The Duran Podcast - Biden Scandals & Trump Indictments w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

Episode Date: August 22, 2023

Biden Scandals & Trump Indictments w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

Okay, we're live. Hope everyone is doing well today. Thank you for joining us for another live stream. Everyone watching us on Odyssey, on Rockfin, Rumble, YouTube, and the durand. Dotlocals.com. And we have with us, Alexander Mercuris, in London. And joining us this evening, my town. morning for him, a man who needs no introduction, but we will allow him to introduce himself.

He is the great Robert Barnes, and he has the best locals community in the universe. Robert, how are you doing? Yeah, the one lawyer who managed to avoid getting indicted in Georgia. You can find all the content, including the election contest that I helped craft for Georgia, at Viva Barneslaw.com. I was actually giving away free election contest. I drafted the format and people could copy it and paste it and people did. People tried to also get real relief in Georgia.

So the DA just hasn't got around to me yet. So until then, you know, I can put off my plans for St. Petersburg. All right. Well, we're going to discuss all of that. And you can find VivaBarnslaw.locals.com in the description box down. I will also add it as a pinned comment when the live stream ends. A quick hello and thank you to all of the moderators who are helping us out today.

Peter Zarayel and who else, Reckless Abandon. Good to have you with us. And I will also be helping out in the moderation. Alexander, Robert, what are we going to talk about today? Well, we're going to talk about these two indictments that have now come against Donald Trump, which have come since we last spoke to Robert. And I'm going to say straight away that I am now becoming very worried indeed. First of all, I've read these indictments, and I'm going to say straight away that I don't understand what exactly is the crime that is alleged here. I know that there are, you know, citations and references to various things, but I'm not exactly clear in my own mind.

What is supposed to have happened which constitutes a crime such as justifies these indictments? Donald Trump, he may have been right, he may have been wrong, he said that the, you know, that the election was, you know, stolen. you might disagree with him completely. As far as I understand, that is constitutionally protected fee speech for him to say that. I think there is, as I understand it, there is Supreme Court confirmation of this. And besides, I mean, it seems to me that it's an obvious fact that if somebody wants to contest the outcome of an election, even if they are completely and obviously wrong in what they are saying, they nonetheless have a right to do it.

Democrats have done it in the past with other elections. It's happened many times. For people who don't know American history, there was a hugely contested election in 1876. Gore Vidal wrote an entire novel on the topic. This is a famous, or at least once upon the time, it was a famous event in US history. I don't remember anybody being indicted

for contesting the election at that time. And lots of things like this have happened in the past. So that's the first thing. I don't understand how the prosecutor feels able to engage in mind-reading exercises, which in both indictments, he seems to be trying to do. do, both in the indictment, you know, the Smith indictment, which is about the election,

contesting the election, and the indictment in Georgia. I don't see how any of the facts alleged can amount to a crime. Again, all of this seems to me entirely normal activity, such as one would expect when an election is being contested, which, as far as I'm aware, is a right. But going beyond any of this, far beyond any of those, the single, most troubling, most alarming thing here is the fact that in both cases lawyers who have provided advice are being charged with some kind of incomprehensible to me, conspiracy charge, which I just don't understand at all. I mean, what exactly, how exactly can you go down this route? What is the evidence for this? These two indictments seem to me to be both factually and legally, completely

wrong. And secondly, very, very disturbing. They are basically, as far as I can see, warning people, not to give warning lawyers that if you give legal advice to Donald Trump or decide to act for him, you are at serious risk of being treated as a co-conspirator and being indicted yourself. And doing it in that way, denying someone legal representation, and coming after a lawyer who has acted for a client without any reason that I'm, can see to doubt the lawyer's good faith, I think we have crossed a disastrous line. And I would say that to my mind, it goes directly against the whole concept of attorney-client relations, of which there is a string of cases, string of precedence, not just in the United States,

but in the English common law, going all the way back to the 16th century, I believe the first case involving lawyers, lawyer client relations, dates in England, the first known case dates on the reign of Henry VIII, in which a lawyer was called to give evidence against his client in some kind of conspiracy case, and the court said that he couldn't do that because calling him to give evidence of that kind of way would have interfered with a relationship

between a lawyer and his client. So there we go. I am aghast, I am horrified, I am appalled. Robert, you said that you're a lucky man not to have been included. I mean, what are your thoughts?

Am I right to be appalled and horrified? And does it have the implication that I said, and what do you think about the crimes or non-crimes that are alleged here? Yeah, if the first two cases, the New York State case charging Trump over the Stormy Daniels payment, and then the federal classified documents case was an example of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. I've compared this, the DC January 6th election contest, federal case brought by Jack Smith, and now this Georgia case as being like Caligula crossing the Ruehicom. I mean, it's degraded very, very fast.

And it's once you go on a particular path, it has perilous outcome. Caesar does birth Caligula sooner or later. And that's what, unfortunately, we're witnessing in live time in America. So there are like, for example, three of the five core freedoms protected under the First Amendment to the American Constitution is the right of speech. the right of assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. If you remove from the Georgia indictment and the D.C. indictment, all speech, all assembly, and all petitioning the government, there's nothing left. Professor Jonathan Turley said you'd be left with a haiku. That's how all of this concerns core First Amendment rights

that are now being alleged to be conspiracies, to obstruct justice, conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights, or the most insane one, the Georgia one, it's now mob-level racketeering to contest an election. The things that are listed as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy and in some instances of crime themselves are, other than acts of speech, assembly, and petitioning, or variations of it include tweets, include text, include phone calls, include writing letters to politicians include lobbying members of government

in a public manner. It includes telling people to watch a news show. That by itself is now in an affirmative act in furtherance of a criminal racketeering conspiracy. That is how insane the cases are.

They have taken the core constitutional rights and remedies and made it a crime to assert them. But it's not all, not only now is a text a crime, a tweet a crime, a phone call a crime, a public letter, a crime. Being a lawyer, giving advice to your client is now a crime. Asking for that advice is now a crime. I mean, Meadows is charged with a crime for being the chief of staff asking someone in the White House to write him a legal memo on what remedies are

available. That was listed as an actual crime. Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Eastman, who's indicted as part of this, is indicted for giving advice about the Constitution of the United States. The Rudy Giuliani is is, is indicted for giving advice about election reform. Jenna Ellis, who doesn't even like Trump, is, is indicted for simply saying that the election could be contested or challenged. So it is the most insane indictment I've ever brought in the history of America. There's just no other way to put it. I mean, it's, you can't find a historically analogous indictment. You can find smaller scale examples of politically of motivated prosecutions, you can find problematic uses of sedition laws to go after people like

Congressman Victor Berger and Eugene B. Debs during World War I, where both were indicted for sedition. Ultimately, Debs was convicted and sentenced to prison. Now, to those that think they can somehow exclude Trump from the ballot based on these indictments like Newsom is suggesting and others, well, that was tested in 1920. Eugene B. Debs had not only been charged with a crime, been charged with a federal crime and not any federal crime, a sedition crime. And he'd also been convicted of that crime. He was in prison, yet he was on the ballot everywhere he wanted to be in 1920 for the presidency of the United States. Because the law has been clear consistently, you can't exclude someone from the ballot unless they admit they are not 35 years of age,

they are not a natural born citizen, or they have not been resident in the United States for 14 years consecutively. Otherwise, can't keep them off the ballot, period. Now, that doesn't mean we won't see it, test it because they're trying to go that route too, where they're going to try to physically, you know, literally deny the American people, the ability to choose their own president in a way that's never been done at any level of government in American history. So the, we're in completely unparalleled, unprecedented times. Now, and to give people to your point, Alex, there's another history example of this, the right to petition, which originates from the United Kingdom, from England, from England.

from our British history. Go back to the 1600s. I forget it's called the Nine Bishops case. I forget which one of this. But they were charged with seditious libel, and the court ultimately threw it out because they said you can't make petitioning the government a crime.

And that's what they've done here. They've said that the president asking, literally, they actually put this in the quotes, the President Trump asked for whatever the legal remedy is to the Secretary of State of Georgia for the election issues. Whatever the legal remedy, is is now a crime. Asking a petitioning the government for redress of grievances is pretty much both

the D.C. indictment and the Georgia indictment. You know, asking the vice president to do something, asking Congress to do something, asking governors or secretaries of state or attorney generals, or courts to do something. Instead, in fact, what's clear in the D.C. case is the prosecutor's saying that basically the only thing you're allowed to do to contest an election is to go to the court system, to the judicial branch. You're not allowed to go to Congress now. That's a crime. You're not allowed to go to the American people. That's now a crime. You're not allowed to go to governors or state legislators or secretaries of state or vice presidents.

That's all a crime. That's how an utterly insane this is. What it proves to most Trump supporters beyond any shadow of doubt is that they know the 2020 election was stolen, was not a constitutionally conforming election, that an honest election would have produced President Trump. Otherwise, they wouldn't go to these great lengths to pretend something else happened in 2020. Because as you note, nobody before his contested election has ever been indicted. And to your other point about the broad American history in this respect, this goes all the way

back. We had a first potential contested election in 1796. John Adams was deciding, I believe it was Vermont. There was two potential sets of electors. And basically, they didn't follow procedural formality. And Alexander Hamilton wanted John Adams elected president. And in order to do so, he needed to rule in favor of one side of electors and not another side. And that's what he did. He exercised that power. Alexander Hamilton said he had that power. The same thing issue would come up again in 1800 in Georgia. They screwed up about how they submitted the electoral certifications. And if he honored that screw up, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be allowed to make himself president while voting on who are the right electors from Georgia in 1800. Of course, so Thomas Jefferson,

and voted for the ones that picked him. So make him help put him toward the presidency. The, or, you know, and create the set of issues that led to that, the whole debate that then led to the 1812 amendments and so forth. But again, these are examples of from our very beginning, the idea of contested elections, the idea of contested electors in particular. The idea of a vice president deciding between contested electors goes very all the way back to our founding. And then as you note 1876, of course, famously, this was an extended broad. debate of an election contest where the great compromise was given and his fraudulency of the first Ruth of her brother, B. Hayes became president. Now we have his fraudulacy the second in the

White House. But in between and after, there have been lots of election contest. Somebody has filed a complaint in Congress at some level. When I went back and looked almost every other election since 1796, somebody was objecting to something about the election. And so in 1824, They denied it to Andrew Jackson quite famously, led him to go seek it and win at 1828. And then, of course, major debate took place in 2000 with Al Gore. As Professor Alan Dershowitz has noted, under the theories of the D.C. and Georgia cases, Alan Dershowitz could be indicted. Al Gore could have been indicted.

Lawrence Tribe could have been indicted. Almost every Democrat could have been indicted. Supreme Court justices Kavanaugh and Barrett could have been indicted. because they were on the W side of that action. Again, giving legal advice to try to change the election outcome for the benefit of their candidate because they thought their candidate honestly won, but some people would say they thought their candidate didn't honestly win and they didn't care. They were speaking it by dishonest means.

