miserably with that.

But when you talk about domestic terrorism, meaning on the national level with, you know, not having another repeat of 9-11, the success has come with the FBI and all of the other law enforcement agencies working so seamlessly together, jointly and sharing information. The breakdown prior to 9-11 is information was not flowing down. It was attempted to be flowed up to the FBI, but the FBI was very scarce or very resistant to share information downward. We now work jointly, tasks we were mostly made up task force agencies. That's why, and I do applaud the FBI for keeping us safe when it comes to our national security. So I don't think we could do away with the FBI, but with saying that, do I believe it needs

to be retooled? And when I say retooled, retooled at the top, not necessarily at the field office level. The challenge then becomes accountability. Who votes who accountable? And how do you prevent individual political affiliation and interest of getting in the way of what you do and what you look past of. And it's a very, very difficult thing to do on

how you hire people. Like a Peter struck you sit there and say, you think this guy's gonna take sides? Of course he's gonna take sides. And yesterday he's tweet, you know, talking about all these other people, but behind closures the text getting cut. The concern for me becomes an organization that powerful with that much control to walk up to scot

perry congressman which we're gonna have here in a minute i don't know the man i don't know what he stands for i mean i i don't think he's somebody that's on tv on a daily basis but what would happen here will talk about him he's been on for the last few months you're seeing him regularly with the insurrection of these different things but to pull up your with your family three kids and and like, hey, hand us your phone for what? That's okay to do nowadays.

There's a part of that that's a little bit concerning where one side that approach doesn't work and the other side it does. So it makes a lot of people a little bit uncomfortable to say at what point can this happen to me regular? Some of us are immigrants. I was born and raised in Iran. People can come and talk to you about a lot of different things at any time, right? People can come and ask you for things and get away with a lot of stuff.

We saw what happened this last week with a lady in Iran who was 22 years old, they're doing the anti hijab movement and they don't want to wear their hair covers and 22 years old, they threw her in the bus. Our head said she starts bleeding, she dies the following day. And then they say she died from a heart attack. Or 22 year old dies from a heart attack. But it's in Iran, you know, they control the media, they control the story and people on the streets

can do about it. But in America, you wouldn't, you wouldn't think America would get to that level. So my only concern is, what can we do to be a little bit more accountable? I know you say tools, but a level of accountability and trust to be increased. If the FBI was a company and they had a review online right now and they have to fix their reputation. And I got a lot of work to do, gain the trust of the American people today. I agree.

100%. But you have to understand, and I'm going to go back to a perfect example, just to put things in context. Yeah. So why the FBI is not the same FBI that's recognizable, not only to me, but a lot of people that are similarly situated that have retired and still are there. When I got into the FBI, there was a fit test. The fit test was you had to run a mile and a half, you had to do sit-ups, you had to do push-ups, you had to do pull-ups. Do you realize now that the FBI Academy has done away with quote-unquote the fit test?

Now, again, don't want to piss off any of the people that are listening. But let's be honest, you have to be fit because the job should be very physically, you know, demanding times. And what happened was there was a person who couldn't pass the fit test. They got recycled once, they got recycled twice. And then on the third time when they couldn't pass the fit test, they terminated that person. You know what that person did? Probably sued that. That's exactly what happened.

They sued, and then you know what the FBI did. They said, well, it's a disability, the person's overweight. Maybe we don't need to have the fit test, so they did away with the fit test. Exactly. Exactly like I say, when you have the fit test so they did away with the fit test. Exactly. Exactly like I say when you have the participation trophies. And now you have...

What year was that by the way? They did away with the fit test in 2004, 2005. So this has been coming for decades now. No, that's what I knew. No, no, no. This has been coming to... The softness you're talking about. Correct.

And now we have, how does an FBI meet his criteria, his requirements? Yeah, how do they do that? When I did that, that was the success of your cases. Meaning, you know, you work cases, you know, if you ended up arresting someone, you got to that a boy. Now you have a checklist, how many informants,

how many, how much restitution, how many seizures, how many informants, how much restitution, how many seizures, how many warrants, how many felony convictions. And so when you break it down into a checklist and you have a chance to go either way to arrest or not arrest someone, well, if you realize you're coming up with your performance appraisal and you need to arrest someone,

you're gonna arrest that person, why, because you gotta check that box. That's not the FBI that's recognizable to me, but when you make it that way, and by the way, what the public doesn't understand, and here's a fact, true scenario. If I come at a po-dunk someplace in the United States out of the academy, and I go to 26 federal plaza,

which is where the FBI is located in New York City, you can imagine someone coming from little place in Arkansas, who now has to uproot his family of four and try to find a place to live within two hours of New York City, because you're not gonna be able to afford an apartment, and now you're going to work at 26th federal plaza. You can't find a legal parking spot.

And you're absolutely miserable. Your kids are miserable. Your wife is miserable. Here's the reality. After 18 months of coming out of the academy, I can raise my hand and take a specialty transfer to FBI headquarters. What does that do when you'll spend the next 18 months

at FBI headquarters? And then when you come out of FBI headquarters, you does that do when you'll spend the next 18 months at FBI headquarters? And then when you come out of FBI headquarters, you're now a supervisor. Now, think about this. You're in the bureau less than four years, and you're gonna come out into the field office and supervise guys that have 15, 20, 25 years. That's not gonna work,

but you have these young kids that are doing this. And now you have this culture, this mentality, this social media, you know, you know, you'll keep in mind the kids that are coming out of the academy are driven by social media. By the way, when I went into the FBI, you couldn't have ever, listen, I'm 58, and I can say this, I have never smoked marijuana.

And when I applied to the FBI, no drugs. If you had done any drugs in your life prior to applying to the FBI, it was automatic disqualification. Right? In this day and age, it's now, if you haven't done marijuana in the last three years. Now I'm not being critical, I'm not taking a position on marijuana, but what I'm saying is now we've changed the rules. We've changed, we've lacked some, the applicant, the type of individual.

See, you know, I want the FBI to have disciplined individuals. And that's why I am the biggest advocate for people that come out of the military. Why? Because they are so disciplined and they don't ask why they just do it and they stand at attention. They'll stand there for 16, 20, 24 hours and they won't move. They won't go to the bathroom. They won't have to look at their cell phone. You know, when

I worked at the FBI, no, keep in mind cell phones were something you carried in a suitcase. So not everybody had a suitcase, right? We at best, we had a beeper. We had a pager. You go into the FBI, you know, FBI agents, they all have cell phones. Everybody's on social media. Everybody's getting their media, their, their information through, through social media. That's making us brain dead.

And I think there's a disconnect you know the public thinks FBI FBI agents are something above us being human. No the FBI is made up of human beings men and women and The men and women that are coming out of college coming out of graduate school coming out into the world Have this demented distorted view why? Because they're watching TikTok their you know, and all this garbage that's being fed, that's the new and upcoming FBI agents. We know the military just recently is their lowest ever recruiting shortage they've had. And a long time to the point where now they're giving $50,000 bonuses for six years, just

to join. It's like, oh, you physical, don't worry about what you're doing. So don't worry about it. It's a lot more, don't worry, don't worry, don't worry them before I ask you question. I think you posted something about that. I thought, well, the military is not,

it's attractive because now you can get your loan forgiveness. You know, listen, when people went to the military, went to military because it deferred your expense to go into college, right? Why do I have to do that? Why do I have to need a six year commitment to give back Tonkel Sam? And by the way, I'm the biggest advocate in proponent.

Listen, you wanna give forgiveness, give those people that raise their hand and volunteer in God forbid, they have to go over and forsaken God awful countries to protect you and I. And when they come back, give my house, give them healthcare, forgive them loan forgiveness.

That's, I'm good with that. But now you just wanna give loan forgiveness because I'm lazy and I don't wanna get off the couch and go get a job. I don't agree with that. So there's where it's driving also the military. Wow, let me ask you a point. Because I don't think anybody listening to this

is gonna disagree with you. I think you're making very valid points. I think everything you say is accurate, accurate, accurate. What I want to understand is why. Like what was the catalyst to this? You basically started off the episode to basically say, we're getting soft, bro.

Straight up, when I joined the FBI, I was a macho guy, played sports, competitive. Now it's all intellectuals, almost bureaucrats that we talk about. But what was the catalysts? Because this isn't a Trump thing. This isn't Obama thing. You're talking about this was late 90s, early 2000s.

So what happened? Look, I saw quickly after 9-11 that the bureau, and when we talk, when I say, I'm talking about the FBI, the mission of the FBI completely changed. After 9-11, we became an intelligence gathering agency. We were no longer hands on. And by the way, for example, when I came into the FBI,

I loved going after bank robbers. And you had bank robbery duty, meaning that if there was a bank robbery and you happen to be on call, you went out and investigated bank robbers. In this day and age, and here's a fact, unless there is a weapon used in connection with a takeover in a bank, the FBI does not even respond to a bank robbery. So the mission changed.

We became more concerned about, you know, you know, profiling individuals and less about arresting and investigating really bad people here who were inciting in our communities that were drug dealers and human trafficking. You know, and while you think that the FBI mission, you know, those things are at the top. That's not that wasn't the focus after 9-11. And so that's where I started to see the mentality change, meaning from the mission of the Bureau, and then the recruitment of individuals now who were coming into the FBI were different

than I recognized when I came in. And when did you retire from the FBI? In 1996. Okay, so you haven't been, so it's been 15 years plus years. So, but I am, yeah, a hands-on there all the time, you know, still have people that are there. And so I still have a pulse to understand because the older guys, you know, now I see what they're saying,

I hear what they're saying, and they are frustrated. I bet, well, my next question was, how often do you interact with these younger guys, not the older guys, not the guys in their 60s, the 25 year olds, who might be saying, look, Stuart, I respect you, but you don't get it, man, I'm 25 years old. I was born with a phone in my hand.

How often do you interact with these younger people? So on my, on my lawyer side, all the time, every day, in fact, I told you, I just came back from Dallas. It's a case that's being investigated by the FBI. Now, this agent, this case agent happens to be a 20, I think he's been in 2022 years. The guy is incredible. But when you tackle and you bring in young agents

that I interact with, first of all, they come in, they have zero people skills. Like you and I can have a conversation, I can meet someone without ever knowing them. And they already know about my background, I ask you about your background, and they're just building a rapport. These kids that are coming out, they're so fixated on the script. And by way of example, criminal defense lawyers, they're evil, they're the bad guys, they're on the bad side, where I always looked at it when I engaged in meeting lawyers when I was with the FBI. That was an opportunity to develop a relationship, to develop a rapport. And I've talked about this and let's talk about Marilago. And this is exactly where there's a disconnect

and where I talk about facts. When I was with the FBI and I went execute a search warrant, if there was a lawyer that showed up on scene, I loved that. Why? Because I would go up to the lawyer and say, hey lawyer, I'm looking for X, Y, and Z. Can you talk to your client? Because maybe you can make my life easier and make your clients life easier.

Because I don't want to tear apart his house. I don't want to disrupt his family. I don't want to start ripping going through draws. I'm just looking for X, YZ. In the lower inevitably, we go shore agent. Here's where you need to go. Here it is. And we would go, we'd get it and leave.

How often does that happen? So if you remember me, I like, that's the routine. But if you did it, if you did 10, 10 words. All the time. And how many times would they say, here it is? All the time. Really?

If the object was there, it was just a matter of time. Because, you know, listen, first of all, when you talk about real search warrants and you talk about the contents of the affidavit and support of the search warrant, basically there's something that's called rightness, meaning fresh information. So someone apparently has reliability,

and credibility to attest that they have seen what we're looking for on that occasion. Oh, God, it's right. You guys already know it's there. Of course. And just like when they got to Mar-a-Loggle, this was not by surprise that they didn't know they were gonna find these boxes of documents.