So this is long written in our American history. We have never criminalized this at any level of government. We have it not the mayor, state legislature, city council, Congress, at no level has contesting an election ever been treated as a crime by anybody. The various tactics either recommended by lawyers or law professors or taken by Trump and his allies were those either taken in the past by Democrats and others through centuries of American history, or they were recommended by no less than people like Bill Crystal and others who gained, who war gained the election contest in the summer of 2020 in which they

were doing these things back and forth. There were law professors who wrote articles about all the strategies and tactics. These were lawyers who were law professors who were not involved in the case. This was in the fall of 2020 saying here's how this could go. You could contest it here. You could contest it here. You will find no law review article anywhere that has ever in the history of all of the legal academy suggested contesting an election could be a crime. And you will find plenty, say, recommending every single legal strategy or tactic chosen in these cases. That's how utterly insane and beyond the pale these indictments are. So it shows the Democratic Party now has no limits whatsoever, no restraint, we talked about it many months ago that the scary thing happening here was we were seeing

a complete lack of restraint. And it was showing up in all kinds of places, whether it was how the administration is dealing with Ukraine, how it is dealing with other policies, domestically or internationally, it just showed a lack of sense of limits. They just didn't understand that the most historically analogous time period of corrupt and competent elites is the pre-World War I empires that led to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the collapse of the Russian Empire, the collapse to a lesser degree, but still it was no longer what it used to be, the British Empire, which, you know, it was the empire where the sun never set because they had so many feet

in so many parts of the world around the globe. And by a couple of decades later, they're a second tier power and have never recovered. We have the same kind of incompetent, dangerous elites. And we're seeing it just on the ability to deny reality is extraordinary. But yet, they are crossing rubicons that can't be uncrossed. And the three big questions left are, will the American judicial system completely fail?

during emergencies they've failed they failed during world war one they failed during world war two they failed during the COVID emergency they failed initially during the Great Depression they've stepped up at some other times but they've more often failed and stepped up but this is about will the the only thing I can save America from itself at this point in terms of its elite corruption is the judicial branch stepping in and stopping all of this at some level will they that's question one question two is What will happen on Election Day, 2024? What happens if even they've locked up Trump and the American people pick a man locked up in prison to be their president? What will the system do then? I mean, the system thinks that can never happen currently. Kind of like those El Salvadoran elites who had dominated for decades after the Civil War, the political parties that inherited the legacy of both sides of that Civil War, thought they could take out the current El Salvadoran president,

try to at multiple levels. And where are they today? They have the lowest level of support they've ever had in the history of the country. Within about two years, they went from running the country for three decades to being nobody, to being, you know, begging for relevance, to being minor third parties. Why? Because they misread the El Salvadoran electorate. These people are the same mindset in the United States, just on a different scale with a lot more dangerous tools.

But I mean, I think if election day is verdict day, it's going to come back in Trump's favor. And then the question is then what? But the country itself is at great risk because if they somehow get away with this, America, as we know it is gone. And it's a decline, not a declining empire, it's a dead empire. It's a country living in a shell of itself that is only waiting while the clock ticks on a second civil war. I completely agree. Can I just make a few quick observations? Firstly, as a matter of classical history,

because of course, this is something that I know very well. You mentioned Caesar crossing the Rubicon. This is Caligula crossing the Rubicon. Just a point of information. Julius Caesar's name was Gaius Julius Caesar. Caligula's name was also Gaius Julius Caesar. Caligula was his nickname. It wasn't his actual name.

So you see that Caesar crossing the Rubicon, winning a civil war, establishing himself as dictator for life, people always forget this, but that's what he did, led with a relatively short time, less than 100 years, to someone else who had exactly the same name, behaving in, well, the ways that we all know. That is what happens when you start, taking steps like this. And, you know, we're going to talk about perhaps classical history further

later in this programme, because for me, classical, historical events drawn from the Roman Republic, in some ways, are the best analogous of the kind of situation. We have. The United States calls itself the Republic. Rome was also a republic. Rome began to live increasingly dangerously towards its end. It ended with Collegular, and that's where we seem to be going again. That's the first thing I wanted to say. The second, and I really want to deal with this issue of contested elections. Now, the United States emerged out of a revolution, a revolution against Britain, and I will repeat again, which I have said many times in many programs, despite the fact that creating democracy, building democracy in the United States,

at the time when the Constitution was agreed, was still a work in progress. The revolution itself that took place in the United States was from the outset, as clearly set out in the Constitution itself, a democratic revolution. The words we the people with which it starts make that absolutely clear. And it was also a revolution that was based on law. It understood and grasped law. It understood due process. And of course, it was looking at the events that had taken place in the country,

the imperial power that it was revolting against. And that imperial power was Britain. And what of course needs to be understood here is that if you're talking about Britain, there were elections in Britain at the time that the American Revolution took place. There were parliamentary elections extending all the way back to the Middle Ages when the King first decided to convene Parliament. But the idea of elections in Britain, in England, only evolved gradually. and by the time that the American Revolution took place, in England itself, as a result of prolonged political struggles, some of which continued, by the way, whilst the American Revolutionary War, was still ongoing, as a result of those political struggles, it came to be understood and accepted in law. that an election, in order to be a proper election at all, had to be an election which could be contested,

the outcome of which could be contested. In other words, contesting, the ability, the right to contest an election, is essential to a proper election process. It is inherent to it. If you cannot contest an election, not just in the courts, but at all. And remember, in England, the courts were the king's courts, and it was the king who called elections. So there was always this shift of power, which you never had in the United States.

The ability to contest elections, both inside the courts and outside the courts and in public life, was the only way to make elections real and meaningful. This would undoubtedly have been understood by the founders of the United States who were extremely well informed about the political and legal contests that had been taking place in England up to that time. If you read the Federalist papers,

they are very conscious of what had been happening in England And of course, given that they were set up, they've set themselves out to create a republic, a legally based republic, based on elections with a democratic premise at its heart, they of course understood and would have understood that the ability to contest an election is the only, is the thing that makes that election. real. Now, Robert spoke about the fact that we had a decline, we've had a huge decline in Britain subsequent to the fall of our empire. And that is absolutely true. That is completely correct. But nonetheless, despite the fact of that decline, until very recently, within Britain itself,

within England, we have nonetheless succeeded up to now, until recently at least, in preserving our own legal constitutional processes. It's why, in a sense, we've been able to stem that effect on our decline, that effect of our decline on ourselves. And the reason we were able to do that is because of the political struggles that took place prior to the up to the 18th century about things that had established the integrity of the election process in the United States. Britain. So, if the United States strips these safeguards away, if it becomes difficult or impossible or illegal or unconstitutional to contest elections in the United States, the United States will be regressing to a position before the one that England had reached in the 18th century.

and as American power globally diminishes, which it will inevitably do, it will find itself in a far more vulnerable position than the one Britain found itself in when the empire began its decline. This is a critically dangerous moment. It is something that I would never have believed possible in the United States. It's not just a case that the government of the United States, that the government of the United States, that the, The President and his officials appear to be heedless of the Constitution and of America's own, legal, constitutional and democratic history. It is that they are oblivious to the lessons that a knowledge of British history also would have taught them. So I just wanted to make those points because they're very important, they're very clear. The United States is an incredibly dangerous place, something I could never.

have imagined and I have still not aware in Britain of any case recently at any time which has attacked the relationship between lawyers and their clients the ability of lawyers to advise and give and act for their clients in the way that these cases do that as I said all the way the way back in the 16th century, you know, in the reign of our most tyrannical monarch, Henry the 8th, was understood in England as being an absolute foundation of an effective legal system based on due process. So I can't begin to say how dangerous this is. This is more like Jacobin law. It's the kind of thing you would have seen in, you know, the revolutionary tribunal that Rob's and the Committee for Public Safety set up in France in the 1790s.

It's not that far from Wyszynski-type law in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. This is something that is not law at all. It is anti-law, and in a condition of anti-law, you cannot have a Democratic Republic. Oh, exactly. And to give some people some context out there, because there's been so little accurate information about the 2020 election, there was more grounds for Trump to contest that election than any election other than 1876 in American political history. I know about what issues were in Georgia because I was there on the ground. So about 90% of the election contest President Trump filed there. I was part of drafting, crafting,

researching, locating, developing. And that election, the Trump only filed one election contest. One of the media narratives out there is, oh, there were 60 lawsuits, and they're all dismissed, and they're all found to have no merit.

What the media doesn't say is that there was actually only one election contest filed by President Trump in the entire country. It was filed in Georgia. By law, the court had to hear the case within 10 days, had to schedule it within five days. They never did. the same Fulton County Superior Court system in control over this criminal indictment,

though it's currently in federal court for reasons we'll get into, is the same courthouse that flagrantly violated its own oath and its own law to make sure that Trump's election contest never saw the light of day. And they went up to the Georgia Court of Appeals, Georgia Supreme Court, they played games, they said, go to the other court, and I'll go over here, no, go back over here, no, go back over here, all that nonsense. So he never got a hearing. And so after January 6, it was dismissed because it was moot by that point. And so in fact, the only real election contest President Trump ever brought was never heard on the merits by anybody, anywhere, any place, anytime.

The nature of the allegations in that complaint were verified. And for those who don't know what that means, a verified petition under Georgia law means the lawyer and the people signing it are swearing under penalty of perjury that it is true. true. The of note, and it was attached with 425 pages of sworn affidavits from detailed data documents, survey evidence, identification evidence, and personal testimony. Of note, because I was curious with the indictment where they would go, if any of those people told one lie, then they would have been, you can guarantee, indicted for perjury as part of that indictment. The Georgia indictment doesn't say, about the election contest. It doesn't allege that a single person made a single false statement or a single false allegation in that entire election contest. It pretends that election contest, like the media, like even Elon Musk's ex, who did compliment you guys for your excellent work

recently, his community notes people didn't even know the Georgia election contest existed because they challenged me challenging Governor Kemp, who was lying about what took place in Georgia. Because they don't know, because so many people don't know. It all got swept out in the Dominion and German servers and Venezuela and software. And, you know, the deep state planted evidence within the Flynn camp to get to Sidney Powell to sucker her. Dominion was one big fat red herring. I hate machines running elections, just to be clear. I don't know why we can't do it.

I remember watching Brexit live. I was betting on Brexit live when they were taking the ballots out. They took the box out. and everybody's watching and they're counting the ballots. I was like, why can't we have paper ballots? Why can't we have basic voter identification? Why can't we just have one election day rather than months and months of election days? The Constitution says election day.

It doesn't say election days, weeks, months, years. But in the United States, we don't have meaningful voter voter identification most places. People can vote from months in advance. People can vote by mail as well as in person. So all of the voter protections that exist in many other countries in the world that we actually demand those countries have. I mean, Russia's elections for Putin were far cleaner than the American 2020 election was. There's like no comparison whatsoever. There was broader ballot access.

More people made the presidential ballot in Russia than made it in the United States. Same in Iran, by the way. Now Iran kept out some other people, but that's another story for another day. And the U.S. election process is more contaminated, less reliable by any independent indicia that we ourselves and the OECD impose on the world for international voting standards. The election contest Trump brought in Georgia cited international election standards as its basis of doing so in part. And what were the issues? Well, one, who voted?

So in America, the U.S. Constitution says the legislature sets the rules by which the president has elected. It happens through the electoral college. which a lot of people get confused at. Because if you're not familiar with American, you're like, well, you're really not voting for the president. You're actually voting for electors who can then vote for the president. But it's relevant here because in 2016, the media, celebrities, and the Democratic Party conspired

to get electors to vote against who the people told me to vote for, which apparently now is one big massive crime. So, you know, waiting on Hillary to get indicted to the locals question. But you'll be waiting a while, as we'll be getting into what's been happening in the Hunter Biden case here at a bit. But the issues, for those that don't know what happened in Georgia, people who are not qualified to vote under the rules set by the state legislature, which are the constitutional rules under the U.S. Constitution, including people who were too young, people who were not registered at their residence under Georgia, you could only vote if you were registered at your habitation. So you couldn't be registered at a parking lot. It couldn't be registered at a post office box. You couldn't change your registration between counties, least of all, between states before you voted, unless it, you did so at least 30 days before the election day. So you had to vote from your, you had to be registered at your residence in order to vote. You had, you couldn't be a certain, you couldn't be felons who

had not yet served your sentence. You could not, you could not be, you could not have voted in another state and you could not live in another state, be a legal resident of another state. Well, in those five categories, there are over 100,000 people whose ballots they counted, who were one of those categories, including more than 10,000 who fit my favorite category, people who had died before they voted. We had not only live witnesses, people said my dad died four days before they say he voted. He didn't vote. We had the obituaries.