Someone had already put their eyes on it, so they already knew that they were gonna find it. But this idea to wall off or keep out of documents, someone had already put their eyes on it, so they already knew that they were going to find it. But this idea to wall off or keep out of lawyers, and the other thing is, if I was an agent, I invited lawyers to be a bird on a perch. They couldn't interfere with the search, but I always liked that because they kept us honest, and they also prevented from anybody accusing us of misconduct of either taking something or destroying something or going into something that may have made us look on perspective. Why would they do it without a lawyer being there?

That's very weird. So, my interpretation, my opinion is because they went in under the broadest pretext, knowing that they knew exactly where these boxes of documents were. But they were also hopeful, again, the mentality is, let's look everywhere because maybe it's not necessarily what's described in the warrant, but maybe we'll find other things, maybe related to the January 6th situation, or maybe we'll find something else. Some other smoking gun. If, listen, here's the thing, Patrick. If I'm Donald Trump's lawyer and I show up in Mar-a-Lago

and they give me a copy of the warrant, I say, okay, you guys are looking for these boxes in these documents. Come on in, I'm gonna walk you downstairs and say, here they are. Now, you could say, well, Mr. Capin, you know, you could keep documents somewhere else. I'd be like, listen, let me escort you all through it,

but I'm not gonna let you start rifling through things and start looking at things that are not specified or articulated within the warrant. And what I find so offensive is, look, and here's where the breaches, and here's where the dishonesty is. When you are an agent, and your agent's going to execute a search warrant, there is an operation plan that is put in place days before the execution of search warrant and there's

an operational meeting and the rules of engagement are gone over. And so when you go into someone's house or someone's office, you don't just grab stuff and throw it into a box You have to examine what you're looking at to ensure that you are legally Entitled to take that you can't just grab documents and throw them in So how did they but that's the whole point? That's what they did They came in with like a sweet Street sweep, and collected everything and figured, well, we'll go through it later. The breaches and the offense to me

is now we know that there are indisputable privileged documents, meaning a lawyer, attorney client privileged documents that in no way should have ever been seized. And if they were even being considered to have been taken as a agent, I would have addressed it with Donald Trump's lawyers on scene. And to either make an agreement on location, we're going to take the documents. They're going to go into a yellow envelope. They're going to be specially marked.

They're going to go to a Tain agent. We will not look at them. And they're going to be segregated. But you see, none of that was done. And whether it's one document or two documents, when you have that breach, when you have the violation, to me, it taints the integrity of the overall mission and it makes you look dishonest. So to be able to do that, that means... So in FBI, there's got to be Democrats, Republicans,

and Dependents. So right before they're about to do something, they came from Washington, DC, Patrick, they were flown down. They had to leave their phones and they were flown in. And then they were flown out. What does that mean? Okay, so when I would execute, when I had a case that took me, let's say I'm down in Florida, and I develop information that's going to lead to a search up in Atlanta or New York, I'm going to notify that field office and they're going to work in concert with me. When it comes time for me to execute that search warrant, I'm not bringing agents from the Miami Division up to Georgia or up to New York.

Now, as a case agent, I will be there because it's my case, but I'm going to utilize the local FBI office just out of the economics of it, just out of just the mere manpower, but that's not the case. They used a squad out of FBI headquarters, men and women who were flown down specifically for this mission, they did what they did, and then they were flown out. And not only that, but they were walled off to communicate with anybody here. Why? Because there was a concern that either it was going to leaked out, or either that someone

here would not be on board with what they were going to do. Did you see the part when in 60 minutes they asked, Biden, hey, did you know about this investigation of what his answer was? He sure did. She's answer was, I got it right here. His answer was, you know, no, I was not aware of it, right? But maybe one of my people is, look, here's what happens. Between 4.30 AM and 7.30 AM, depending

on the president's schedule, and I know that again, fact-based, his chief of depending on the president's schedule. And I know that again, fact-based. His chief of staff or the president of the United States is debriefed each and every day on the major events that are either ongoing in the world or that are going to happen, which includes the FBI director or his elector of debriefing the president or his chief of staff.

There is absolutely no way that the president in the United States did not know on that particular day the FBI was going to Mar-a-Lago to execute a search. How does somebody not push back and say, how's that possible? Because to me, if you're the commander in chief, how do you not know that they're about to rate the guy that was your number one competitor?

How do you, do they think the American people are this dumb? And let me, let me take it from the, obviously you saw what happened with Attorney General, Latisha, Latisha James yesterday, right? It's a very interesting thing, Tyler. I want you to pull up YouTube. Go to YouTube.com. And here's what I want you to do. So the things that she said, we don't have a written here because it was last, I'll just kind of read some of the stuff here

that audience, maybe you didn't see the whole thing. So she called it a white collar financial crime, which you used to be working on white collar stuff when you were FBI, falsifying financial statements, insurance fraud, issuing false statement to financial institutions, more than 200 misleading asset statements those years, apartments was more than 30,000 square feet, he says, but it was only 10,000 square feet, that's what she's

claiming. So he inflated the value department by $200 million, okay. Then she says he received $150 million in favorable interest rates by showing that his network was higher. Okay, Marlago should have been valued at $75 million, but it was valued at $7.39 because it's top-line revenue of Marlago's only $25 million. By the way, if Marlago's really worth only $75 million, on the record, I just made a $75 million offer to buy Marlago. If you're saying that $25 million,

you want to do that, like you and I will run it together. Yeah, it's a new location? I go have to see. You and I will run it together. Yes. Yeah, it's a new location. I'll take the room. The complaint is a 280 page pages long complaint. And she's asking the court to bar entire Trump family from conducting business in New York, increased network to get financing. She doesn't want Trump to ever run a business in New York, et cetera, et cetera.

So $250 million fine. And she's saying that's the bottom. And even Michael Cohen yesterday is like, that's the because I was involved. I would sit there and he would Trump would say, increase my network from three and a half to five and a half to seven and a half billion. He says, I've never seen anybody get richer in 10 seconds like Trump would get richer just by telling us what to put for his network. So they're going after him, right?

That's who said that, Michael Cohen? Cohen said that yesterday. And you realize now that the complete premise of the initiation of this woman doing this investigation was started by Michael Cohen, who has the credibility of zero. On a scale of one to 10, we put them at zero, there is not one, did you see anybody from JP Morgan

or Bank of America or BB&T or Sun Trust or any of these banks? Those are the ones that should. If they lost the money. But no one lost any money. And by the way, when is the last time you could actually ask to be given money without an independent appraiser paid for,

paid for by you, but done at the behest of a bank. Because I mean, you buy a house, you could tell them whatever you want, but the bank is not going to rely upon that. They're going to send out an appraisal, and they're going to ensure that the asset or the collateral right, at least reaches or exceeds what they're going to lend you. I mean, did you see any financial CEOs up there, or board directors up there saying we got cheated,

or we lost money? You know it's crazy, like, I've raised a lot of money over the years and I've sold businesses. And you can say when you're talking, you give them a, you know, basic sims that you're giving it to them, they're looking at it, right? Okay. So your EBITDA is this much, your this is this much. You can inflate as much as you want because what's next is, is a four week process of quality

of earnings done by third party for, you know, accounting from KPMGPWC, you spend a few hundred thousand dollars to million dollars to do quality of earnings and they're like, well, this was off. No, this was right. And the more your numbers are right, the more you're going to get a favorable valuation that they give you upfront. So that stuff, no one's going to give a few hundred million dollars without doing their own due diligence. But here's the kicker. This is the point I wanted to make. When she does this, FYI, she said she was going to do it and she did it. So to the people that wanted her in there to go after Trump, guess what?

She kept her promises. Okay. But I want you to go on CNN and go on their YouTube channel. Just go on YouTube channel. When she first announces it, so go to videos. Yeah, go to videos, zoom in a little bit so the audience can see it. So go up, go up, go up, go up, keep going. I'll show you this. I watch so much CNN today was unbelievable. But there there is. It's the one that says breaking. That's the one. Okay. So click on that,

but don't play the audio. Click on that. I want the audience to see this. Okay. So she is, they're doing what they're doing. Turn off the audio and just press play. What the lady is saying right now, she's saying breaking news. Okay, press pause. Okay. So press pause. Okay. So this is the first time on CNN, an anti-Trump camp is talking about Trump's entire family is getting sued in New York, okay? On a 14 million subscriber channel, zoom in how many views this thing got. Zoom in how many views this thing got so they can see it.

This should be 17 million views, 10 million views. You know what the American people are saying? We don't give a shit. Yeah, we're over it. And all I'm saying to you, if it was like when Russia happened, and what was a guy's name on Russia, I know we have information on the, what was a guy's name's Adam, Adam's shift, Adam's shift, right?

Peter's shift's lesson, Adam's shift. So when he got up, you know how many views it got? Nearly 10 million views, eight million views. The American people simply are sitting there saying, listen man, get over it, move on, we understand you, hate the sky, we got it, and you hate the sky, okay? And we're fine whether he wins or doesn't, you know, totally get it, but this is a little bit too much.

Would you have guest Tyler? Adam, would you have guest Tyler and would you have guests for some like this to get three hundred forty one thousand views breaking news well i i just think it it speaks to the credibility of cnn and and what people are watching on there for instance i clip came up on my youtube just a little perspective this is a a million uh... subscriber channel you familiar with this guy brine tyler cohen

he speaks out against Trump, he's proudly a Democrat. He's got a million views, same story. And a million subscriber. As what I'm saying, is that people are looking for other outlets that maybe are less biased or have more credibility. You would think like this is a home run for CNN,

breaking news, this is what's about to happen and the American people are saying, let them just compete if he doesn't, we need to. How would you compare that to the two or three videos right before that or after that? Is it all somewhere around? I watched all of them. So zoom out, zoom out so you can see this. Not even this story. I'm saying in general. Okay, zoom out, go back to the channel. Yeah, just go back to the channel. So zoom in a little bit so we can see all the views. Zoom in, zoom in, zoom in, zoom in. Okay, so 51,000 is voter stun, zoom in. Okay, so Putin, people are interested in Putin more than they're interested

in New York. You gotta be kidding me. Trump's poll numbers are making things. They're more interested in his poll numbers than their interests. So that's higher. Biden responds to Putin. Okay, they're interested in that. Sweep in condemnation, he reacts to, okay, 589, what's the next one? A retired kernel on potential impact of 300,000 more Russian troops. That's the war, yeah. Exactly. But Michael Cohen, 599, okay.

Nothing is in the millions. The voters are telling you CNN move on, and let's see who's gonna get elected. What are your thoughts on this? Just looking at the optics and the numbers, Stuart. Yeah, no, listen, I agree. I thought it was a non-factor. In fact, generally speaking,

the attorney general of New York would have initiated a civil investigation, meaning they would have gotten a complaint through the channels and they would have investigated it. And then if they would have realized that there may have been criminal conduct, they refer to either the Feds or to the county of which who would have jurisdiction. In this case, and what is left out, is that New York County, and also the Southern District of New York, had already investigated this, and had already come to the conclusion

that it was a non-issue, that there were no criminal violations. So now, this woman who all of a sudden has some, you know, the holy grail is trying to suggest now, not only we can commence civil litigation, but we have the smoking gun to suggest now not only we can commence civil litigation, but we have the smoking gun to suggest that we have now evidence of some crime that has been committed. It's hogwash. It's nonsense.