Obituaries printed in the newspaper from three days before. That was probably what triggered them to think, hey, we got another one. I think they used obituaries to say, let's send in a mail and vote for George. He just died three days ago. and make sure he votes the right way. Always reminds me of the Chicago joke where they're out organizing voter registration drive. And finally, this young kid looks to the old man and he says, do we have to keep doing this? And as the old man looks around and says, would you here deny any of these good people the right to vote as they stand in the middle of a cemetery?

That's the way that voting went. So we had documentary proof of it. The second issue was whether people cast a ballot in a constitutionally permissible way. in other words, according to the rule set by the state legislature. Well, for a mail-in ballot to count in Georgia, your signature had to match your signature on your voter registration card. We had evidence that more than 100,000 votes were cast whose signatures didn't match. And in some of these cases, it was egregious.

It was people whose signatures were like a flat line. I mean, people who suddenly decided to print rather than cursive. You know, this was not, they outsource the fraud, so it wasn't going to be the most sophisticated set of criminals. Like the people they caught in Muskegon, Michigan, Michigan. I knew about that on January 6th, that Barr had covered that up. People who were doing fake voter registrations in order to be able to send in fake ballots. It was actually a DA, one of the U.S. attorneys involved who quashed the case was up to become a federal judge. And Barr was wanting to protect him and thus covered everything up at the time.

Thus, Barr himself has been lying to the world now for years about what he knew and didn't know about the 2020 election. And so, but the method by which people voted was there were, all you have to show. legally, you don't show fraud in America. You just have to show there are more ballots in dispute than the margin of victory. You don't have to prove who they would have voted for. You don't prove any of that. The remedy is not that Trump has declared winner. The remedy is you do another election. And this was the remedy requested in Georgia because the argument was, look, you're holding another election on January 6th anyway. You're doing an election for the Senate runoff. Just add a presidential runoff because there's disputes about what happened. But then the third category also counts.

which is whether ballots were counted or canvassed correctly. And here there were three sets of issues. One was the Secretary of State had unsolicited, and again in violation of state law, mass mailed ballots all across the state of Georgia. There are people who got three ballots, four ballots, five ballots. I mean, it was ridiculous. He did this.

He's Ratburger, as I like to call him, the Secretary of State there, who, by the way, his key assistant, who was telling everybody there was no fraud, it turned out somebody was illegally voting from that guy's own house. That's how bad it was. They didn't even know it. I mean, somebody was voting who didn't live there. And he had no idea, but he was listed as being living in his house.

Yeah, how's he'd lived in for years. So the first part was ballots were sent out that were not supposed to be. They were in violation of state law. None of those ballots should be counted if they came back under the way the law work. Second problem was when you canvass the ballots is when you, in America, what happens is you get those absentee ballots. And you're supposed to have a party observer present. We've imposed this, by the way, on the whole rest of the world.

When the rest of the world doesn't, it deviates in the tiniest little bit, we scream illegal election, invalid, election fraud, you know, whether it's Africa, Asia, Latin America, Russia, you name it. I mean, no, every U.S. election has been worse than every Russian election with Putin, just by any independent, by the West's own legal standards. The, because the Russian elections actually had independent third party observers there at key points throughout the entire election process. that did not happen in Georgia. Party observers are supposed to be there during the canvassing, which is when you get the mail-in ballot, the ballot's inside the envelope, you let the party observer watch as you signature match check.

Okay, here's the signature here, and to make sure it's being done all in the up and up. Because once you separate that ballot from the envelope, you can never trace the two back to one another ever again. Well, that didn't happen. Then the counting of the ballots is supposed to be also party observed, and this is where the famous water leak case took place. So in Fulton County, they decided to take all the ballots

and rather than count them at the local precincts. Remember Brexit, right? Everybody, you know, they're counting on all those little different places. In Fulton County, they decided to do it all at one place, which was always a problem because then you have a chain of custody issue. You don't, especially with machines, you can just print as many ballots as you want. The way it typically works in America is you, an election commission will order just a limited number of ballots

It's enough to be spoiled and count, but they're numbered. So you have a clean chain of custody, right? You can't have some bogus ballots coming in in the process. When you got machines that can just print however many ballots you want, which is the way the Dominion machines work in Georgia, then you can constantly, you can just replace, right? How do you know that the ballot that I put in the box is the ballot that ends up in that box that ends up counting?

So one way is to protect chain of custody. That's why it's so critical in any form of evidence, civil or criminal. The chain of custody was completely broken at multiple stages. By having machines involved, number one, two, by how they manage the machines and how ballots were printed for them. We had whistleblowers that said they weren't, they were just printing all kinds of ballots, and God knows what happened to them or where they ended up and where they got, you know, shipped out for other ballots. And then the having one location. And then, but even there, they said, hey, this is for convenience.

All of a sudden late at night, after Trump is up, Trump is up, Trump is. up so much in Georgia that the New York Times own Nate Cohn says there's not enough room for Biden to come back. He has that little, you know, whatever you call it, little thermometer, if you will, that basically had Trump almost no chance he could lose Georgia. Because Georgia was publicly reporting there were two few ballots left for Biden to even catch up. That's when all of a sudden, like it's happened in other states, they stopped counting in Georgia. And in Georgia, the excuse was there had been a pipe burst at the Fulton County facility, and they had to clean up the water, so everybody had to go home. They told all the party observers, go home, don't worry about it.

Within an hour, nobody's ever able to find this pipe burst, number one. I mean, the zero hedge made the joke that when the indictment was leaked by an undisclosed pipe burst when the Georgia indictment illegally. Because it was so bad, the clerk printed the indictment before the grand jury had even heard the indictment in Georgia. For those that don't know, they're still running circles around how that happened.

It does what a, I mean, complete crock it is. But they told all the Republican Party observers and all the other party observers to go home. And an hour after they were gone is when the videotape later was discovered,

where they were pulling out ballots out of buckets and started counting with nobody watching. By law in Georgia, all those ballots are supposed to not count. It doesn't matter if it was fraud, not fraud. It's a prophylactic rule to deter this kind of.

of illegal behavior. All of those issues by themselves had more than the 1312 to 13,000 vote margin that the state had declared in favor of Biden, by a ratio of in many cases, 10-fold or 20-fold. So this is why had these election contest been heard, Trump would have won it, and they would have said Trump won Georgia. That's why even the court system and the defendants knew about it and the governor knew about it. That's why they never allowed any hearing or trial on the merits. And yet now there's an indictment alleging every allegation against him that was actually proven in that election contest by both by what he produced as evidence and the failure of the other side to meaningfully respond or hold a hearing, your trial.

So he can with as a trial matter, this case does put on trial the 2020 election. And he could theoretically and any of the other defendants show that in fact he won the election as a defense and that he at least believed he won the election as a co-equal defense, both defenses because the allegations are fraud. Same with the D.C. indictment, but to a lesser degree than the Georgia indictment. Though I don't think that's necessarily the path he would prefer to take. He would prefer to have these indictments dismissed or stayed pending the election, because right now, to give you an idea for the schedule, he's scheduled to go to trial in January

on another bogus defamation case by a looney judge there. Scheduled to go to trial in January also on the D.C. election fraud case that is expected to go several months. Then he's supposed to go to trial in March in New York on the Stormy Daniels case and go to trial also in March on the Georgia case and then come back and do the May trial on the Florida classified documents case. They're scheduling it just coincidentally. that it takes up his entire election season. And right now, the indictments contradict one another. It's clear that while there's no factual grounds for the indictment, any of these indictments,

no legal grounds for any of these indictments, very dangerous constitutional grounds that these indictments even exist, it's clear that what they think is that if they get a conviction anywhere, that that will be enough to convince the American voters to abandon Trump. They even have bogus polls on these grounds. That's their big gamble is that they can criminalize the process. I mean, even Pakistan with Imran Khan hasn't gone as far as they're going with Trump. I mean, Blinken was so unaware. He compared, he talked about Navalny again.

Navalny, who's like the Lyndon LaRussia, Russia, nobody, no, you know, never a meaningful competitor. But one day after Trump gets indicted by the Biden administration, again, Lincoln's saying how ridiculous it is that any country would try to lock up a political opponent. I mean, the lack of self-awareness is just unbelievable. It's off the charts. But this is what happens. I always say I don't mind dumb people and I don't mind criminals.

But when you put the two together, that's when you got a problem. And that's what we have in the Biden administration. Absolutely. Just a few quick points. And then I think we're going to come to the case itself. because I just like to sort of understand a few things. But the first thing I would say is that I remember the 2000 election, Bush versus Gaul, and I remember lots of the people at that time who were on the Democratic side,

making exactly the same points that you, Robert, have just made about the widespread corruption in the conductive elections in the United States. I mean, exactly the same people. They were saying, you know, the Florida system is corrupt, and the corruption in the Florida system is generic right across the United States. The United States doesn't conduct elections properly. Now, those same people are turning around and telling us, well, you mustn't contest elections in the United States

because elections in the United States are absolutely and completely perfect. Now, can I just say, when we were observing events before the election, Alex and I did programs, and we said, at the time that this massive introduction of mail-in ballots on this colossal, unprecedented scale, whatever you think about mail-in ballots, whether you think that, you know, they're the perfect way to conduct an election, to introduce them in the kind of way that they were being introduced with minimal discussion, with one of the parties to the election, obviously not involved, and frankly, unhappy about this with no real safeguards about the way in which it was done, that all but guaranteed

that the election result was going to be contested. It was clear to me as, you know, the snow is white that that was what was going to happen. And of course, you don't have to go much further than that. You can easily find good reasons to see why there were all of the all of those problems, which you've described in the Georgia election. I remember the water leak, for example. I remember it at the time. Again, before we knew more about what had happened, I mean, you know, the very fact, you know, everything stopped at the moment when Trump appeared to win because there was suddenly a water leak

in the one county, which hadn't yet apparently declared a result that was having struggled and struggling to do so. well, that was already going to create problems. All of those problems were there. They were visible. And to say that simply to bring up all of this, to contest it, to argue about it, to query it, to say that all of these things, that there might be problems, is a crime. I mean, that astonishes me.

That absolutely appores me. I think that is completely wrong and it is disastrously wrong. Now, let's come to the trial, the case against Donald Trump, the one that's been brought against him in Georgia. You said that he might in theory have a right to bring up all of this material in the court. Is that really what's going to happen? Will the court be able to object to that? Because you said that the court previously refused to entertain the case. Can they hide behind that decision?

Can they say that since we refused to consider the case before, we're not, we don't have to look at it this time and that this entire case is therefore going to be argued, baked purely on the factual basis that the prosecution has outlined and on the interpretations of the law that the indictments set out, which by the way are wrong anyway. But, I mean, would it be in theory possible? I mean, can the court actually refuse if Donald Trump and his legal team bring out all these issues? Would it be possible for the court to simply refuse to hear it just as they did before? Because I have to say, I'm now so concerned that I ask myself, is anything possible? Is anything possible in the United States legal system anymore? Well, I think, yeah, I would separate that out to two areas. One is what the law calls for, and then the second is what the courts are going to actually do.

So on the law side, because the criminal prosecution in the Georgia case specifically claims that it was a false claim to say there was anything wrong with the Georgia election at all, and that it was, and that they knew it was false, they've made both of those elements. of the offense. So the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence that the Georgia election had nothing wrong with it at all that Trump had any grounds to complain about. And that when Trump complained about it, he knew he had no grounds. And he knew he was that Biden won and that he was lying. Because of that requirement, any evidence that goes to whether there was any problem with the Georgia election and any evidence Trump was aware of at the time that goes to his state of mind is admissible. And as a matter of defense, it's essential to their defense and excluding it would be per se reversible error. So legally, you couldn't have a more

compelling grounds to introduce evidence in his favor than the Georgia case. The DC case has some of that. It just doesn't go as far as the Georgia case. us. The Georgia case says there's nothing wrong with anything. Not only that, it says nothing wrong with Georgia. It says nothing wrong in Pennsylvania because it alleges that Mark Meadows doing things in Pennsylvania. It was a RICO conspiracy. So they've made what happened in Pennsylvania relevant. They've made what happened in Michigan relevant, what happened in Wisconsin relevant, what happened in Arizona relevant. And for those that don't know in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself, by its own decision a year or so after the election, admitted that a bunch of people

voted who were not constitutionally qualified to vote in 2020, which was greater than the margin of victory in Wisconsin. So there's a lack of, I think that people brought the indictment have actually convinced themselves of a lot of the lies because Jack Smith was at least a little more careful. He didn't go places that were obviously embarrassing to the government and pro-Trump. He went to some places, but not as bad as what the Georgia case did. The Georgia case sits there and listens to Rachel Maddow and thinks it's the deity of truth. And so they really think there was never any factual grounds of any kind.

My guess is two-thirds of the prosecutors involved in the Georgia case never even read the election contest. I mean, it's that there's that lack of awareness that's kind of shocking. I mean, again, it's so sloppy that they're printing up indictments before they even give them to the grand jury and release him to the public. So, but the question of what a court would do, now in Fulton County Superior Court, they couldn't use the fact that they screwed him on the prior election contest because because it was no hearing or trial, there's no. collateral estoppel or Ray Judicata. Also, it's a different legal standard anyway. So none of the cases could have any impact on Trump, even if they try to somehow extrapolate from them, other than to argue subjective knowledge. But none of those cases ever said he was factually false. So I mean, that's the other problem. You know, those other cases were brought by other people, not by Trump.

So there'd be that problem. The second problem is that they didn't actually say the things a lot of people think those court decisions said. Almost all of them had a procedural trick for why you couldn't get to the facts, almost every single time. And so they don't have the precedent bearing. And then for those people out there in America, it's called Raju de Kata and collateral estoppel, for any prior decision to be to stop you from arguing it again, you have to have been a party or someone has to have been a party with the same interest as you, but usually you have to be a party. And set first and second has to have the same legal standard. So the reason why no case can have any bearing on Trump as a matter of law is because all those cases were preponderance of the evidence cases, whereas a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt.

So none of those cases have the same evidentiary standard, so no rage or decod or collateral estoppel can apply from any civil case to a criminal case under these circumstances. Now, what the court's going to do, the judge is a Republican appointee, the way Fulton County, the way state courts work in Georgia, the governor appoints him. So it's a little bit unusual. A lot of times they're elected by the local community. Not in Georgia. He's a very young judge. This is like, I think, first ever significant case of any kind.

He's in his 30s. Now, the Georgia political machine, I always say in the particularly the American South, but across the country, you have two wings of the Republican Party. The Bushite wing of the party represents the old country, club, corporate military defense industry, contractor, you know, the sort of institutional wing. I call it the in the south, the plantation wing of the Republican part.

A lot of them literally come from that kind of aristocracy. They live in places like Buckhead in Atlanta and places like that. And then the big, big huge homes and the affluent suburbs. The voter base in Georgia are working class voters overwhelmingly. And so the question is who this judge is. Why was he picked? Kemp is mostly a coward, but he secretly wanted to become president. As soon as I got down there in 2020, Doug Collins, the congressman from Georgia, told me, don't rely on Kemp. He's a complete coward.

He used some other words, words that relate to things that Donald Trump apparently likes to grab upon occasion. But, you know, Collins is from North Georgia, so not a surprise. the the the but I think it was dorm. Maybe he's from South Georgia actually. But either way, blue collar country. The, and it was also his people who cut the sweetheart deal with Dominion that gave him a huge

check where they promised to print all the ballots. They said, hey, this is great. We're going to, the whole world will see how transparent in our system is we'll get to publish all the ballots. They never did from 2020. Never published the ballots, by the way.

There's been no independent third party signature match check ever. It, the secretary of state hired a couple of his own buddies do it. And because Mark, Meadows asked to look for it. It's now, and he was denied it. It's now part of the indictment. The indictment is Mark Meadows asked to see if the signatures match crime. That's a nutsless indictment.

And those are things, by the way, Barack Obama used signature match checks to get elected to the state legislature in Illinois and get his first office political office. He got all of his opponents kicked off the ballot by pointing out there not enough of their signatures matched on their petition to get on the ballot. Jimmy Carter used it early in his political career. So, you know, Democrats are really well aware of this sort of thing. But the, so which way the Georgia Court of Appeals is kind of mixed. The Georgia Supreme Court is more conservative leaning.

So on paper, they're better than the New York courts are for the New York state case that Trump has, where they're so overtly and openly politically prejudiced against Trump and have given him no remedy or relief in any case of any kind today. Now, if it's, so that's category one. Now, if what happens if it's in federal court? Right now, the case has been removed by Mark Meadows to federal court because a state court proceeding that indicts an official for something they did while a federal official, you can remove to federal court.

And Trump did the same thing in the New York case. It's up on appeal before the second circuit. The district court denied removal, but that can go all the up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Same in Georgia. The judge assigned to it, once again, again, kind of magically how all this is working, but got a liberal Obama Democratic appointee is presiding over it. So we'll see. I mean, the logic of the law is clear that there's what's

called Supremacy Clause immunity, that if you indict someone for something they did while a federal employee, the indictment has to be dismissed unless you can show that what they did had no nexus whatsoever to their government employment. They clearly, they really can't show that for Trump, Meadows or Jeffrey Clark, former Justice Department official, also indicted for just doing his job with the Justice Department and asking questions about the election. So that's a procedural remedy, and that's a different court system. Then you have the 11th Circuit, which leans conservative, and of course, the Supreme Court that leans conservative. In D.C., the D.C. Judge, District Court judge is a, well, you guys might know her, or you'll not know her, but know her grandparent and an uncle.

it was the the hard left socialist in Jamaica that were so communist that the socialist party kicked them out and they kind of rose back to power in the 80s so that's her grand maternal grandfather and maternal uncle that's her political tradition that's where she comes from then she comes to the united states and becomes part of the neoliberal elite so you know she's a public defender but then works for corporate lawyers you know it's the only it's your classic neoliberal combination like therefore the kind of of image of a defendant, but not an actual defendant, right? You know, the, uh, they, they want the make believe version. Uh, but they, they like their wealth and prestige well. She's been completely nuts in all the January 6th cases. She's already said she thought Trump

belongs in prison before this indictment ever came about. And she's the one presiding over the Trump drop. So he'll get no relief whatsoever from her. She'll try to railroad the case. She'll try to deny him the ability to present evidence showing that he what he believed and showing why he believed it and showing the objective evidence and support of it. That's where you'll get the worst evidentiary rulings. That will all be legal error. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is equally bad. It's occasionally made good rulings, but most of the time bad rulings. It's the court that screwed over Flynn on ludicrous grounds. So my view is that the only court system that can salvage these cases collectively or is even likely to individually is the Supreme Court of the

United States. And the big question is, is the Supreme Court going to allow America to go down a sinkhole? Are they going to allow America to become the laughing stock of the world? I mean, the powers that be don't understand this, right? The Democratic judges, the Democratic politicians, they don't get it. That's how you can have Blinken saying right after Biden tries to put Trump in prison how horrible it is that presidents indict their political opponents. you know, without, and then doing it for Navalny, of all people. He had, like, there's like six fake documentaries on Navalny now in the United States. There's one on Netflix, one on Amazon Press.

This guy has been a cheap criminal fraudster. Obviously, they haven't read a lot of the stuff Navalny's actually said over the years. They might be a little shock. Let's just say they didn't fit certain woke values. See what he has to think about Ukraine. He's way far, right? He's a hardcore racist at different times. No way he'll get around it.

I mean, the guy's, clearly a grifter, fraudster, a hustler, was involved in one fraud, of the next fraud, pretend investigative journalist one minute, then I'm going to expose you unless you write me a check in the next minute. I mean, you know, at least you knew how the grift was done and came over to the U.S. and got deep-staked and leave it to us to get, we pick the worst people around the globe. It's like, I mean, it's like you can't have a competence level to just at least pick somebody who's not going to become Darth Vader.

But, you know, it's like one after the other after the other of these people. The, I mean, it's like you're going to pick, you're going to help run Niger. So you pick the Arab guy that's got like no political protection in the entire country that like is represents one percent of the population. So that when he goes south, there's nobody there to defend him. There's no tribal alliance or allegiances to the guy. But that's what we do. Navani was just the bottom of the barrel and they had to scrape it. So, but that's the U.S. Supreme Court has got to step in.

And I've said all along, it's kind of like the Alex Jones civil cases. They think they're going to do what they did to do. Jones. They think that we're going to put on show trials in front of jokes of judges in front of lynching juries and America is going to be just fine with it. And they're all going to agree. I mean, that's how delusional they are. The degree of dislocation. Like what you saw in the politics of Ukraine, where you had a year ago, Kissinger is saying, maybe it's time to find an exit ramp. This isn't exactly going his plan. It's not like he's the moral guardian of the world. He's just doing it for practical, pragmatic reasons. These people are that disconnect.

like they are now. It's the same mindset that says next week, Putin falls, next week, Russia collapses, next week the counteroffensive works and we're marching on to Harrison and taking back Crimea. And maybe we'll go it all the way to Moscow while we're at it. I mean, that's that delusional degree of mindset. I mean, at least Hitler and Napoleon had some understanding of what they're up against. These people don't. And so that's the scary and terrifying thing when you combine delusion and corruption and being really dumb, you've got a very dangerous, perilous combination for the world. And I pray the Supreme Court of the United States will step in. Now, legally, the way they can is all they need is any appeal to come up to them.

An appeal can come up to them. All the different motions that could be brought in all these cases are they can bring a motion to stay on the grounds that look, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the rest of the Constitution, assures that we have an impartial presidential election that is not adversely impacted by one political party indicting the other political party lead candidate during the election. If these indictments are so great, well, they can be addressed after the election. They don't need to be, they don't need to interfere with the election itself. So you could bring a motion to stay.

All of these cases, that's something that you could take all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States if you don't get the relief you want. You could bring a motion to remove, as has already happened in New York, as is already happening in Georgia. because it's already happening in Georgia, that can also go all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can bring motions to dismiss on grounds of the, it violates the impeachment clause because the impeachment clause assumes that's the exclusive method to indicting a president of the United States or a former president or here that it's double jeopardy because he was acquitted of the impeachment charges related to the D.C. and Georgia cases, you could bring a motion to dismiss on the Supremacy Clause grounds. And Mark Meadows already has,

because if any local prosecutor can just indict any federal politician or official now, then all of a sudden the entire federal government operates at the whim of any local prosecutor anywhere in the country. You no longer have a functioning government. So on those grounds that you could dismiss the state charges in both New York and in Georgia, you could bring motions to dismiss on First Amendment grounds because it's selective prosecution, because it's discriminatory targeting, it's retaliatory prosecution because it's an exercise of speech.

And the timing gives that away. If it's not retaliatory, why wasn't it brought three years ago? Why is it only brought after Trump declares he's going to run? Why is it only brought on the eve of the election? Why is it brought so that it's time so that there's trial and indictment or trial and potential conviction in prison during the election?