As I told you off camera, I said, I bought a lot of popcorn. I'm going to sit on my couch. I'm going to eat the popcorn and watch this side show because it's ridiculous. I think that, as I watch the news, and obviously in the Hispanic community, everybody watches CNN, Delemundo, right? And this is making news, too. And I think that, Demar, I talked to the Hispanic community, like going back to what you were pointing

about 341,000 views. They have no idea, Pat, that they're pushing so many people to become Trump's at fence. Well, you wouldn't you push somebody so much, you get to wonder why do you hate them so much? That's what ends up happening. That kind of what happened with Andrew Tate. A lot of people didn't know who Andrew Tate was,

up until you canceled him. Not everybody's looking him up, right? And I think that that's what's happening right now, that they're just, people are waking up and like wondering, I mean, these guys scares you if you're doing that much. You're sending the FBI to his house and you're doing everything, every time you turn on a new Spanish to there's Jorge Ramo's,

there's Paola Ramo's, which is his daughter, which was part of a, a lot of people don't know Hillary Clinton's, when she was running for president, Jorge Ramo's his daughter was part of that camp. And she was going to have a position in the White House. So a lot of people didn't know that. So he was politically motivated to go against Trump, but you turn on news, everything's Trump.

He's like, bro, he's been out of office for two years, but the more they do this and they do things like this, it starts to push people towards them as opposed to against them. And this is backfiring and it's backfiring nasty, especially in our community. They just did a poll that 55% of hispanics are now flipping to become to voting for Trump in 2024. If he decides to run, if he's going to run, if whatever he's 55%. He was at a 55% approval rating.

He was only at a 20 to 25% in 2016. Yeah. Interesting. Is that Trump or the Republican Party? No, Trump specifically. Mexican's on on nothing about the Republican Party? No, Trump specifically. Bro, Mexicans don't know nothing about the Republican Party. They only associate Republican Party with Trump. That's it. They're not even magas. They're just like, this is ridiculous. And they're seen, especially,

they're being affected with their income, with the gas prices. Did you watch the interview last night with Hannity? Did you catch it? I did, I watched the whole thing. Yeah, and you know what's interesting, just listen to them and going back and forth, and you know, he's his usual self,

and he, you know, Hannity took a shot at FBI, like not a shot shot, but he was kind of trying to set him up to take a shot at FBI. And Trump's like, listen, there's a lot of great agents there. Like most of them are very respectful to me, most of them are very good. Most of the FBI agents are great people. I don't know if you caught that one, he's, I'm sure you caught that one. Most of the FBI agents are great people. I don't

if you caught that one. I'm sure you got that because like I said, when Donald Trump was a businessman in New York City, he did interact a lot, not only with the FBI, but all across local law enforcement. Right. He was well respected and well liked by the law enforcement. He probably even threw parties for them or something. He was very ceremonial, very invading. I bet. I bet. And he said, look, and if you go back and listen, he said the men and women in the field offices

are not the problem. It's the ivory tower, meaning it's the seven floor mentality. That's, and that is where there is a disconnect. These cases are being driven at a headquarters in a particular floor, not the field offices. Can I give some stats to essentially what Rick is showing? So you see this one right here that says the point CNN, it's the bottom right.

It's probably the most viewed video on the page right there. If you scroll in on that. Of course, it's 699. Exactly. So I actually watched that and this is 0% my opinion. I'm just summarizing what this was, the most viewed Video on CNN in the last 24 hours aside from the Putin

Aside from Putin, okay expect respect So what Ricky is saying is that he's been out of office for the last two years Which he has and essentially the story here is that most presidents when they leave office when they look back at the poll numbers Or approval ratings people will kind of say, all right, you know, George W. Bush has been out of office for a few years. For giving a little bit. They forgive him. All right, Obama's been out and they're like, if they leave office, their approval ratings

maybe are at 50%. And then in retrospect, you know what, he wasn't so bad, it goes up to 60%. The challenge that Trump is having right now is he's never really left office. One is he, I mean, technically, I mean, I'm not going QAnon. He's left office, okay? But he's been in the head for years. He's been campaigning January 6th, Mar-a-Lago. He's not escaping the media attention.

So the poll numbers reflect exactly what they were the day that January 6th happened. So if you want to, this is again, these numbers, now I understand a million people have basically gone over to the Republican Party, a lot of Latinos. Everything you're saying is actually factual. But if you take this at its word, and I'm gonna read some poll numbers, and obviously I'll give the disclaimer,

I don't know if you can believe poll numbers, how much are they right? How much are they accurate? So I'll just read you the numbers. Nobody's asking me, you can extrapolate, exactly. I've never been asked the poll numbers, but the poll numbers basically show that Trump still remains very unpopular here the numbers. So this is this is NBC And also Quinnipiac. I don't know how much credibility you put there again, not my opinion like Stuart said I'm just reading the facts that were given to me

This is national voters 34% have a positive Outlook on Trump 54 54% negative that's NBC, that's national registered voters. Now according to Quinnipiac, it's the same positive, 34% favorable, 57% unfavorable. Essentially one in five have a very positive outlook on Trump, 46% have a very negative outlook on Trump. And the major, major, major, major, major factor is all the January 6th coverage. Again, I'm just re, I'm summarizing what he said there. I think they're, I think they're, they're knowing who to ask. Because

if you ask 10 people that believe things like you're, they're gonna, you're gonna have 100% approval. You're not asking us. Nobody's asking us. Nobody's gonna come to Mark Community and ask us for the art community. Nobody's asking us. Okay. going to mark me when you're asking us. So the art community is nobody's asking us. Okay. If you want to just miss the numbers, I can't tell you. I can't tell you. I'm not even aware of this. I can be summarizing it.

Let me tell you what polls I don't trust. I don't trust the Fox poll. I don't trust the CNN poll. I don't trust the NBC poll. I don't trust the ABC poll. I'll trust Pew Gallup-ish and maybe one other. And all the other stuff is going to be a little gonna be like where they ask you people in their office Yeah, and you see it in office with you on this I've never been asked for a poll never okay zero, so I hear you on this

But here's the anomaly and this is something I talk about just talking to my neighbors, which is mind-bad When you go to the gas pump, they don't ask you before you put your ATM card in there, your Democrat or Republican, right? You pay the same ungodly amount. I just filled up, I think, was 529 a gallon for premium. It's $7 a gallon of premium. In California, okay, so pick one. You're not gonna get the sympathy for breaking it.

So I'll make it for your brother. So here's where I'm going. So here's where I'm going. We've got a good inflow, so let's, whatever it is, here's what it is. As Trump got a good inflow. So let's, whatever it is, here's what it is. Yeah. As Trump was asked last night by Hannity, gas prices were below $2 when he left office. Prior to him leaving office,

I think he said in November or October, they were like $1.89. What is amazing to me is, I've talked to someone who is so said fast hatred for Donald Trump. This is unbelievable. This is where you have to say, Kuku, they hate him so much. They've made it.

They've made it. Seven dollars. So $5 for gas, then to have gas at $50 or $1. Now here's the other thing. You go to the supermarket. Groceries were very reasonable when Donald Trump was in office. Now you go to buy a gallon of milk. It's like six dollars, right? Everybody has to pay the same thing, whether you're Hispanic or African-American or whatever.

Everybody goes to the supermarket. They don't ask for your voter registration card. It's amazing, though, that Biden has been able to use as a scapegoat for his failures, placing it directly on Donald Trump. Now what is crazy about that is Donald Trump moves the meter and moved us so far ahead where we became so energy, you know, non-reline and independent and gas and food and employment and everything was so great. And listen, I'm the first one to say,

if he only could have kept his emotion aside and closed behind closed doors and not have brought it in front of the podium, he would have been better received. But the bottom line was he was no nonsense. If he had to get from A to B, he's got there as quickly as possible. He cut out all the bureaucratic nonsense. He'll run you over the dead. He'll run you over the dead. What's wrong with that? That's dirt. I agree with you, but I'm going to kind of circle back.

You're kind of proving my point is that people will vote against their own self interest. I'll pay a dollar more taxes for a hatred. Just to not see his face. And that's essentially my point is that, yes, I agree with you. Why wouldn't you want lower inflation, lower taxes, lower gas pumps, lower super price index? Of course, you want to pay lower. But to not see Donald Trump's face, I'll pay an extra dollar. And that's the whole point of these polls. You're essentially proving my point. I agree with you. I want to pay less than 10, but I want to pay less. But he's not. But people are Democrats. I don't know. No, it's not breaking news. I don't

know if you see an end. Democrats tend to be a little bit more emotional than Republicans. Yeah. No. Okay. So they'll see it. You know, John, thank you, Pat. That smile means a lot to me. They see Donald Trump and they get triggered, whether it's right or wrong, it's fact, it happens. Okay, I'm learning, I'm reading so, it says I'm trying to be less emotional here, but Democrats aren't having come around.

Hold it together, buddy, it's gonna be a ride. It's gonna be a quick woo-sa and we'll be our ride. Okay, we have a guest that just joined us here. Congressman, US representative Scott Perry Okay, we have a guest that just joined us here. Congressman, U.S. Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania's tent district, he's a retired Pennsylvania Army National Guard Brigadier General who just recently,

the FBI came up to him and asked him for his phone and we'd like them to share that experience with us. So Scott Perry, thank you for being a guest here on the podcast. Well, thanks so much. I sure appreciate it. Look, it's not something you aspire to. We get one month of the year that we can kind of plan to be with our family some of it.

And that month is August, so my family, it's expensive, but we all pitch in and we ran a little house down at the beach at the shore down at the Jersey Shore and we spend you know time with the with the kids with their grandparents and their uncles and aunts and those type of things and of course you don't expect a knock on the door at 9 o'clock in the in the morning at the shore house because you know you're you're not you're there with people you know and people that know you don't knock on that they just commit. So I answered the door and of course I'm greeted with three by three guys and suits at the beach

which is kind of out of character. So they said good morning congressmen we're here to take your phone. I just happened to have the phone in my hand and I said you know I put it in my pocket and I said, I'm not giving you anything until you prove that you have the authority to do that. And of course, look, I look through the paperwork, I look through their badges and so on and so forth. And I started asking me questions and look, I'm a guy who grew up revering the FBI, the CIA,

people in uniform. So this is so out of character, but of course, I'm living in the world of today in America. So when they started asking me questions politely, I said, look, I got nothing to say to you people. And so, you know, we went through the process, they get me to receipt, tell me they're bringing it back today when they're taking an image of it. And they said, do you have any questions for me? And I said, yeah, I've got a question for you. How did you find me here? Of course, I know how they found me there.

They're holding in their hands now how they found me there. But I wanted them to say it. And the gentleman kind of got a smirk on his face and he said, it's just what we do. And he said, we'll contact you when we're ready to give you your phone back. And I said, well, I don't have a phone to contact me. So can you call my chief of staff and let her know so she can let me know? You know, call my wife for what have you. But I didn't look what I didn't want to have happen was have the fb i knock on the door and have my elderly you know in their eighties father and mother and all have to go to the door and deal

with that it's just not it's not appropriate and uh... and and they said well what's her number they said well i don't know it's in my phone and the guy says to me well it's not like we're gonna go right from through your phone like you gotta be kidding me. I said, look, I don't give you authorization to do anything, but I give you authorization to get my number for my chief of staff out of my phone. Hours and hours later, my father-in-law is calling my wife.