Then you've got selective prosecution on my grounds. We should interpret the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit one party from indicting the leading opponent of the other party. It's just good policy. But let's interpret the First Amendment to have that meaningful enforcement remedy available to it. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment because of a range of the searches and seizures, both as what you were talking about, Alex, the invasion of the attorney-client privilege

has Fourth Amendment implications because of a right to privacy to be, right to be secure, is the Fourth Amendment, talks about it in your papers and your person. Fifth Amendment rights of due process and issues of the grand jury under the Fifth and Sixth and Sixth amendments and right to your counsel because that's been invaded. You can't invade it more than what they've done than Jack Smith has done in both the classified documents case and the January 6th case, nor could you do it any greater than the New York. People did it because they relied upon communications between he and Cohen and other lawyers or, and of course, the emotion is egotes, because, I mean, they are, as you noted,

one of the great dangers here is they are killing the attorney-client relationship. They are killing the confidentiality and privilege that that relationship is predicated and premised upon and whose efficacy of advocacy is, depended upon by actually indicting the lawyers themselves, not just breaching attorney-client privilege. That implicates fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment issues. So he's got a wide range of unique constitutional claims that have never had to be brought before, but our president here, and the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't get involved in any of them. And I pray they do. And I think the reason why I'm still betting that the Supreme Court, that it's more likely the Supreme Court

gets involved than President Trump is imprisoned during the election. You were to compare those those two. The reason why I think so is because the Supreme Court stays out of cases when they can avoid them. They stay out of cases out of their instinct for cowardice when it requires standing up for outsiders and underdogs. With one exception, they don't like to be implicated in any kind of perceived corruption. The difference between this case and the 2020 election case is the courts are implicated here. And the only question is, does it? the Supreme Court extricate the courts from this process of being complicit in killing an American election and killing America's constitutional way of life? Or do they allow the country to burn and fail

because they're asleep at the wheel? And we're going to find out. I'm still betting better chance the Supreme Court gets involved than not just because of how dangerous this is and how dark this is and how it's being perceived around the globe. A lot of the civil rights was because the Supreme Court didn't like the fact that the Soviet Union was making fun of the United States around the world based on its treatment of Black Americans. It was one of the calling card causes of communist movements around the globe was look at, if you don't believe America is this imperial despot

rather than a Democratic leader, look no further than how it treats its own black citizens, its own ancestors of slaves. And that, I think, had a lot to do with why the Supreme Court suddenly stepped in and put the old 13th, 14th, Amendment 15th Amendment into force, but they didn't do it until a century after those amendments were passed.

I think the Court of Public Opinion is going to matter here a lot as well. So hopefully the Supreme Court steps in because what the system is damning itself. Have they done? Like a lot of my friends on the left will say, They've been doing the court, the justice system has been the injustice system for a while. The American legal process has been dubious for a while. And if you're an outsider, that's been true.

But the genius of the American legal system has been it's kept its oppression to a minority of the population. So the ordinary American was unaware. They see NCIS and they see law and order and they see blue bloods. They see popular TV and cinematic representations. It's kind of like the transformation. from Rambo 1982 to Rambo, 1986. Rambo, 1982 is this beat-down, working-class guy, drafted into war against his will,

mistreated by the military, mistreated by the politicians, and then mistreated by the war protesters when he gets home. He's angry and bitter and dislocated and disconnected from the world. By 1986, he's with the Muhadine and he's freeing Afghanistan from the comics. So the ordinary American is unaware

of how ugly the underbellal, of the American criminal justice system is, about how suspect our judicial system is. They've been held up as these honorable priests, these philosopher kings. When you unmask them, you find the emperors not only naked but deeply morally deformed. They can't afford the world to see that with Trump on Trump. If the system has any self-preservation at all, they cannot afford the world to see that. or they will lose a majority of Americans and most of the world. And they will destroy their credibility in ways that will be unrecoverable.

I compare it to another British example, Alex, in terms of the history, it's how the Brits treated Benjamin Franklin. When Ben Franklin was actually trying to salvage the America's relationship with Britain from the revolutionary spirit, and thus discuss, you know, Leak Thomas Hutchinson's letters, the British response was one of arrogance that they looked down upon Benjamin Franklin, this commoner peasant inventor, and dragged him in a surprise hearing before in the old cockpit of the Whitehall, where they used to have chicken fights.

That might have been Henry the 8th, too. I forget which one that was it that did that. But the solicitor general got up and mocked and made fun of in front of all the lords and gentry, all the sirs and madams of Benjamin Franklin, and humiliated him and disgraced him to such a degree that, The old statement has been Ben Franklin walked into Whitehall, a good British citizen. He walked out an American revolutionary. But for Ben Franklin, we don't get the support of the French.

We don't get Thomas Payne, common sense, coming to the United States. There's Benjamin Franklin that recruited him. Benjamin Franklin had paid his way. Benjamin Franklin that encouraged him to publish it. I mean, they made a hardcore rebel that day because the systems in power did not understand the actual populace. And right now America is facing the same test. And one would hope that the clever people on the Supreme Court, because they have to be clever. I mean, they can't not be if they get to the Supreme Court of the United States would have that understanding.

I mean, I get very depressed when I hear people talk about cowardice in terms of Supreme Court justices. And can I just say, I know it exists because it's manifested itself many times. But the last people who should be afraid are associate, sorry, associate justices of the Supreme Court. I mean, what function, what purpose does the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately serve if it is not going to come in and act as a backstop and put a stop to this extraordinary abuse of the system? and ultimate destruction of the system, which we are seeing now. And can I just say, I'm glad you brought up the expression oppressive, because of course, I don't know whether this is true of the United States, but it's often the case in Britain where, you know,

I've been involved in cases like this, when you seek judicial review of an executive decision from the High Court, one of the things that you make, one of the points you can make, is that the actions of the government, the executive branch, as you would say in America, in a particular situation, have been oppressive. Oppression is a very well-understood concept in English law. And of course, by the way, and in parenthesis, holding one case after another in the way that you catalogue, having a whole stream of cases, one after the other, put aside the fact that the person whom you're bringing those cases against is standing for election,

President of the United States. The very fact that you're running cases like that is oppressive in itself, extremely so in Britain. I have no doubt at all that all of these cases would be brought up into the system and consolidated and heard together. After all, they all relate to essentially the same sort of general state of facts. They're all connected in some form or way to the election, even, dare I say, the documents cases because it related to his functions as president. So that's what would happen in Britain. I don't suppose it's possible in the United States. And the last thing to say, the last point I'm going to make here, which is on this, is that, of course, if all of the facts about the Georgia election can be fought out in court

as part of the defence and if the trial begins say next year it seems to me that the entire election period next year is going to be dominated by this case because I think there is so much to look at

there I mean it's this is going to be a trial that is going to take well months if not years and do the people in the administration

do the people in Georgia understand what would happen if all that came out during the election itself I mean this is a crazy thing to do I mean it would go all the way up to November and presumably beyond if it were the case that it was not stayed beyond that

Oh exactly I mean if I was on Trump's team I would prefer the Georgia case to go first One the Georgia's date proceeding, unlike the federal cases, can be televised for the entire world. And the Georgia prosecutor is so full of herself, she will love for it to be televised for the whole world. Secondly, you have a judge that's probably manageable. In other words, even if he's a bad judge, you know, nobody knows because he's this young Republican appointee by Governor Kemp. Trump was recently joking because Kemp and DeSantis and somebody else met. And he's like,

Oh, I'm sure they were meeting to thank me for my support of them over the years and probably nothing to do with conspiring to make sure that these cases go a certain way and so and so forth. Well, I mean, when Trump is his sarcastic, comedic self is when Trump is at his best. When he's like cider bitter and resentful, it's not as appealing. It's when he's comedic and playing jester. That's when, and that's also when you know Trump is in a good mood. And you know Trump is feeling confident because that's when he goes that mode.

But the Georgia case, you have a judge you could deal with that even if the judge is bad, well, a federal judge, when they're bad, they're skilled enough to know how to screw you with style. A state court judge that's young and an experience, even if they're bad, they're not going to know how to screw you with style. And if they know the whole world's watching, they'll totally change their behavior anyway. So if I were the Trump team, I would move to delay all the other cases and say, let's go to trial in Georgia. Let's see how this works. As you note, they have a current RICO case against a famous rapper there in Atlanta. They're still in jury selection.

It's six months in. They're still in jury selection. Right. But you're right. You would take a couple of months for jury selection. Then you would have about four months. The whole election campaign would be that trial. And people would be shocked because they would find out, oh, it really, that was kind of stolen from Trump.

Because there's things they can't explain. they like the signature matches there'll be signatures that people look at and they'll be like those don't match those weren't signed by the same person there'll be there'll be a clear proof

of dead people who voted I mean stuff that will stick in people's minds they'll be like oh man they really did cover and all that does is endorse Trump now getting into the Trump Biden and you can transition into the Hunter Biden Biden component

the big thing that's being missed in the polling world other than if you're out there and you're on the left, Roy Tuxera is a guy to follow. He's an old, I've followed him ever since I was an intern at the AFLCIO as a kid. Back when the AFLCIO was the AFLCIO, now it's run by like government unions and professional class people and people who put up posters about, you know, make sure the trans people can read be your kid or whatever. I mean, back when I was there with a real labor union movement, it was like my roommate

at Yale, whose dad was an old school labor guy from New York, from Brooklyn. And he was telling me about this strike. And he was an old school Puerto Rican guy. And I was like, well, how did you deal with that strike? He was describing something. It's not like they were going to lose the strike because some scabs and some other things. And he goes, oh, well, Bobby, that's what bats are for. You know, it was old school labor unions kind of stuff when I was there.

But the, so what's happened is, but Texera is really good. He writes for a publication called the liberal patriot on substack. and he comes from the AFO-CIO. He's a long time poster and data analyst for him. He was aligned with the Economic Policy Institute, the old economic, really good policy think tank that was on what I would call the populist left,

aligned with labor unions, private sector labor unions, and manufacturing and mining, which just almost don't exist in America anymore. The, there has been a mat, the reason why the Biden and Democrats are scared of Trump is because right now,

Biden only loses to one person. He beats every other Republican. He loses to Trump. The reason he loses to Trump is there has been a massive shift amongst working class, minority, and millennial voters. So these are voters who, you know, these are voters who are voting Democratic by, in the millennial context, 25, 30, 35 points ever since they started voting in meaningful form in 2004, 2008.

this was the heart of Obama's original base, but a lot of them were disappointed Obama, so they didn't turn out in 2012. Didn't matter because older working class voters, older working class voters also stayed home, and so Obama was able to hold on. By the way, people want to read about how the election fraud took place, read the August 2012 article by the New York Times,

worried that the Romney machine would go out and get a bunch of mail-in ballots to defeat Obama, and they lay out all the problems with mail-in ballots that came true. It's 20-20, just FYI. But so the millennial minority working class portion is the only working class portion Democrats have left. Otherwise, it's a it's a gentry party. It's kind of what's happening in labor as well in the UK.

So it's become the party of lawyers and doctors and master's degree and sociologists and professors and teachers and government workers. And a party culturally opposed to the working class and increasingly no longer even economically aligned with the working class. But the minorities and the millennials were still there. So in 2016, Trump was this old 70-year-old, you know, white guy tycoon with weird hair from New York, right? He wasn't someone your working class African-American, Latino, Mexican-American, young girl worker in the service industry could relate to. Right. Now, the amazing thing with all these indictments is these. indictments have converted Trump from the cartoonist villain of a comic book of rich wealth and power

to the outsider underdog. He is no longer the man. He's the person that the man is trying to destroy. And so all of us and people within the minority communities, especially Puerto Rican, Mexican, African American, the American United States, no people who have been victimized by the criminal justice system. I always consider them the best jurors because of the most likely to be victimized by a crime and the most likely to be victimized by the criminal justice system. So they'll give you a really true fair trial. They won't be prejudiced in either direction. But that makes Trump more relatable. He's no longer the guy rap stars like Snoop Dog and Eminem may, you know, you know, describe his killing. Instead, he's the guy that, you know, people like

Ice Cube and others are saying positive things about that because of this ongoing shift. And the main reason for the ship. So while the indictments only enhance his appeal, doesn't diminish his appeal to that voter group in particular, would it also, it's all the economy. The ordinary working class younger person in America is getting absolutely crushed. So, and it's about to get a lot worse because the student loan debt's coming. So they borrowed money that they can't repay for jobs that they were promised that they never got. Problem number one. Problem number two is housing is more affordable in the United States than it's ever been by a percentage of income. I mean, the mortgage cost, the average mortgage cost for the average home has doubled

in two years, doubled in two years because of the combination of ridiculous price hikes and price rises and the, which is partially influenced by diminished supply, which is partially because of the interest rates going up so high because the Fed is still worries about the Phillips curve. They still think they got to control unemployment to control inflation, rather than. than understand what a supply shock looks like. And that Phillips curve was always wrong. It's just designed so bankers have an excuse to drive up inflation. I mean, in the name of driving down inflation, drive up unemployment.

But their housing is as unaffordable as it's ever been. Their professional path is as undetermined and is unlikely to lead to success as it's ever been. The car payments right now are the highest they've ever been. The rate of rejection for people trying to get loans for cars is higher than it's. ever been. The delinquency rates for credit cards and other debt is at a recent highs since the level of 2008-2009. If they're in a small business or enterprise, they can't borrow money because the banks are squeezing credit all over the place. And in a debt-driven credit-createning economy, that's a very bad sign going to Jeffrey Snyders and others' view of the global financial

system and the euro dollar, et cetera, that leads to a deflationary environment that's even worse in an inflationary environment and a debt-driven economy. So that the, yeah, their job, their unemployment is low because they don't have one job. They have two. You know, the hour rates have been going down and the part-time jobs have been rising and the full-time jobs have been declining. There has been no recovery, meaningful recovery in the manufacturing or industrial sectors. The real estate sector is starting to struggle badly because nobody can afford a home and the

people that are in a home don't want to sell a home because they can't afford another home. You know, people like BlackRock and others have been mass. buying up real estate to put Airbnb's and everything else. That's not going anywhere, but they have such a dominant share that it's leading to declining price affordability. People who had protection under the eviction moratoriums for several years during COVID no longer have those protections. Homelessness took the biggest jump last year that it has in the recorded history of

America, double-digit increase, just in the places where we monitor that, not including the places where we don't monitor that. Some of that is mental illness. Some of that is other issues, but at least some of the. portion of that dramatic increase is because there's people who can't afford housing. And so, and disproportionately, it's minority and millennial working class. Now, if you happen to be men in that category, you're doubly screwed because of the cultural phenomenon taking place right now, which is more than two-thirds of young men have no

relationships, period, because there's been this massive shift with technology and with third-wave feminism to where young women's sexual accessibility expanded but for a limited set of people. So it now looks like the world of gang is con, where you have 50% of the women chasing 5% of the men, leaving what? 50% of the men with nobody. So people are living at home longer than ever. People are not dating relationships, not getting married, not having families. If they do have families, they're not staying with their kids. So you've got disaster every single level of lifestyle for an ordinary working class millennial kid.

that's why they have on average in the public opinion polls over the last six months shifted towards Trump by 20 to 30 point margins it's why Biden can't beat Trump the economy is killing him amongst that voter group to where he they would have to just totally steal it that's why their goal is just get him indicted get him convicted hope that that's enough to keep them from winning because right now they're losing by such margins Trump is ahead in polls that have hated him for the last 10 years by margins he has never led ever. Right now, it would be a 1984 Reagan style in terms of popular vote margins. And his electoral college margins would be in the 330s, 340s, 350s, that kind of margin. I mean, a complete utter sweep outside even the

margin fraud to normally recover from. So that's why Biden is in such trouble. And that's why it's let's try to indict Trump. And in the interim, let's cover up for the Biden family. So using the Hunter case and Hunter's always been the Hunter's always been the pickup guy, the front of the Joe Biden corruption. The idea that this was Hunter Biden trying to feed a drug habit and poor Uncle Joe, poor Papa Joe is just trying to help out is so utterly ludicrous. Everybody in Washington, this is new that Joe Biden is one of the most corrupt people in the history of American politics. Old school Democratic Party machine-like corruption, but without the benefits that machines used to give. I mean, at least political machines used to deliver real benefits for its constituencies. Not Joe Biden.

He only cared about lighting his own pockets. 10% for the big guy was the minimum. It was more like 50% for the big guy. And, you know, now it's come out that he had pseudonyms, that he had burner phones, that he had hidden email account, to go with the shell companies and the money laundering entities that he used his son for, and that all of the criminal investigations are really cover-up efforts because it's all about how do you prevent

Papa Joe from going to prison and being exposed as a corrupt fraud. And they used the Hunter Biden case to do that. And they had to unindict him because the judge figured out that his indictment had a secret deal in the diversion agreement

that gave him complete immunity for everything, which took him off the hook from ever having to testify against Papa Joe. But because the judge exposed it and the house wanted to talk to them. They want him to be unavailable and be able to assert Fifth Amendment rights, which they can only do by dismissing the indictments in Delaware, by having him appointed as

special counsel, which they keep calling him a Trump attorney. He wasn't. He was Obama's U. U.S. attorney from that district that Trump simply kept on and didn't change. That's who Weiss is. Make Weiss special counsel so he can get rid of the case there. He can hide Hunter Biden like a material witness and hide them from Congress, hide them from the public, say there's still an ongoing investigation, so there's ongoing Fifth Amendment risk. When if you look at the nature of the diversion deal, he has permanent immunity anyway. So the House should challenge it because it's the Biden's own lawyers have said the diversion deal is still in force. It's a contract like any other. So they should force that out, try to get that out in the open. They should have already

impeached Biden. And at least Trump gets the connection they should be doing. which is the one we talked about over a year ago, which is the best place to go at Joe Biden is Ukraine. Connect his individual corruption with the war abroad. Like Trump is starting to campaign. Why do millennials working class millennials who don't personally like Trump, so his favorability doesn't go up, but prefer Trump in much bigger numbers than they did before? Because under Trump, we had peace abroad and prosperity at home. Under Biden, we have poverty at home and war abroad.

Connect the two with Ukraine with Biden's individual corruption funneling tons of money from the American people to a corrupt regime that has lined his family's pockets for years and years and years. And make that the basis of impeachment as Trump is doing, but the rest of Republican Party that's instant two thirds are still in the pockets of the deep state are too scared to do so. But we'll see how long that can. But that's the other reason the Biden administration is terrified of Trump is Trump puts. popular connections together that the rest of the Republican Party is too scared to do. Absolutely. Just a few things quickly on all the things you said, Robert, because you've covered a lot of ground again. Firstly, you're absolutely right. I mean, I as probably, I mentioned before, I mean, as a history graduate, I studied American history. Unusual decision, but I did it because

I was so interested in American history. I looked at Democratic Party machine politics in the 19th and 20th centuries. Someone like Boss Tweed, he might have been absolutely completely corrupt. He might be the most corrupt person you can imagine, but he delivered. He actually did an awful lot for New York through Tammany Hall. And he was a very capable administrator. And people knew he was corrupt, and they didn't care because he delivered. That's a point people just don't understand. With Joe Biden, I didn't see that he delivered anything. I mean, this is entirely money taken from all kinds of people. It's the most sordid type of dealing that I can just imagine.

And, you know, the way it's been conducted is astonishing. Now, the other thing to say about Hunter and all of this, we've had years of people talking about Hunter. We're just beginning to crack through. you know, the amount of protection. There was no play on words with the word crack. Okay. Sorry.

No, the other words very apt. I like that. I like the crack through is exactly right. Right. Yeah, okay. Really. I should say that was entirely unintended. That just came out.

But anyway, the amount of protection that's been granted to this family is astonishing. I mean, It just beggars relief. I mean, everybody must have known it before the election. Everybody must have known it during the election. For me also, I mean, he comes along. There was this debate with Donald Trump. There's the issue of the laptop has come out.

It's all there out in the open. And we have this story, which Joe himself seems to endorse, that it's all Russian disinformation. He must have known it wasn't Russian disinformation. I would have thought that is in itself, by the way, given that this happened during an election just before the actual voting took place, shortly before the voting took place. I would have thought that was in itself the sort of thing that once upon a time, you know, when standards were different, it might have been exposed the president to potential impeachment. That's my own personal view. Maybe people will push back on that. But anyway, coming back to an impeachment, of course he should be impeached on all of this.

It seems to me that this is obvious that he should be impeached on all of this. And of course, if he is impeached, I can't see how a defence can be put together. It would broadcast to the American people in a way that the Justice Department, the media, could not conceal all of these sordid things, the use of. pseudonyms, the involvement in Ukraine, the connections with, I can't even remember Zoblotsky, whatever his name was, the man who runs Burisma. Zlachovsky. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, not to mention all that film in all those films in the laptop, the constant allegations that Joe knew absolutely nothing, was completely ignorant of everything that you know, Hunter was doing, he was never involved, that his son's business affairs, the fact that that's now been demonstrated to have been completely untrue. I can't see how an impeachment brought in that way

would not destroy Joe Biden. I mean, even if the entire Democratic Party in Congress wanted to close ranks around him, I think they would surely realize, that you can't run in person with this kind of backstory as president when the entire country knows about it, especially when the economic situation is exactly, as you've described it, Robert. And by the way, on the economic situation, when Donald Trump was president, lots of people have, you know, criticized him. Lots of things have been said about him.

It was, to my knowledge, the only period since the 2008 crisis when real incomes in the United States actually grew. He was able to increase real incomes, something which Barack Obama never did, and Joe Biden isn't doing either. Oh, completely. And it's about to get a lot worse. So as you guys have aptly pointed out, they're trying to dodge a debauch. in Ukraine. They don't want a second Afghanistan in the same term. They don't want the same images of, you know, they don't want Zelensky hanging on helicopters coming out of Kiev before November 2024, especially because as we talk about the beginning, from an American perspective for the ordinary American who's not neck deep in geopolitics, the issue that would always resonate the best, aside from keeping American troops out and avoiding World War III, would be the money. The money. The money. was always the political angle to hammer the Biden administration on here in the U.S. And J.D. Vance and others have done a good job of that. And it started to accumulate to where even Republicans, they're starting to get more and more nervous about agreeing to any more checks being written. But when you connect the money to Biden, the money from taxpayers to Ukraine to support this dumb war,

and you have the economy suffering in the U.S., you have almost a perfect trifective issues, that it's only going to get worse. Because they need Ukraine to somehow not fall apart between now and November. They can't go past a field or a farm or two and they're great offensive. I'd recommend it a bet because the betting markets, poly markets and some others,

easier to access around the world. But if you have Bitcoin, easy to access maybe anywhere, theoretically speaking, was that there was a 70% chance that by November, Ukraine would have split and would have gone all the way through Hurson

and split the Russian front. And I was telling people, bet against that. I don't see that coming. And now, of course, they're even admitting, I mean, the Washington Post, the new CIA scribe publication, admitted two days ago, oh, yeah,

you know, this offensive failed. Even the big hawks on Ukraine and Congress are like, yeah, yep, it failed. Even the New York Times acknowledging it, as you guys have been talking about, there's various Western leaders leaking information out there about maybe we could do this exit plan. Maybe we could do

that exit plan. They usually, I mean, I mean, like, I like Vivek OK. I think he brings up some interesting ideas. I mean, it's wokesters pissed him off. That's why it's running for president. They probably shouldn't have rethought that. But he's so naive when it comes to foreign policy. Like, his solution to Ukraine was, well, I'll just tell Putin, cut yourself off from China.