We're down at the beach with my kids. And he says the FBI is here. So great, you know. So I pack up, you know, look, I'm a typical dad at the beach. I got a cart with all the kids toys, the blanket, the umbrella, all that chairs, all that stuff, right? I packed it up like a packed meal. I sent my kids back to the house and, you know,

I started heading up the street. You know what I'm looking for? Not hard to find it to sure. Black SUV parked on the side street. You know what I'm looking for? Not hard to find it to sure. Black SUV parked on the side street. I stopped pushing my cart. I walk over towards the vehicle. Of course, all these guys jump out,

walk up to me with paperwork, my phone. I said to the gentleman, I said, sir, why could you not honor your commitment? He said, what commitment was that? I said, the commitment you made to call my chief of staff instead of bothering my father and law and my mother-in-law. He said, well, we couldn't find her. Oh, come on. I thought that's what you do. So that was my experience. They took an image of the phone and I'm sure they're trying to do the paperwork

to say they want to look inside the phone at this point. But unfortunately, I'm sure they're trying to do the paperwork to say they want to look inside the phone at this point, but unfortunately, I'm a little skeptical living in the world today, watching what's happening. I'm sure they have everything they need off the phone to start with. Now, you said a lot of things there. One, you said you asked them how they find you, and you said I'm sure, I know how they found me.

I want to say, are you insinuating that the phone and working with an Apple or whoever the phone company is, they located you that way? Is that kind of what you're thinking? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm thinking. It's not like I announced to the world, hey, I'm going to be at this address out of town on this day. We live in a dangerous world. I got young children that I'm trying to shield from the rampant crime running across America

right now, courtesy of the leftist Democrats. So I don't announce those kind of things. I tell people after the fact, hey, I was just at so and so, but it's after the fact. And so obviously, look, we're glad that they can go after terrorists and criminals and use technology to do that. Unfortunately, this is now the new surveillance state where parents who have the gall to go to a school board meeting,

a school that they pay for in their taxes under penalty of law, by the way, and have the gall to question what the school is teaching their children. You know, the FBI and the Department of Justice puts a threat tag on them. That's the world we live in today. Now, to follow up with that, you know, are you droid or are you Apple?

What kind of a phone? I've got an iPhone. Okay, so you got an iPhone. I remember, you know, when the whole San Bernardino thing happened, I don't know if you remember how much heat Tim Cook got for not giving the information and Reassum book that just came out called after Steve meaning after Steve jobs They specifically talked about how the government didn't like Tim Cook because he was close with Trump and he was close with both Presidents and they're like how is it that you're gonna be close to a guy like that? And he's gonna listen, this guy calls, I deal with him.

So, and Tim Cook, most people don't even know, he was a former Republican as what he was. Tim Cook growing up, I know that's gonna sound strange, but that's a complete different conversation. The other part of it is, so, you know, they said they're gonna bring the phone back. I'm assuming they haven't yet brought the phone back. No, they have, they have brought it back. And how much after no they have they have brought back and how much after they bring it back how

much how many days after they bring that they said it was going to be a couple hours it was the length of the whole day with a lot of the i didn't believe a couple hours but why say a couple hours it's gonna take all day i mean it why not just be truthful about it so how about this now now that you experienced that have you a per change your approach and philosophy on how you're you know handling your phones because you know most of the time a lot of people have two phones you know special people in your kind of a position you have to have two phones one is going to be working person has has

anything with your approach changed. Quite honestly it hasn't look my life's an open book I don't say anything on the phone that I wouldn't say publicly. You know, yeah, I objected to the electors and I explained to the world why. I called for investigations. I called for audits. I explained why those positions haven't changed. What my concern, so I'm not concerned about what I've said on my phone. What I've said, I can't control what other people send

me number one number two i absolutely can't control what the fby the department of justice the cia the ns a any of those three letter of alphabet organizations will put on my phone i can't control that and either can anybody else yet i think i can't do it for me one's it's no one's business to see what i'm telling my wife my kids my that part there is zero uh... i'm zero tolerance for that now let me ask you what happens if you don't give the phone let's just say the fd i fb i does show me like i'm not giving it to you

what would they do to uh... i think they would turn your own put your handcuffs and all your way i mean look that's that's the that's the new police state that we live in. Understand, on this phone is a attorney client, Fred, which I asked them. I said, look, if you wanted the phone, why don't you just contact my attorneys? You know, I have attorneys now because of this whole J6 charade, right? This, this so-called committee.

And then one agent said, oh, you have so and so and so and so, and so is your attorney. So I said, yeah, why don't you just call them and that no answer to that. So again, this is this is the world that we live in and you just got to live that way knowing that at any moment, this could happen. Look, there after me at this moment, there after Michael and Del, Donald Trump, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, you name it, the list is long and distinguished. But that's us today. It's going to be everybody else. And they just hired 87,000 or paid to hire 87,000 IRS agents. Do you think they're going after, you know, the guy that owns Amazon, Jeff and Jesus, do you think they're

going, yeah, they're not going after Mark Zuckerberg They're coming after people that pay some guy 25 bucks to cut the lawn You know some lady that's trying to work three jobs to pay for gas food and the cost of living right now Who who then said like I'm not at home? So I'm gonna hire somebody for you know 20 bucks to clean the house, you know, that's who they're coming for. So it's me today, it's you tomorrow. Congressman Stewart-Cappan, former FBI,

now practicing attorney question, was the legal process to get your phone was a search warrant? Yes, it was. All right, now Congressman, because I've been in that situation, I will assume the technology that's out there that the Bureau uses is called cell-bright. And that's a software that will mirror your phone.

I assume the conversation went something like this. Listen, Congressman, let's make your life a lot easier. Give us your password. Because if you don't give us the password, we're going to keep your phone in finita. It may take us up to a year or two to crack that code So I assume You realize that I would need my phone back so you cooperating gave your password. Is that correct? Essentially, yeah, I scripted almost exactly And and so you realize though, sir, and I would have counseled you though

And that's only because I've been there. I would have said listen agents good to meet you go pound sand here's my phone But I'm not giving you my password and good luck cracking that code by the way on cracking an apple I phone probably a year maybe even longer and by that time you know who knows what happens But listen in any event I just wanted to make sure I understand the legal process now I have a question for you because this will maybe cast some information that may assist the viewing audience. You were left a copy of the warrant. What district or what jurisdiction was that warrant issued out of? Uh, well, I can't remember.

I don't know if it was in uh... new jersey or watch the dc i actually think it was in pennsylvania and they went and got to work in pennsylvania got that warrant okay but you think that i think so i'm not a lawyer so well and i don't travel with the lawyer appreciate your counsel now i wish that i think no more higher there but i know i'm it normally they'll have a uh... a u a was a his number on it that if your lawyer has any questions you can contact this a USA I assume it was a 202 number someone in DC someone had a justice

yeah yeah I guess I guess I could have said you know before I hold before I hand you the phone let me contact my attorney no I, I understand that. No, and Congressman, and listen, again, because we're having open attorney-clined communications at this point. Now, I'm joking, but do I understand, and this is what would begrudge me, and again, this goes to my point where I think the bureau has really taken a bad turn here.

Congressman, and by the way, you don't have to answer, so I'm making light of it, because I probably already know the answer. Do I understand that prior to the age and showing up at your beautiful vacation retreat, your lawyers or you had zero contact with anybody through DOJ, telling you or asking their curiosity to just sit down and talk to you about what may be in your phone?

This was just all- No contact whatsoever. Yeah, so, you know, the day they showed up was the day I learned about it. Right, no, and they're lies the rub with me and I will tell you that, you know, in addressing and investigating political figures such as yourself, it goes to the highest level

up to the director of the FBI. And when I say up to the director, there's gotta be 20 Indian chiefs in between the director and who has to sign off on that. And that's where begrudgingly I have a problem because so many eyes have to have seen this. And the optics and the perception is so bad. And just is so distasteful that someone like yourself

who now has said, and I think I've heard you say this, I'm an open book, whatever I would say on camera or off camera is going to be the same. So I assume Congress, if anybody had any interest in talking to you, you would have sat down and told them what you would answer their questions. If the Department of Justice or FBI would have called my attorneys and said, look, we want to sit with the congressman, we want to look at his phone or whatever. It's not the J6 so-called committee, which is a sham, right? That's on one side of Star Chamber that already has determined the outcome before they ever

talk to anybody, right? But this is different. No, I'll let the call be taken. But the call was never made. Right. And I can add this because this is something that you you will find I think particularly interesting and egregious. The inspector general we found out the inspector general was involved in the decision to come seize my phone the FBI and DOJ inspector general and and the like that well I'll tell you what the reason is the

reason is because after the fiasco's that have been going on and on and on there is now an inspector general investigation with respect to the ethics and the integrity of what's going on in in at the fbi headquarters and so this is this is the day after they rated the president's house that the inspector general was involved in the seizure of a sitting member of congresses and i don't say it that way because on better than anybody else i'm just citizen parry right but at the same time they know that there's there's attorney client privilege on this phone because they know it's my personal phone

and they know i have an attorney so says the fby agent that i spoke to on the street but also on the sitting member of congress and in the constitution there's a thing called speech and debate which protects the legislature from the king from the executive branch because the king or the president isn't supposed to be able to intimidate or coerce legislators to do what he wants to bend to his will to bend the knee and to not say thing on behalf of their constituent his constituents and of course they're trying to pierce that veil right now. And I'm alone out here in the world trying to hold back the kingdom of President Biden

against a couple hundred years of courts and decisions and litigation that separates the legislative branch from the legislative branch from the executive branch so that we don't have a kingdom. Yeah, well, you know, the travesty and the concern, and listen, I'm sure you have very learned and experienced counsel, but my immediate concern in which is serious, is this cell-bright technology does not differentiate between attorney, client,

privilege, communications, and that that may just be not. And the problem with that is you realize that a case agent or the evidence response team is gonna go through each and every communication in that phone, whether it's privileged or not, and there lies the rub where you would have and should have had the opportunity to have your lawyers say, look, I'll tell you what, we're gonna segregate

the congressman's phone, we will download the phone mutually at a mutually agreeable time and location, but we are going to, before we turn over, we're gonna segregate that information that we know is attorney client privileged and should not fall into the hands of the Department of Justice.

And there is where there's an agreement put in place to protect someone like himself and to protect all of us. I got two questions for you. Well, what about my conversations with my constituents that are where they talk about their health issues? What about conversations with other legislators about whatever legislation president Biden might not like or my opinion's about it or strategies

maybe to make sure that it doesn't pass or that we put something. What about all of that? Why is that not speech and debate and how does the executive branch now have on trade all that stuff and then use it not only against me but every single member of my colleagues who I've had a conversation with. So I got two questions for you. So one is so the part about you can hand the phone over and not give the password. What happens if I do that?

UDFBI agent, you're not found a door. You're stuck. I say, here's my phone. Good. You've complied with the warrant. You asked me for password. If I say, I'm not going to give it to you. What can you do?

So what they can do is they could try to bring you before a court under a threat of contempt and try to get you to compel to give you the password. But those cases are limited to national security where there's imminent threat to national security. Okay, so Peter's struck yesterday, not yesterday, a couple days ago, tweets this. On September 14th, he tweets this and I would share it,

but I'm uncomfortable, it may drop you, so we're not gonna risk sharing it, we'll share it afterwards. He'm uncomfortable. It may drop you. So we're not going to risk sharing it. We'll share it afterwards. He says, at this point, FBI may have more cell phones than Verizon, OK? Then a Verizon store. Giuliani, Victoria Townsend, Michael McDonald, Scott Perry is referencing you.