And then that will resolve Ukraine. It's like, no, that's where Trump's approach, whatever people may think of it has always been smarter. He doesn't detail anything. He says, I want people to stop dying. And then the war will end in a day. I guarantee you. He doesn't tell you how because down deep he knows Putin, you know, that there's no reason to back up Ukraine, just, you know, cut off the money train to Ukraine

where they're buying what, the House number three in Spain and, you know, they might be near you these days. Great. You know, Ukrainian might see some random shopping from some ministers of commerce and lieutenant generals and whatever. I mean, that keeps leaking out. We know how bad that's going to. There's a reason the Biden administration won't. even let Congress audit the funds. Every time Rand Paul comes up, says, hey, can we do a little bit

of an audit? Nope, no, no, can't do that. Whatever you do? Can't do that. You know, we're burning down parts of Hawaii while Joe Biden is on vacation. And he says, don't worry, I'll send you $700 checks, right? $700 checks for your entire life being destroyed while he's saying we need to send the equivalent of $900 per U.S. household to Ukraine again. He has no understanding that whatever money they needed to get, they needed to get a year ago and not come back to the till again and again and again to constantly put this issue on the front burner, to constantly be an embarrassment for them. And then you combine that with the economy, almost, I mean, Michael Burry from Big Short has put out a bet, the actual amount he's bet is less than this, but it would

pay off at $1.6 billion if the markets fall in the next six months. And this is a guy who's rarely wrong. And you look at almost all the fundamentals, Jeff Snyder, a euro dollar university. We talked about last time, he's been saying for six months that China was in trouble. He said China's rebound is not going to be big. There's core issues. His theory of China is that G is trying to do manage decline,

that he sees that the country's shifting. They got a big demographic problem they got to solve. They got an internal real estate problem and got way out of hand. The wealthiest, the biggest, richest asset in the whole world is Chinese real estate. And some of that was built on unusual phenomenon. In other words, if you're in China in 1990,

you've never seen real estate go down. So it sounds like a great investment when you're prohibited under foreign capital controls from investing overseas anyway. And so you think it's just going to go up, up, up and up and up. But at some point, that logic runs out like any other system. And then you've got the shadow banking and financial systems that are deeply leveraged and embedded with it.

And then you have a real estate and construction industry that was as much as 30% of employment directly or indirectly with steel and other components tied into those industries. all of a sudden if that freezes, the whole thing could take a major hit, and China's got to manage that. But he's been pretty, but you, what does that do to the U.S.? Well, the U.S. net imports are down. And net imports are only down when demand is down. And demand is only down.

I mean, that's partially what's triggering China's problems. And that only happens in a recession. The banks are more than 50% of American financial institutions are saying they're going to impose tighter financial standards. That only happens in a recession. So there's indicator after indicator after indicator that it's about to get a lot worse economically. And now those millennial working class people that haven't had to pay their student loan debt on average $500 a month, which is as much as a third of their disposable income these days, all of a sudden comes due starting in October.

And so, I mean, imagine where it's going to be about a year from now when all of a sudden unemployment starts spiking and the housing costs are still terrible and the car costs are still bad. I mean, one out of five Americans right now is borrowing money at Eusurias payday interest rates of 20% APR to buy groceries, groceries. And if you dig in, you looked at minority or millennial working class, you're going to find those numbers are as up to as a half in some communities. That's a disaster. That's why politically the tidal wave is coming. And they're just hoping to stave it off with a desperate scheme in the Ukraine, a desperate scheme with the Fed raising interest rates. Biden thinking he can just go around and say Bidenomics is great. Bidenomics is great. Yeah, Bidenomics is

this is part of Trump's new theme. Trump's new theme is, Bidenomics is great for Joe Biden because it's a line in his pocket at your expense. When I ran, when I was president, as you were mentioned, Alex, there was peace, abroad, and prosperity at home. And with Joe Biden, we got war abroad, poverty at home. You want peace abroad? You want prosperity at home.

You may not like me as a personality. You may not like some of the positions I have, but if you like peace and prosperity, I'm your guy. That's going to be Trump's simple campaign theme, whether he's inside a jail cell or not when it happens. And they're about to mugshot him in Atlanta. And, you know, the last person we had a famous mugshot of in politics in America was Martin Luther King. How did that work out for the people that did it? So how did it work out when they did it to Nelson Mandela? I mean, you know, it's political disconnect of these elites.

The only question is, do they blow up the whole world before we can get to some resolution outside of their control? It's incredible to me. Again, I say this once more, that we're talking about the United States and all of these things happening there. I mean, you know, I've followed American politics for a long time. I've studied American history. I know how ruthlessly American. politics can be conducted. I mean, going all the way back, you know, to the 19th century, even Linkett was a much more, you know, savvy and ruthless character than people perhaps

understand. But nonetheless, at the end of the day, there were always limits. And it seems to me that we have seen a complete collapse of limits. I mean, we've done program after program ever since Biden was elected, talking about how this administration seems. seems to have no understanding that there are limits to what it can do and the damage that it's doing. And we, the very first programme we did about mandates. Do you remember? We were talking about the fact that they didn't understand that there were limits. Even as lawyers were telling them that there were, and they still were disregarding all that advice.

And they were just going ahead and doing this all the time. And it's getting worse. and the idea that you get yourself out of political trouble in the United States itself, you protect yourself because that does seem to be partly what they're doing. You hide behind the White House from all of these allegations, all these investigations which, properly speaking, should be brought against. to you at the moment. You can do that through manipulations of the system by trying to appoint special counsel, who isn't really special counsel, at least isn't in any real sense special counsel,

and who's been appointed, as I understand it, in a completely irregular way, because he is, in fact, a member of the Justice Department, and special counsel should not be a member of the Justice Department. That's what I've read some people say. So you think you can do that, you can avoid cooperated with Congress by engaging in this wire pulling and, you know, manipulation of the system. And at the same time, you can somehow knock out your opponent by bombarding him with cases. One of the things we didn't mention before, we were talking about these indictments, by the way, is this ludicrously portentous way in which they're all written. I mean, hey, Ken, you, when I was reading them, I, you know, they are almost, they're comedically

ridiculous. I mean, the language is absurd. It talks about the most simple and banal things, and it elevates them into some kind of vast conspiracy. I mean, it's astonishing to read the language of these indictments. Anyway, you think you can. do that. Knock your major opponent out of the election by abusing the legal system in this sort of, in this sort of way. Now, can I say 2024 is going to be an absolutely critical year in the United States. If this all succeeds, if the president, the current president is re-elected, despite all that has already happened, then the United States is an incredibly dark place. And I said I would mention classical history before.

I've already referred this to this previously in a program that we did on the Duran. But going back to the Roman Republic, ruthless conduct of politics, a certain amount of wire pulling, always people understood that there were limits beyond which you didn't go. And what happened, the cause for the crisis in the republic was that, in the middle of the second century BC, a Roman politician,

a man called Gracchus, who wanted to carry out certain reforms, was blocked by the political oligarchy, who had gained control of the Republic and were manipulating the system,

and eventually they arranged his assassination. Publicly, they arranged his assassination. And that caused the entire credibility of the system to collapse because people understood. And by the way, his assassins were never convicted,

even though everybody knew who they were, they were, because it was conducted quite openly. From that moment on, it became clear that the Republic could not survive. And you saw a whole succession, the things begin to go wrong. Faith in the institutions of the Republic began to collapse. Faith in the legal system of the Republic began to collapse. And then the legal system of the Republic began to lapse. And remember, it's to the Romans, ultimately, that we owe our whole idea of law. I mean, they basically were the people who understood that a republic had to be underpinned by law and by due process. And many of the concepts that we talk about, lawyers talk about to this day, like mens rea, for example, and indeed Reyes Judy Carter, originate with them. Anyway, the fact was,

the Roman people began to understand that the system was no longer functioning, that it was serving the interests of as few corrupt politicians. And steadily, from that moment on, you have the whole crisis of the Republic developed until eventually Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and set in train the events that led ultimately to Caligula. So that's the peril that the United States, it seems to me, is very much. basic and next year 2024 is going to be

absolutely critical there should be as you absolutely rightly say Robert a complete clearing out by the legal system however it's done of all of these charges which are ridiculous

there should be a proper investigation of what the president in his family have been up to there should be impeachment proceedings because frankly the actions that have been taken in my opinion, justify impeachment for the integrity of the Republic itself, for the integrity and future of the United States, all of that is essential. And if it doesn't happen,

well, I will be very, very worried indeed. No doubt. I mean, Biden thought the label special counsel was cool because it was the same label his education program had when he was assigned as a kid. But I always think, tell you, if you want to understand Joe Biden, imagine LBJ, but really dumb. And that's basically, you have like a street level thug criminal. But I think what's, what's been striking to me is the degree to which, I mean, you had people like David Brooks and some others saying, well, what if we're the bad guys here? You know, like the famous meme. I think it was, oh, it was a Monty Python or it was some British comedian or a comedy show or they have the guy in

the Nazi uniform saying, what, what if we are the baddies famously? But otherwise, very little self-reflection. It reminds me about I always wanted to be a prosecutor coming out of law school because your only ethical duty was to do justice. And I could never even get an interview. Whereas these students who did very poorly in law school were always getting the jobs.

And finally, a law professor who had always been secretly, well, not only secretly. He was always giving me books about how not to be a prosecutor when I wanted to be a prosecutor. Finally told me, he said that, you know, Robert, they're not looking for people like you. And I was like, well, what do you mean? He goes, and basically he said,

they're not looking for people with self-reflection. They want to avoid the Julian Assange problem. And if you never self-reflect, if you're like a colonial bureaucrat, think like late British Empire, Africa, India, it's that kind of mindset. You know, it's the kind of people George Orwell grew up with. You know, people who are so disconnected,

so lacked self-reflection, so self-awareness and awareness around them, that that's how they make some of their worst and most egregious mistakes. Like if people think there's some sort of master evil, here. I'm like, there are people that are, you know, there's your Bill Gates's and your George Soros's and your black rocks and your military industrial complex, people with bad intentions out there trying to orchestrate things. But a lot of the key decision makers are really, really dumb,

which is what makes them so dangerous. People like Blinken can be as, I mean, Secretary of State of the United States and can be utterly self-unaware. So such a degree, a problem pops up in Niger. I mean, think of the continent of Africa, probably no better example in the last decades or two. of what's happened. You go back and look at public opinion surveys, America often ranked toward the top in Africa amongst the population. America had whatever other political issues are out there. The image of an ordinary American was still a very positive image in large parts of Africa. Now, you know, you look at say west, you know, from east to west central Africa from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, you're going to have countries that welcome Wagner,

that welcome Russia, much more than they welcome the United States, so they welcome France or anybody else. And in the name of fighting anti-terrorism, often these disputes are not really, they may be in the name of, you know, Allah, but you dig deep. It's old historical disputes because colonial governments decided to draw maps over regions that made no sense that didn't represent the local geography, the local ancestry, the individual resources. Often those maps were drawn so that one group could have access to another group's resources, which are often the colonial group. I mean, it's not tribal conflict that dominates Africa. If you look at Africa, tribal differences will not dictate how often there's been conflict. Access to major resources desired by the West is the number

one indicator of whether there's conflict, because it's outside conflict, inspiring internal conflict. And so you have Niger, where the soldiers were sick of dying for a counterproductive cause, redisguised as anti-terrorism so that the French and Americans could build massive military bases in the middle of countries that had, coincidentally, access to lots of uranium and other assets and resources. And who do we send when there's trouble in Niger? We send the killer whale, Victoria Nullin. I mean, you know, I mean, Jackson Hinkle and some others were joking,

but I had a double check that they were joking when they said that Niger sent her back saying put her on a weight loss plan, not on a Africa change plan. But, I mean, could you send a worse person? I mean, I guess you could have sent Elliot Abrams. I mean, there's almost nobody, or John Bolton, I mean, there's almost nobody worse. You could send it, hey, we're going to send the person

that plots, cliques around the world, and possibly causes World War III to come visit you. And I assume they thought that would be intimidating. I mean, these are soldiers, I mean, these are people in Nigeria that are tired of dying. And they got three quarters of the country behind them. They got a deeply unpopular president. Is this a military honte?