John Eastman, Jeff Clark, Boris F. Stein, Mike Roman, Michael Lindell, and then this is the last sentence. And this is a question for you in Congressman Perry. The FBI can't seize any of them without probable cause. They contain evidence of a crime. Is he right about that last state? All right. So, the reason why I asked the congressman now, it doesn't necessarily mean that the congressman,

and by the way, again, I'm not trying to encroach your learning council, but that a affidavit in support of a search warrant does have to suggest that there's crime. There's criminal, there's fruits that may be born out in seizing that item that doesn't necessarily mean the recipient of the search warrant is a target or a subject of the criminal activity. The congressman could have been talking to or communicating with someone else who may be the subject in target. And that begs a little bit of the rub here because generally speaking in my world, they would

be able to get that side of the conversation through that other individual, meaning serve the execute, execute the warrant against that other individual. So if there's a search warrant that was executed for the seizure of the congressman's phone, there is an affidavit that's under sealed, by the way, and this is different than Donald Trump. His affidavit, he does not, and I will soon comsrin you haven't been given the affidavit correct i have not i have not but i have a week

but we confirmed we confirmed that day with the department of justice my attorneys confirmed that i am not the target of the investigation so that i'm from taking the phone so that tells me then someone that he was talking to or allegedly yeah someone he was communicating with is a target or subject of a criminal investigation Yeah, and either their content of that communication is unavailable or no longer available And the only way they were trying to then get that communication was through this witness So these so the congressman at best would be a witness

So so then so then this the last question and then Congressman Perry if you got any final thoughts for the audience or any rebuttal on what I'm asking here is So what if in that moment the three FBI agents are standing in front of New Jersey a waterfront home that he's on vacation for For a month and a month of August. It's August 14. I believe it's a date What if in that moment he says to his one of his kids, hey guys, can you go to the garage, grab a hammer, bring the hammer out and I start breaking the phone. I think somebody's done this before in the past. What if he starts breaking the phone right in front of you?

He immediately arrested and charged with obstruction of justice immediately. I come back that didn't happen in the past. Well, look, the difference is, and I know who we're talking about in the course. Okay, sweetheart. So she, listen, but she was not the recipient at the time she took chemicals in a sledgehammer

to destroy a computer server. Had she done that in realizing that a search warrant was imminently being served upon her and did that, that individual will be charged with obstruction and tampering and destroying of evidence. I was trying to give you an idea, but apparently that what she did in the past, that wouldn't work for you.

You had to hand the phone over. Final thoughts, Congressman Perry, would everything that's going on right now, would what they did with Trump yesterday? I'm sure you saw that as well with, you know, Attorney General, what are your thoughts with that taking place specifically last 24 hours?

Well, the tyranny is just gonna ratchet up that people think that this is going to slow down. Unfortunately, I think they're wrong. This is just beginning. And while today, they're breathing easy because they're at work and it's parry, it's Trump, it's Eastman, it's all the people, Victoria, it's sensing all these people that you're named. It's their problem. Tomorrow, it's going to parry it's trump it's easement it's all the people been to victory tensing all these people that you need it's their problem

tomorrow it's going to be your problem if you don't get it the this tyranny that is sweeping across the country it is you the democrats the leftist democrats have now weaponized the instruments of federal power and are using them against their political rivals in the united states of america it's why people whisper when they give you their opinions, it's why people don't want to be involved. They don't want to come to events. They don't want to be associated with political parties or political candidates. This is a breathtaking departure from the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment.

You name it. The Constitution is being shredded before us, and if we're gonna save it, people of courage are gonna have to be willing to stand up and prepare to take what's coming, but we're all gonna have to lock arms and fight this together. Well, listen, next year in August,

if we find out through our own intel team, if we know where you are for vacation, we will send an Uber Uber each to your front door with some lobster, some bone and ribbein, some fulgurah, and we won't be asking for your phone. But Congressman Perry, thank you so much. We're making the time for being a guest here on the podcast. Thank you, God bless you.

Keep fighting the fight. Take care, bye-bye. So literally, if they do come, I can say here's the phone, but I'm not giving you the password and you're fine. Fifth amendment, no entity, no one can tell you to give testimony against yourself. Yeah, you can't solve the criminal. So, and it happens all the time.

And those smart individuals, those individuals that are informed say, sure, go ahead and take my phone. I'm not gonna give you my password. And I will tell you, it is extremely disruptive and frustrating to an investigator. So you have now, not to give the password whatsoever. Listen, I'm not going to advocate anything, but I will tell you this from my experience.

So listen, so listen, here's back base versus, you know, fiction, okay. I'm special ops and I've been tasked by the FBI to surveil someone and capture that individual's password while he's entering that password or to see if I can obtain that password in a public view, meaning I'm not invasion of privacy. I'm not violating the fourth or fifth or sixth amendment, but maybe the congressman is in, you know,

I make a phone call to the congressman when he's in the supermarket and he takes his phone out because I know I have someone giving him a ruse call and I'm looking over his shoulder and I can see what pass where he puts in. Don't all the time. Can you use cameras? I can use what password he puts in. Done all the time. Can you use cameras? I can use anything I want.

As long as I'm not invading, you're legally protected right of privacy. So hence, if you're in a place that has video surveillance, for example, this room, you've got to come hide in. Okay, and I put my password in. There is no expectation of privacy. Now I may think, you know, maybe, but if someone put my password in, there is no expectation of privacy. Now I may think, you know, maybe,

but if someone captures my password and listen, I need that password to get into your phone, there you go. Done all the time. Now Ricky's not gonna go on the bus. Under the table, but don't hold time, but let me just tell you how this plays out, okay? Again, fact versus fiction. Anytime we would target public officials

in public corruption or high profile cases, you understand very different than a Donald Trump individual. This Congressman had away the equities of the optics himself and the perception onto himself. If he did not cooperate with the FBI, because think of the headlines with the across, CNN, or the New York Times, congressmen executed search warrant, but fails or refuses to give his password. What's the conclusion then?

He's got something. He's got something on the high. Of course, you see, but listen, I believe, I still believe in our forefathers and I still believe that all men, all men and women are innocent until proven guilty beyond the reasonable doubt and the fact that someone has a lawyer is in no way consciousness of guilt

and especially with the way the landscape is, you should have lawyers to keep everybody above board and the landscape even. That's why the scales of justice by the way the landscape is, you should have lawyers to keep everybody above board and the landscape even. That's why the scales of justice by the way have a blindfold on the lady of justice. You know why she has a blindfold? Because she doesn't look at the individual. The scales are bound because we're blind. We just follow the facts. Well listen, I have some people I've interviewed in the past before that would want to have you as a as their turn. So we may make an introduction, but only if they get afforded me. What's the retainer?

It's going to be a decent size retainer. Okay, he lives in Palm Beach. Oh, yeah. You have to come. So I want to play devil's advocate and go to a complete different side with stories. One would bill bar, one would bench Shapiro. Let's start off with bill bar. Okay.

So bill bar comes out and says the following. He says Trump likes to call anyone who disputes false election fraud claims as a rhino former US Attorney General Bill Barr was responding to a rant to Trump posted on truth social in which the former president said he had no guts and was a weak empathetic rhino who was so afraid of being impeached A rhino for him is anyone who disagrees with him with the election was stolen he rebuked he then recalled his childhood when he was uh... he passed out of the leaflets supporting berry goldwater there's on a senator who was known as one of the four fathers of the modern

conservative movement as someone who handed out berry goldwater literature when i was fourteen years old on the upper west side it's little it's a little silly to say that what do you think my will bill bar saying to trump you look personally in two thousand twenty two or twenty one or twenty or nineteen

in this day and age is unimaginable and it's unacceptable to me personally that the quote unquote the legitimacy of any election by the casting of one invalid ballot should ever happen. Meaning that if someone is filling out a ballot and is putting down information of a person who's deceased or knowingly is not here legally and not within their legal rights to vote. And that vote is counted to me personally that makes the entire process illegitimate. And whether it's the one vote to cause someone to win

or lose or whether or not it's just one vote that should not have been counted, is enough for me as being an American. Living here in the United States of America that should say that we don't accept the election as is and it needs to be redone. And just by virtue of you, when you go to the airport, you have to show a passport, a photo ID, facial recognition, you know, this idea that I need to have an ID to prove who I am and that I am within my legal right as an

American to cast a vote and this idea. And again, please hold the hate mail, please. That in some way that's racist. I just can't accept that. Everybody who lives in the United States should be fundamentally wanting that an election, whether you agree with or not needs to be legitimized by each and every vote that is cast. That's just my personal opinion. And I'm sorry.

And so I don't get into the weeds of whether there was enough votes that were illegitimate to have changed the outcome, but I do know, and by the way, it's indisputable, that there was at least one vote that was cast, that was illegitimate, meaning that there were votes that were cast that happened to be people that were dead. That to me, illegitimizes the entire process. That's offensive to me personally,

and that's offensive to me as being an American. But that's nothing new. I mean, there's always as being an American. But that's nothing new. I mean, there's always going to be one vote. But here's what. But here's the thing. You're talking 160 million votes, right? The proctor's. We're going to throw away the whole election for one alleged vote.

We live here in the United States of America. We are the richest nation on this planet. We are the most sophisticated. We listen, people are going to give their lives to come into this community, into this country, right? We see what's going on at the border. What other country in the world, by the way? What other country on the planet

are people literally risking their lives to get into? None. Zero. Only the United States of America. So that should tell us as Americans that fundamentally we should ensure that each and every vote that is casted is legitimate. And that person is legally entitled. And by the way, here's where it offends me the most. When you are

born here in the United States by virtue of being born here, you have citizenship. You are an American. But I go back to, and this is where I find that we have gotten so far removed. My grandparents who immigrated from Russia and from Germany and fled. They spilt their blood. They gave their blood, their sweat and tears to come to the United States to work, live lawfully, contribute and provide. I think it's such a disrespect and such a slap in anybody's face who has come here legitimately

and legally and who has gone through the process and waited the five, the six, the 10, the 20 years, whatever it took for them to get and obtain their citizenship. Listen, some of that works for me just got their citizenship. I am telling you when they speak of it, you would think someone died. You would think something horrible happened. The emotion of the gratitude of what they exude and the feeling of appreciation to now saying they are a citizen is unbelievable, but it's so recognizable because you see the emotion coming out of these things.

A question about it. And how disrespectful is it to allow someone who's not here legitimacy to be able to cast a vote and to then skew the election. And so my long-winded response is, yes, it should not be acceptable. We do it again. I'm sorry. Yeah, there's a part of it. There's a part of it that I'll say to Fahm.

Remember back in the days we would take a test and it was multiple choice, right? And then it would put it through the scanning machine thing and you remember that whole thing, something that's 70% of you. Right? I mean, you remember that, right? Okay. Al Gore.

And by the way, when I took my insurance license, I'll never forget this. I took my insurance license in November, December, January, like November, December of 2001 or January of a, oh two, right? When I went to California Department of Insurance and I took my insurance test, no joke. On the test, they gave you a paper test, okay? The answers were erased. You know how you circle and you erase? I don't know if you know someone I'm saying. They were circling a race. I'm like,

I'm looking at the latest, I don't worry about it. We don't have any more tests. Just take it. So it's like, but it's your risk. If you trust the guy that erased, she says to me, maybe the guy failed. So don't trust his answer. I'm like, what is this all about? So confuse them. Sit and I'm like, okay, shit. I'm going to go here with this one. It was such a weird scenario, but back then, guess what?

There was more opportunity for manipulation. Today, go take your serious seven. When I took my series seven, I said in Culver City, and everything was five cameras on you while you're taking your Series 7. No joke. I'm sitting there. Everything was computerized. They're watching exactly what you're doing.

They check the ID. Everything was so detailed. So let me get to straight. If I can get my Series 7 and you're so concerned to see that it's really me taking my Series, you mean to tell me we can't make it the same exact way. And the level of insult to believe that immigrants are not intelligent enough or capable enough to go get a driver's license or an ID that is an insult to all the smart immigrants living in America.

So that's a very, that's the part where it's a little wishy-washy. Why protect it? So you're more worried about seven-an-an-alicence. Anyway, that's a part that's a little bit disturbing. Meaning, I'm not sitting here saying, yay or nay, I'm part of your camp, right? I think it's always happened, right? I think fraud, election fraud has always happened.

Do we, mayor, do we, whatever? We can go back and give a bunch of stories of all these 7,000 dead people in Chicago voted for, you know, Kennedy and they never needed in the first place. However, that is not an excuse for us to use the type of technology we have. I love global entry. You know what I love about global entry?

Here's what I love about global entry. Are you global entry or are you? I'm clear now. I love global entry. I have clear and global entry. Yeah, I love global entry more because I just got back from Madrid a week ago or two weeks ago and I walk up and I just go global entry.

I have to go always down because they have it for 5-8 heights or 5. So I want like this, it sees my eyes, boom, go through. I don't have to wait with 600 people. So I can get global entry and they are able to see my eyes and it takes a second, you mean to tell me we can do voting where I go? Boom. Yep, it's Patrick, David, vote. This is what I want to go.

I think that is bullshit and that's an excuse. I think we have plenty of capabilities right now. Many different places to know exactly who's voting for what. I'd be so curious to know if we did that, how dramatic the change would be. Well, the thing is, I think that what happens is that, you know, being part of Legs it, the Legs it Latinos actually, the Democrat party group, we have these conversations all the time.

And letting in, for example, they've let in two million, two million, right, I'm a breaking, a regular breaking, a legal immigrant to the country, now we're immigrants. My parents, both of them came here illegally at the beginning But now my dad is innocent and my mom is a resident everybody in there. My family has papers for the most part but but the point is that

If they if they push these laws like George's just did Then what they can do is that they're sending these these these immigrants to the states Like swing states and they're trying to push the ID voter ID law calling it racist because now you have a whole new voting block. So when you let, like for example, my grandpa talks about Ronald Reagan like if he was almost like a god because he's the one that gave amnesty.

My grandpa remembers that. So to his, there's a dynamic to it, some people don't understand. His Spanish are very loyal, extremely loyal. They're loyal to their church, they're loyal to their pastors, they're loyal to their parents. And they're loyal to anybody that gives them some help, not all of them, but for the majority of the park.

That so much that you can, you can, you can, you can, you can, you can show them at the person that they've been helping them for 10 years or whatever the case may be, it's a fraud and they will not go against that person. That's how deep that loyalty goes. So when you're letting in so many Hispanics, you turn, oh, and you know, Biden was president Biden, Biden, all Democrats, Biden Democrats, Biden Democrats, their loyalty will be there. So when it's time to go vote and that's what I want to give the rid of the voter ideas because they're illegal. So if you're illegal and you don't have an idea, but you can still vote, that's a whole new voting block.

So that's kind of where, you know, from what the conversations we're having with Legsit, is that's where this is going, because they know you're gonna use their emotions. His fannings are very, we have more soap poppers than any other country in the world. Any other race in the world, we have more soap poppers. We're emotional people, soccer.

They, everything's emotional. And so like when you go in the world, we have more soap operas, we're emotional people, soccer, they, everything's emotional. And so like when you go to the games, watch the games where people are fighting, there's more fights in the Dodger stadium than any other stadium in the country. And it's all these Hispanics. When is it ever white guys or black guys fighting? It's all these Hispanics, they're very emotional.

So you let them in, we let you in, oh boom, you had a new voting blood football. I would put graders in there as well, by the way. Braiders in there. Of course, it's open. Yeah, it's Vegas.. Oh, boom, you had a new body blood structure. I would put Raiders in there as well, by the way. Raiders in there. Of course, it's open. Yeah. It's Vegas. When you watch the, if you pay attention, Pat,

you see the fights at the stadiums. It's never white, you're black. It's always Hispanics. Well, you know, one town, we took about 100 people there. A guy, I don't know, you would know this guy or not. One of our guys, you definitely would know this guy. And Hispanic, he's Cuban, and I think he's Puerto Rican. I think you know why exactly it is Can't do fight out of the hot your

No way, but this is like I want to say 15 years ago 13 years ago classic story anyway So okay, so that's that part about the voting I don't think anybody disputes if we can use global entry eyes if we can Yeah, of course, why not apply some of that's and if we did We can get a series of seven, why not? Apply some of that. And if we did, let me put it to you this way. If my friends in my history class weren't sitting next to me when we were taking exams,

and I always took the test by myself, I don't know by how much my score would be lower to you understand what I just said. So there's a part of it here that applies to this here as well. Now, next story, Ben Shapiro, got a big following, very loyal following, great communicator, kind, CEO and founder of Daily Wire, said the following, this is a New York Post story, Ben Shapiro, GOP cruising for a bruising by sticking with Trump. Prominent right wing media

personality Ben Shapiro called on the Republican party to ditch former president Donald Trump to boost the chances of winning elections. Shapiro suggested that GOP should nominate a non-Trump candidate in 2024 to make it harder for Democrats to appeal to independent voters. There is a reason Democrats are eager to keep Trump at the center of the conversation. Half of the independents say Trump is a major factor in their vote and their breaking four to one for the Democrats. If he runs. Republicans shouldn't play that game if they do their cruising for brews and do agree with them.

Yeah, so, you know, to some extent, I think one of the shortcomings of Donald Trump was it was too much about him and not enough about the team that he had assembled in achieving the success that he did. Donald Trump did more for this country in the four years that he was in office politically, meaning in making our lives that much more prosperous than almost any other sitting president. The problem is that there's such distaste and we've talked about it. They hatred for the individual. Had Donald Trump put his party first, meaning had given more credit to the Republican party.

I think people would be more willing to stick to voting Republican, meaning being against the Democratic Party or against the agenda as it is today with Biden. And I do agree that it is a very savvy and smart strategy that any association affiliation with Donald Trump will then cause even someone as we talked about the gas prices to say, I'd rather pay $7 and then see that guy back in office had the Republican party taking the credit for us making us energy independent, gas at $1. 50, then they would vote for Republican. The problem is tethered with the devil, they're not going to vote for the Republican party. I do believe there's some credence to that.

Yeah, the most important vote in the country is the independent vote. By far and away, we already know if you're a Trump fan of your Amaga, you're going to vote that way. You already know that if you're an Obama person, Democrat, you're going to vote that way. The independent vote is the most important voting block in the country. And they're typically in the rust belt, whether it's Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, you know, in that area. Now, I can only take Ben Shapiro at his word. And if we're going to take Ben Shapiro, who's a very educated smart man, at his word.

And he says Trump is a major factor. And independence are breaking four to one to the Democrats. The alarm bell should be sounding for the Republican Party. If you nominate Trump, you're going to get what's coming to you. The independence are going to break towards whoever it is, and I would hate for it to be freaking Gavin Newsom. You're in California, you got it. And if I have said this loudly proudly, I would vote for DeSantis in a heartbeat.

I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump. Do you know, do you know the easiest ad ever? The easiest ad ever the Democrats will do just play January 6th all throughout September, October till voting day of November. Do you want more of this? And you're telling me, you talk about emotional Latinos, you're talking about Democrats. Independence, they're going to see that and be like, yeah, I'll pay an extra dollar in gas.

I'm good on this. We're to the wise, listen to Ben Shapiro, yo. So here's the retort to that. So you have a guy who walked into McDonald's in New York City last week and had an axe in his backpack. Yeah, I saw him. And he went and destroyed the McDonald's and obviously put the fear in all those patrons

to think that they were within milliseconds of losing their life. You know what his bail was? Zero. He signed himself out of jail. And the mayor and the police commissioner said, well, he really wasn't intending on hurting anybody. He was just destroying property. Now, would you like to talk to the people that were in the McDonald's at the time this

guy was wielding in acts and coming after them face to face? So if that's true, then God bless New York City to have that type of political affiliation and that type of continuation because we're gonna be the lawless nation. It we're right. We are teetering. It's happening. And by the way, it's happening as we are watching it happen and again, it's unbelievable that people are embracing that it's okay. Yeah. Well, may I retort to your retort? Yes. Okay.

You're an FBI agent, so you should have done your reconnaissance. Did you see what happened before that? Four people were beating the shit out of them and he stood there getting pummeled and then he reached into his backpack after escaping the ass whooping and got his axe Okay, let me I record that but I'm gonna Retort that what does that have to do with Donald Trump? I'm not like a Donald Trump because Donald Trump is about law and order and gave the Deference and the respect to law enforcement if you go back to Barack Obama

But that still doesn't answer what's been prepared by the same about independence. But it's a carryover when I think four or five police officers were shot and killed in Houston or Dallas, which is disgusting. Nobody has a doubt. He, Dallas, thank you. And he sat on his hands and would not acknowledge the loss of life in how it's horrible. Obama. Disgusting.

I am, but that sent, that set, when you look back at how we got to where we are and you talk about all of these cases and all these high profile cases, how do we get to the point where the general public to a large extent, whether it's true or not, has such a distaste for law enforcement is such a lack. I got a question. I agree with you.

I got a question. Okay, two questions. Okay, let's go through like, you know the whole question about, if we were to start a country and we have to recruit people to come and live in our new country, what is the first thing a mother would be asking?

First question is what? How safe are my kids? How safe are my kids? Okay, do you think a mother feels safer the last two years or they felt the prior four years safer? Do you think they feel safer the last two years or they felt the prior four years safer. Do you think they feel safer going to movie theaters, going to dinner, their kids go to school? Do you think they feel safer country, war, all of that's a purely

safety. Safer or not safer. What do you think? You're saying since COVID pre- COVID since Biden. So we're doing Biden Trump. Purely a question on the same room. Oh, I mean, COVID was the, in between on all that. I don't know. I'm not on here. He's talking about violence type. Violence.

Not specifically, not talking about violence. To have people going out, they're not COVID. Do you think families feel safer or less safer today? I don't know. You know the answer to the question. I don't. So I'm not gonna, but you do know, I'm not gonna give you the answer you want to hear. But they're safer under Trump. You got to let me ask I don't want to. You know the answer to the question. I don't. So I'm not going to, but she do. I'm not going to give you the answer. You don't want to hear. But they're

safer under Trump. You got to let me ask you want to hear. It's not the point. It's a fact, though. It's a fact. People are scared nowadays. Okay. Do you think people in the borders, two million the last 12 months, it's two million this year. It's 4.9 million the last two years. By the way, you're talking two million. Do you think people on the southern border feel safer the last two years or prior to them? Well, the southern border feel safer the last two years or prior to that? Well, the southern border, that's a quote unquote, open these days. I would assume people on the southern border

are still last year. Fair with that, okay. Do you think people are sitting their pockets because that's how people think as well? People are sitting there feeling better about their network retirement today or they did it two years ago. Two years ago, okay.

So now here's a question. How many baby boomers who were relying on retiring their money, they just lost 20% in their portfolio, are sitting there saying, I gotta work till seven. I gotta work till 71. More today or two years ago. Yeah, two years ago, however,

we can't discount COVID for being a factor for the lawlessness that we've seen. People have been locked up like, that's like saying this, where there are more fights on airplanes two years ago or more recently. I don't know any fights that were happening three years ago. All of a sudden,

all of a sudden, that's not called as if it's locked in their house. We can, are getting on fights in airplanes. People, there's a lot of pension aggression. Joe Biden on 60 minutes that COVID is over. Fauci lost his mind, called the press conference saying,

it's not over. What he was trying to say is this, what he was trying to say this, and the president just said, COVID is over. And everybody lost their mind. No, no, you can't say that because we can't do this again. We need people to still be scared of COVID. He just said it's over.

Look, no one's wearing masks. Look at the dealership. Look at this, no one's on. So the optics are, here's basic to me. Safety, economy, finances, people felt safer two years ago than today. Having said that, having said that, Florida Republicans, watch what Florida Republicans said. I don't know if you guys read this article or not.

Florida Republicans prefer to run the census for President of Donald Trump in 2024. This is an insider article. This is not a New York Post article. This is an insider article which kind of goes to a part of what you're saying. You're saying I would much rather have you know a the census over that. So according to USA today, again this is a liberal poll. USA today poll published Wednesday by Sioux Falls University., Governor Ron DeSantis leads former president Donald Trump 48% to 40% in a hypothetical 2024 presidential primary. There's a reversal from a similar poll in January in which Trump beat the best

its dissentist 47 and 40. So exact opposite the poll found a strong lead for DeSantis despite respondents reporting that they feel economic conditions on Florida were worsened, just 37% of voters said Florida's economy was excellent or good down from 10% in January. So again, what I'm saying is policies optics, but still even with that, more people agree with you today, where they're trying to say if I can get the same policies without all the other stuff that's coming with it. So this kind of contradicts what Ben Shapiro said. Because Ben Shapiro's saying, hey, they're kind of putting them out there so people are going to be wanting to have him. But the reality is independent voters for the one.

But USA Today is saying, no, people want the Santis. No, I don't think it's contradicting. I think they're both saying the same thing. Don't nominate Trump. No, nominate the Santis. No, no, no. That's what both are saying. Am I wrong?

I disagree. The way I take it is the phone. He says there's a reason Democrats are eager to keep a Trump at the center of the conversation. At a center of the conversation, this USA Today, if they're really trying to keep them at the center of the conversation, they shouldn't show numbers like this because numbers like this is getting people

to be convinced to say, well, I got to shift from Trump to the Santis. That's what I'm saying. So I disagree with Ben in the area of the fact that Democrats are put them in the center front. I think they're putting them there because they're scared of the guy. I think they're scared of him. I think they know a guy like that getting elected.

Okay, so who's gonna be a more guy that's gonna be a vengeance? Who's more about vengeance? Trump. Him or the Santas? Trump. Okay, if he gets elected, what do you think he's gonna do? I mean, he's in a glove for everybody.

You know what he's gonna. Hard. Now, but you said something, you said something, which was very powerful. You said, you used the following words, collateral damage, right? right you said I have never ever heard of red twice editorial center general public confirmed the F&R something so your worry is collateral damage my worry is this constant back-in-fort of revenge revenge revenge

revenge revenge revenge revenge revenge revenge revenge just where the ones paying the price guess who loses the kids and when parents are constantly going at each other's throat, who cares who loses? The kids are the ultimate losers of that situation. So in this case, if it becomes revenge politics, the voters are going to get screwed. My opinion, I may be wrong. I agree. I agree. The thing with Trump, and you know, there's a famous quote, hell, half no fury like a woman scorned, right? So I'm not calling Trump a woman, but the guy feels fucking pissed. Okay, so if you're Trump and you do get reelected, you don't think you're gonna come after revenge?

Of course he is. Okay, but it's gonna get very ugly. But the news doesn't have that revenge factor. I mean, he's a fighter, no doubt. And I think that's fine. I think we need a fighter. I think we need a young, bold, youthful, new spirit in the White House and that's why I would totally be an advocate for someone like a DeSantis. But you if Trump gets reelected, you don't think he's gonna be just be pissed and just

hell has no fury like a scorned woman. I'm not convinced. That's what's gonna happen. I'm just not convinced that the the media is putting up Trump and James, let's say James and all these guys are doing it because they want the Republicans to make him as their number one. I'm convinced all this stuff they're doing is to eliminate the number one competitor. That's what I'm convinced.

But you know what's funny, Pat? It's interesting that Ben Shapiro said this because Ben also said in 2021 that the reason that there's more people voting for Trump is because of that media keeps putting him because Ben also said in 2021 that the reason that there's more people voting for Trump is because of that media keeps putting him out there. And they keep giving him more and more and more and more heat, which pisses off the voters, which makes them wanna support him more.

But when I'm getting... It pisses off people like you that already have his vote. I'm getting pissed off the dependence, but when I was getting that though, that this what he said here and I love Ben Spiro my huge Ben Spiro fan. He said the opposite just a year ago or two years ago. He said when he was I forgot who was interviewing him. Oh no, he was Don Lemon.

He was Don Lemon. I'm on. I'm on. I don't have any respect for him. I could care less about him and all those guys at CNN. But the point is this, that Donald Leman, you guys keep doing this. And that's why he keeps getting attention

because you guys keep doing this. And it's a bad strategy. He's telling him as he's being interviewed on CNN. So it's kind of, but what about what he's saying now, though? That's just weird for him to switch up like that because it's a switch up. Sentiment can change.

Right, but I just, I think it's a switch up but I think what Pat's saying is right. I think they're scared of him. You know, they're Right, but I just, I think it's a switch, but I think what Pat saying is right. I think they're scared of them. You know, they're scared. So you gotta keep talking. By the way, I pay attention to what Ben is gonna say, because when I sat down with him in 18, Ben said, I asked him about Biden, he says,

Biden is gonna be the next president. He said that. In 18, when I sat down with him at the daily wirehead quarters when they were off of Ventura, California, Ventura, Sherman Oaks are some like, What was his rationale with that? Why did he say Joe Biden's thing? We talked about rock, we talked about Trump, we talked about Biden, he says Biden's gonna be the next,

if he runs Biden once, those are his words. Wow. Yeah, you can actually find it. So he predicted that, did he give any more context to that or why he thought that would happen? He did. I mean, I don't know all the details that we can watch, there's a short club of it out there, but look, I mean, it's like when I and Colter said Trump, everybody laughed, you kind of have to pay attention

to some of this stuff. And nobody's 100%. But you know, some people have a better track record than others. So, can I ask you a question? Why wouldn't, if you're seeing, I'm not saying that you believe the poll numbers, but let's just play a game here.

And you're basically, you see the unfavorable ratings around Trump and you see the favorable ratings that are trending into Santa's direction. Why wouldn't you just embrace, let me finish. Yeah, I'm sorry. Why wouldn't you just embrace someone like a DeSantis and get around him? Oh, 100%. 100%.

I just, I just, I just don't think he's in a run. What are you? What? I don't, I don't think this is, he says he out already that he's in a row. I don't think it's trending in that direction If you see these calls that he's already beating Trump a bit of the thing is here's the thing you got to remember too So I said am I following on my Instagram when I talk to people so many people have flipped I've had people like bro

I hated you four years ago. I've been following you I've been watching all your stuff and everything you said was true I can show you messages of people that like I can finally understand what you're talking about that hated Trump That's a Trump's race is Trump's this and other like bro Everything you said was right and I'm getting those messages every single day of the year I'm not even joking. I'm not exaggerating one bit So when I read this I'm like that's that's so you trust your own Instagram polls more than This is apart from obviously what I do with PHP. This is the world I mean, I'm fully in it.

Like I'm in it all the way in a part with legs it. When I go speak at the Republican, the women's Republican, I've spoke at two or three of them already, I'm gonna be speaking when next month. Those rooms are getting bigger and bigger for people that were ex-democrats. 80 year old women invite him to be the guest speaker. Yes.

Very weird. Golf, what are they golf, golf, golf, golf court, not the golf, the course, country clubs. Country club. And these are rich, these are rich athletes. Well, there is a new thing.

I understand. Older rich women going after young Valentino dudes, bro. And that's a thing. That's all good. And shout out to my wife, she's a big girl. You're a huge chowel, you know.

But the point is this will shut up, babe. But the point is, here's what I'm getting. I brought those rooms, those rooms are getting fuller and fuller every time I go. And when I'm meeting them, because they've talked, they walked me around. And it doesn't fail that 50%. Not I want to say 50, that'd be exactly 30% of the room.

They're like, I used to vote Democrat in Alma Republican. And this is in Baker's Hill, California. And the most, yeah, where's that? Baker's, well, there's Baker's Hill, Central Valley and Kern County County County County. Kern County is one of the only conservative counties and even if all the like you had a hundred percent of the room was like, all right, I'm with you, Ricky. You're still not going to flip California. I it's like, and I respect what you're doing.

100% but we're talking about, it's almost like a fruitless endeavor. But we're talking about the polls. I'm talking about flipping California, talking about what you're saying there. Yeah. What I'm seeing boots on the ground is it's not the saying that that's that, that's that, that whatever that bullshit is, I must see. There it is. There it is. From now on, we're going to put, uh, Quinnipiac, all right, pew, and then Ricky's Instagram polls at the top of the list.

Done. But I think that really quick, there's two things that we're discounting here. Trump hasn't been on Twitter since what, 2018, 2020. What happens when he gets, what happens if Elon Musk buys Twitter and reinstates Trump? And Trump is now tweeting daily. Well, that's how many people is to go back on Twitter and not embrace truth, so what's your,

it's far-fetched, right? But let's say Trump gets his voice back. How many people does he turn off? And secondly, let's say, turn off, turn off, because he's now tweeting daily again, which the whole big spiel was no more mean tweets, right? People, fuck the policies, no more mean tweets. Okay.

Secondly, let's not forget what Trump did to everybody in the debates. Destroyed everybody in the debates. He called Ted Cruz's wife a dog. I mean, just a little Marco Rubio. Right. Either Jeb Bush, whatever, low energy, what's he call him? Right.

So how many gramoles being basically? It's all that. Let's say that Trump and DeSantis go at it, right? And he now starts going and ad hominem attacks on Rhonda Santas and wins the primary. Which he will, by the way. Which he will. I think it's up for debate.

But let's, he will do the ad hominem attacks on Rhonda Santas. How many independent voters has he now? Yeah, he's gonna lose one. Because he calls Rhonda Santas wife a dog or calls him ugly or what had you know how ugly that's going to get? How many independent voters have seen out there? How many people that he has flipped have seen out turned off? Those 80-year-old women are saying, I'm a big fan of Trump and they see this.

Yeah, it's a very interesting perspective and it's not far-fetched, very correct. So my take is he's 76 right now, Donald Trump. He'll be 78 going into the election. I think my crystal ball is that I see his family paying a price, taking a toll, meaning the kids around him. I see him at that point saying, yeah, I'm tapping out. I see him aligning himself with Ron DeSantis. I see Ron DeSantis being more youthful, younger, has a little bit more energy. The reality is, if anybody was to go back into office

and take over Biden's presidency right now and just undo the executive offers, executive orders rescind them, we'd be basically hitting the reset button. We'd be better off for them. So I think Donald Trump is probably gonna have way too much baggage at that point that he himself is even gonna recognize That I think it's one thing for him to take the hit But I think now as you're gonna see things come through the funnel and some of his kids and some of his real people that

are not his hang-ons, but really his blood. I think he's going to take a little bit of a digression and step back. So you don't think he's going to run is what you're saying? I think it's going to take a heavy toll on him and not the price of his children. You're basically saying he'd be better served not trying to be the king, but the king maker. Yes, sir. But that's not in his DNA. He views himself as the number one as the king.

And it's going to be hard. You brought up his age. It's going to be hard at 76, 78. Well, he said he's just flipped his script. And just say, you know what? But you don't want to be the man anymore. But he'll have a hard time believing it. And here's something interesting.

We talked about the, you know, the personal vindictiveness. How many of those Trump supporters are there that would not be willing to go over to Ron DeSantis, even though if they were equal, meaning the results will be the same, but they'd rather hang on to Trump because they want to see him get his revenge. You're talking about it in the primaries. In the primaries. But in the general electorate, they're going to say, let's just say, let's just say, let's just say, let's just say, let's just say, let's just say, let's just say, you'll take the sentence over anyone. I mean, come on, let's just say,

if you could foresee that the results, if the, Santa gets in or Trump gets in, we're all going to be better, but there would be more Trump supporters to say, I want to see Trump get in because I want to see him pay these people back. Yeah. You know, well, that's the revenge factor. The big thing in the movies, Who would you vote for out of those two? I like Donald Trump for the very reason that he's got that moxie and that he is no nonsense in your face. Now with that being said, I think he is the type of person

that is hard to control and hard to reenin. But I like him for getting results. that it is hard to control and hard to reenin. But I like him for getting results. He's result driven. Last question for you, bro. If you were his lawyer, hard to reenin, what advice would you give to Trump if you were his lawyer? He gave it right off the bat. I don't know if you can.

No, so I'm asking. I'm sorry to let him back to that. He gave it right off the bat. Look, listen, I have clients. I tell each and every client that comes into the office, my job is to ensure, make sure you don't drive off that cliff. That's why you're paying me to, you're hiring me to prevent you from driving off that cliff.

And if you're insisting in driving off that cliff, I'm going to tell you right now, I'm bailing on you, I'm getting out of that car and you can drive off that cliff by yourself. I'm not your guy. A lot of people look at me like, what do you mean? bailing on you, I'm getting out of that car and you can drive off that cliff by yourself. I'm not your guy. A lot of people look at me like, what do you mean? You have to have that ability. A good lawyer has to have client control. Donald Trump is impossible to control because he believes in his own little way.

He knows more than anybody. He does. He believes that. And when you deal with someone who believes that, it's impossible to get them to take your advice. Just as I said, when he went on Sean Hannity last night, he said things that I even gasped at. He talked about a form that's a page and a half. If you remember, he talked about this page and a half of a disclaimer form where his company puts it out and they put everybody on notice. Well, let me be honest with you, the government, Department of Justice, they got that going

right now and they have a transcription person that's transcribing that interview because he better make sure that everything he said to Sean Hannity does in fact play out. As a lawyer, I would say Donald, do me a favor, keep your mouth shut, take a back seat. It's not going to happen. It's not gonna happen. We go around and around and circles. I wish you would listen to someone like you. I really wish. Well, not gonna happen though.

No, it's not gonna happen. Last thing here before we wrap up, Putin, you guys saw the story about Putin with the back and forth with the threats about nuclear and then Biden also coming back when they were both speaking. I want to read this and kind of get your commentary and then we'll wrap up. Putin initiates a conscription to a bolster military invasion as Ukraine mount counteroffensive. Russia, President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilization in Russia which will require citizens to join the war, effort in Ukraine. It's a fully adequate to the threats we face, namely to protect our homeland.

It's sovereignly and territorial integrity to ensure the security of our people. And people in the liberated territories we are talking about, partial mobilization that is only citizens who are currently in the reserve will be subject to conscription and above all those who served in the armed forces have a certain military specialty and relevant experience and he warns the West. Threat to resort to nuclear weapons, this is not a bluff. Putin issued a warning after accusing Western countries of resorting to nuclear blackmail, despite no NATO countries threatening to use nuclear weapons to those who allow themselves such statements regarding

Russia, I want to remind you, and he's only talking on one person by the way, that our country also has various means of destruction. And for separate components and more modern than those of NATO countries, and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal. It's not a bluff. The threat comes as Russia's prospects in Ukraine are grim with Putin's military losing thousands of square miles of territory to Ukrainian, counteroffensive.

And by the way, he's saying this. This is my idea with this. You know, we've talked about this before. What'd you say? I'll kick your ass. Say that again. Look what I'm going to do to you. Maybe you can get away with it once, twice, three. If you keep doing that, people are going to be like,

do something, right? Okay. So now, to flip that, is people are moving out of Russia at a record breaking rate. So earlier we were talking about, you're saying, tell me one other country that's getting the most people, I wanted to kind of talk about this. I said, let's just wrap up our log of conversation.

Germany. They're leaving Russia. No, but I'm saying they're going into Germany. They're going all over the place, but they're just leaving Russia. They're worried, okay. Like when we lived in Iran, war was going on like this,

but this could get nuclear. It's kicking. Our families were just worried about the safety of the kid. So people were leaving, no matter where they get a chance to go to, they're just leaving. So he's in a very tough situation. So now you go and look at Pearl Harbor and then what happened? FDR and then Truman goes and calls it and here, let's go do this and drop it and hey, we saw what happened to you know, Hiroshima. Do you take his threat as a bluff or do you take it as this guy's got his back so much against the wall right now that if there is a guy that would do it, it would be him.

I think he should be taken seriously, but I do believe that his own civil unrest within his own, within his own country is going to be his ultimate downfall, meaning his own people are turning on him and are going to continue to rise up. I think that's where NATO, and especially with the United States, having their allies work on the Russian population to expose him for being just who he is, a madman, I think eventually will back him down and eventually create his downfall. Now with that being said, the reality is right now with him having the ability to push a button, you know, unfortunately, Ukraine is not much to destroy there, right?

I mean, it's basically a vast wasteland. I mean, he's destroyed basically the entire country with respect to using nuclear weapons. My biggest concern, honestly, is not his ability to carry out that threat. My biggest concern to myself and to my family and to our to my fellow Americans is honestly, what would be the response if God help us all if he was to implement a nuclear attack? Because we all know what will happen if he does it, or we can anticipate what would happen. My biggest concern is, what's the response? Because once you like that fuse, we may be looking at

a completely different world than we've ever known before. You know the difference between the button in US versus Russia. Did you have you seen that article? Okay, so you know on US, the button is controlled by who? President. One person. He can't push the button there. He needs multiple, multiple approvals in Russia. So Russia's situation is not like, what'd you say? Boom, that's US. That's not what it is in Russia.

So that gives a little bit of comfort to say, you have to convince three or five people, whatever the amount of people is, for them to say, we agree that it's time to push the button. So I think for the world, that's a little bit worried, it's good that Russia's button to the nuclear bomb is a lot more regulated, believe it or not, as weird as it sounds, than the button in U.S. Now.

Do you remember what Tate had to say about this? No. You asked Tate this question. You said you said you live in Romania, which is on the border of Ukraine, Ukraine war, you're seeing this happening. You know, this is a Weirma Madrid doing the interview with Tate, and obviously we didn't talk about Putin for an extended period of time throughout that interview. But basically, you brought up the term madman, and he goes, I know that term gets thrown around a lot. Putin's a madman. He's a madman. He's crazy. And he goes, no, I think he's

actually a rational actor, but he is there to serve his country, Mother Russia. He's not worried about global agendas or poll numbers. He's there for one reason only to take a term from your president or president, make Russia great again. So I think, I don't think he's a bad man. I think he's a rational actor. I don't think he wants to blow up the world. I don't think he wants to do that.

The same time what I do think he has is a massive ego. And I think he needs an off ramp to save that. The same time what I do think he has is a massive ego. And I think he needs an off ramp to save face. Right now he's not winning this war in Ukraine. You know, the EU, United States is throwing billions of dollars to prop up Ukraine and fight Russia and they're doing a good job of it. And I think if you're Putin and if you want the world and you want a safe world, you want to give at least Putin an opportunity to not look weak and to save face and give him an off ramp.

So he doesn't do anything illogical and he maintains the rational actor status. My take is though his DNA because of where he came from is all about deception and killing and murdering KGB KGB and poisoning and of course doing things and accidentally jumping out of a window or doing the most barbaric things of course. I think that's his DNA and look madman is you know someone who's crazy. I don't I think he's very calculated no doubt no question very smart very calculated my biggest or my fear is because of his DNA

He does not have the ability to think beyond himself Meaning that in just as Patrick said there's a layer that insulates him from getting to that button My concern would be he'll start knocking off those people and putting in people in their place to ultimately get to that button Who's a bigger ego maniac Putin or Trump? Well, look you see Trump in front of the camera a lot more than you see Putin. That's for sure We're all assuming that this is a big nuclear weapon. He has targeted nuclear weapons He can launch very small nuclear attacks and create mass devastation. And listen, I don't think he's a madman.

I think he's very calculated, but we are pushing him and pushing him and pushing. Imagine how frustrated he has to be that he can't take over Ukraine because, like Adam said, Worson in 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 billion dollars. What do you think he's going to do? It's no secret that we are fighting a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Ukraine. What do you expect him to do? So what happens when you push a bully one too many times? What happens?

The bully goes home, goes into his father's closet, gets out as a salt rifle, puts it in his backpack, and comes to school the next day and say, okay, here's the great equalizer. And that's what we see in these mass shootings. And so be careful pushing Putin into that corner because that's what they have. Are they pulling it? That's not him being mad, man. That's not him being crazy. That's our problem.

We did this. We set this up. This is our fault. This is why I'm saying we need to give him an off ramp and the opportunity to at least say face and not look weak. There was a question by Hannity yesterday about Putin and he says, what did you say to Putin behind closed doors that got Putin to not want to attack Ukraine?

I can't tell you that. That's between me and him in the conversation. But we did have a respectable, I don't know if you caught that one part. So diplomacy is different. You know like in insurance like Be haven't been in a sales organization for the last 20 years There are guys very few guys are good at two things There are guys that are very good from stage very good from stage and it makes you believe they're better 101 But they suck 101 suck 101. they're good stage, right?

So there's three levels to it. There's stage, there's group setting, you and five, and there's one on one. Okay. And then there are those guys that are very good 101, but they suck on stage. I used to think the guy on stage would build the biggest business, but it's the guy that was the best at 101, that built the biggest business because he knew how to get things done and he would move things forward. So the one-on-one unfortunately none of us can gauge because there is no camera on one-on-one. So we don't know how Biden is one-on-one, we don't know how Trump is

one-on-one, but obviously when Trump was doing one-on-one nothing was happening. ISIS disappeared, Putin was calm, nothing was going on there. So the power of the one on one unfortunately we will never be able to gauge ever because there's no cameras in the one on one. Having said that quick shot I said a couple of guys that gave the superchance. Joseph Dekeleita, a Syrian guy. You said there's only seven famous I'm one of seven famous Assyrians in the world. He says make me the eight because they're not too many serious. My man, appreciate you. Proc, Procata says what his stances on Patriot Act, we didn't get into the Patriot Act, that's something we talked to Giuliani about. When it comes to Trump, this is Paul, $20. When it comes to Trump, the Democrats keep beating the same drum, hoping people will

dance to the beat. Unfortunately, there are tone deaf and Trump will come out victorious once again. We will see. Then we have Andrew said, Adam, yes, there is that saying, but remember, Schumer said, the intelligence agencies will get you six ways from Sunday about Trump funny, it's happening now. And then we have Jason said, Trump is a criminal. He is finally held to the fire, okay?

And then we have Derek said, now they've changed it to hell, has no fury like Adam Scorn. Adam has the, Adam has the emotions of a woman. I'm offended by that one. Anyway, I think you're a woman. Okay.

Gang, the Tyler, do we have something to speak or this is the one? And then later on today, Adam has a podcast with Ricky. If you want to be entertained, don't miss that one on. If you want to see Ricky and fireworks tune into Sawas cast for PN today, shout out to my driver, Julio. I got a driver here in Florida now. Because he's sick. Dominic, you're probably a big fan of the podcast.

He's like, always like, he lives two minutes from here. I see you, they see where you're filming right here. Love it. Well, gang, if you enjoyed Stewart as much as we did, give it a thumbs up and subscribe to the channel. And hopefully we'll have him back on the podcast again. Brother, appreciate you for coming out. This was very helpful.

Thank you. Thank you, Stewart. Thank you everybody. Have a great weekend. the podcast. Again, we're all the appreciator for coming out. This was very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. Have a great weekend. Bye-bye.