Yes, but it's a popularly demanded military honte. It looks more like a true, honest-to-god revolution than the Maidan coup ever was. And so the, but it shows how disconnected we are. And in Africa today, you mean, like in the poll they had, it was a Western conducted poll in these years. My guess is you're going to see in more and more countries, there's less and less interest in the U.S. They, why do a lot of them prefer China? China doesn't come in with that many strings.

I mean, there's some implicit strings monetarily with access to African resources, but it's not military strings. It's not causing their soldiers to have to die. It's not causing their populations to have to stagnate. It's not Bill Gates with another little vaccine that magically has certain effects on fertility rates. in places like Kenya, just asked the Catholic Church there in Kenya about what Bill Gates effect was, or just ask people in India why Bill Gates is banned in parts of the country. So it's amazing the Biden administration's destruction of American credibility in such short order.

Like he boosted us in Europe, right? European leaders and others didn't like Trump and Trump was demonized throughout Europe. So the ordinary person in Europe really didn't have a sense of who Trump really was. whatever you, whether you like him or dislike him, he was much more on the populist anti-interventionist side than anybody had been in recent modern American history since John F. Kennedy as president. But in Africa, in parts of Asia, in South America, in Central America, the El Salvadoran president who comes from a left populist tradition, really got along with Trump very well. He now has 90, 91% approval. It should be a warning

sign to people in the West that this strategy of placating sort of a global elite crowd at the expense of their domestic populations will in turn and in time bury them like it has the parties in El Salvador. You have the rise of a populist libertarian in Argentina who managed to get number one without running paying $1 for a single TV advertisement because the population is so tired and exhausted with it. But what you're seeing in much of the world is a sense that not only is the U.S. not a desirable ally, but that we're sort of a dumb, decrepit kind. country. And I mean, and you guys are outside the country more. I'm curious. How is the rest of the world perceiving all of these indictments on Trump and all of this just political insanity and the

scope and scale and severity of Biden corruption? And especially coming from a U.S. that has lectured the rest of the world about don't lock up your opponent and integrity with elections and about we got to fight that corruption and things like that to witness the United States and its current decrepit state? Well, I can say, I can say straight away. that in Britain, which has been perhaps the most extreme anti-Trump place in Europe, perhaps Germany's rival, but Britain certainly they really dislike Trump. They're now cooling off Biden completely. Biden is not popular here in Britain. There's a widespread perception that he doesn't like us very much, which is true probably. But it's been often commented now, increasingly commented upon,

in the British media. And as for these indictments against Trump, well, you will still find some people of very entrenched liberal views who, because of their dislike of Trump, will nonetheless, will continue to support the indictments and say that they are justified. But the great bulk of commentaries

that I have read, even in the sort of more left-wing media, even in places like The Guardian, for example, are basically saying these indictments are a huge mistake, and they are wrong. So, I mean, I'm not saying it's exactly bought sympathy for Trump. An awful lot would have to happen for that, you know, for that sort of perception of Trump to change.

But it's certainly not playing well in Britain. These indictments are not playing well here. They're seen as bad and wrong and mistaken, and people don't like, they don't like Biden at all. And by the way, just quickly on Niger, because I have, you know, it's talking to quite a few people, a large number of African people here in Britain, and I know a few.

And they all tell me the same thing. In Niger, the hostility was not against the United States at all. It was against France. France was the colonial power. France was the country that was running Niger ever since it gained its independence. France has exploited Niger. There was hostility to France.

There was none towards the United States. So suddenly, after this event has taken place, which the Russians were not involved in bringing about, what happens is that the United States sends Victoria Newland and they back France. I mean, there was no reason why the United States could not have come to some kind of entirely friendly arrangement with the new military leaders in Asia, most of whom, by the way, have been trained by the United States. They have American military training backgrounds. So there was never an issue with the United States.

It's all about France. What on earth is the United States doing in West Africa, supporting France? I mean, it's something that people just cannot understand, given how unpopular France is. Alexander, wasn't it Victoria Newland who went, was it part of Cyprus she went to or something, where she got something wrong in a reference? Yeah, you're right. I'm trying to remember what she said, yeah. She like either or maybe it was with the I don't know if it was in Turkey she did it.

I thought it was some point where she basically pretended something recognized a certain way that completely offended her audience. Yeah. I forget. I know it related to the Cyprus issue. Yeah. I think she might have given some sort of recognition to like the occupied north, something like that. But you're right. I forgot exactly what she did, but she messed up big time.

I mean, you come from a diplomatic family. I mean, and both you guys have extended diplomatic family connections. Is it insane to watch people this bad? I mean, Glinking is, these are, whatever you think of their politics, idiot. These people are just terrible diplomats. You would never hire them for anything. What are they doing? Never, Victoria Newland.

That's the last person you send anywhere. Higher, promoted. They get promoted. Yeah. It's the idiots rise. I mean, you brought up LBJ. Can I just say? I mean, at the very tip of my memory,

I can just about remember LBJ. I mean, you know, and, you know, I've learned a lot more about him since. He was brutal. He was corrupt. He was in many ways unprincipled. He was also extremely clever and in some ways impressive. And he understood, again, that there were limits.

After all, he did understand in 1968 that the game was up and that he came on television and said, that I'm not going to stand for president again. He had that element of self-knowledge. And, you know, in some respects, he was impressive. Now, this bunch that we have in control now, I mean, the word impressive is not one by any stretch that you can associate with them.

They're sinister. But they're probably not being incompetent as well. Even to the degree of, you know, denying Robert Kennedy Jr. Secret Service protection. It's like why the reason why that protection exists is because of his father's assassination. And here he

requested, no one in history has been denied it. He has a long litany of death threats that have been made against him. Due to a wide rate, he's probably the most libeled you know, Democratic candidate politician in modern American history.

He may be taking legal action about that sometimes. soon, you know, that I may have an announcement of down the road. They, because he's not going to, you know, lay down for all this for forever. He's making headway in the campaign, building a strong base, building a strong independent pack that has some big donors behind it, raising good money for his own campaign, getting good organization for his own campaign, getting brought in, you know, his podcasting strategy is that he can circumvent institutional media to reach people directly.

And while it takes a little while, it keeps building well. It's building in the right direction, rather than the wrong direction. And doing things like denying him secret service protection only further embarrasses the Biden administration and would really be horrendous if anything were to happen to him. I mean, it's just unconscionable behavior. But it shows it's we've become like old Rome. We become like the pre-World War I empires, particularly the, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires, but the Brits, too, that, you know, didn't, I mean,

the Brits thought bringing America in would help the Brits and, you know, Cecil Rhodes' roundtable type crowd think that they were going to, I mean, there were a lot of them thought the U.S. was going to become part of Britain again. The British Empire would be back fully. Oh, yeah, absolutely. No question. And instead, it was the Americans grabbing power every which way after World War I would. But the, but it just shows, it's just complete, discontecutive.

connectedness. I mean, it's like him when he goes out on the beach. I mean, if I were his people, I would definitely not photograph him being on the beach while Hawaii burns. And yet that's what they do. Him sitting there like an 85 year old, you know, he looks like he's 95, you know, in the beach with an umbrella and the sun. It's like who even goes with the umbrella beach to the sun and like a cheap. I mean, nothing about it looks good from a marketing branding perspective, but particularly the timing. And they just have no clue. And they just think, we're going to do what we want to do. We're going to get away with it, and we have complete carte blanche control at so many levels, and the legislative branches are too weak. The judicial branches are too cowardly.

The military has been co-opted, and our European leaders only care about their next EU appointment or their next, you know, world economic forum appointment. It's like Brian Kemp, when he got elected governor, what does he do? First thing he does, he runs off to a world economic forum event because he's going to be the next president. he can see it. I mean, that's the world that idiot lives in. I don't know if there's outside of a few times in history to where it's not only our decrepit, demented American leadership, but this is leadership that should be getting denounced in the modern contemporary world. And it's being distrusted in Central America, South America, Africa, large parts of Asia, Russia, but it's being welcomed and rewarded in all the European

capitals. Yes. outside of Hungary. It's like, what on God's green earth are they thinking? And look what it's doing to us. I mean, Germany in recession, deindustrializing, Britain in a state of stagnation.

We're talking about it all the time here in Britain. France, in deep crisis. Spain, you know, paralyzed. It's doing terrible damage to us in Europe. And we have, caught the same diseases. All I can say, I mean, in some ways, it's not surprising because, you know, the United States,

in so many ways, a much more modern society than in Europe. One has to say this. I mean, we still have the aristocratic, oligarchical traditions in Europe that, you know, America, to some extent, put behind. If America sours, you know, if it turns sour, then perhaps it's not surprising,

given how connected Europe has now become to America, that is happening to us as well. And it's very, very bad. But, you know, it's like we're all being pulled down together because, of course, it may be that in personal terms, Biden is welcomed in Europe or has been welcomed in Europe, that he's won Europe over. But it's not good for the United States for this to happen,

because, of course, the old United States, which I remember well, I mean, I can remember, you know, our contacts in Greece with people from the United States in the 1960s. I lived in an elite world in those days. I remember the kind of interactions we had with Americans and how vital they came across to us at that time. The point was that in those days, for its own reasons, perhaps, the US was building Europe up. the United States was providing Europe, or at least Western Europe, with wealth like it had never known before, and security. What this administration is doing is doing the opposite. It's pulling us down. We're losing our prosperity. We're losing our economic positions. And, of course, far from being secure, we now have a raging war

on our eastern borders, which we're losing as well. So it's this extraordinary contrast between the America that was, the America of the 50s and the 60s, the America of the 60s, which I remember. I mean, I can remember we were at one time in our apartment in Athens. We rented it out to a family from the U.S. embassy. I remember all those people. I remember visiting the bases in the U.S.

I remember all the interactions. I remember the America at that time, and I see the America today, and it is like darkness and light. I don't want to suggest that the America of the 60s was necessarily, you know, always good or always benign, of course it wasn't. But what I'm saying is in terms of ability of competence and of an ability to see forward and to think forward, it was completely different. and the European leaders of that time were completely different people also. People like De Gaulle, people like Adinauer and Brandt in Germany, people like even, you know, Wilson in Britain, and all sorts of others, Olaf Palmer and Targe Erlander in Sweden,

totally different people in those days to the kind of leaders we have now. What do you think of the, because the two other things that were sticking out to me, me was I had originally a kind of a bet that the first place we would send the first new place we would send new major troops was Africa because it just would make sense for the Biden administration or stopping Rwanda to or you know we're going in to keep the African people free you know be that that's how they would pitch it if you will that may still come true because we never officially set troops formally into Ukraine thank God yet and maybe as they see the debacle in Ukraine, they'd think, ah, that

army in Niger is not that big. We'll go in there. And I thought the other possible risk with that is that if I was looking at it from the Biden administration's perspective and looking at the three European powers and who might be the one to break off, very low chance the UK does,

even though the Tories are busy torching themselves with their idiocy of adopting Biden-style politics and policies for their own country. The Germans could have been, with the rise of the AFD, but the Germans figured the best way to stop a rise of a new Nazi-like party is to adapt Nazi tactics, of course. Let's ban the party.

Let's suspend him. I love it. In the name of democracy, let's stop democracy. It's the old, we got to save the village. We got to burn it down and kill everybody. I mean, it's only the neoliberal elites can come up with this utter nonsense, these words that, I mean, it's so much out of Orwell. Orwell just predicted all of this.

It's just wild to witness it in live time. That if I was worried in the Biden administration of who might break free from Europe from the U.S. demands in Ukraine over the next 18 months, it would probably be France. Yeah. state all these people that played model u.n when they were 15 you know the worst way to build in leadership is this this way sparta had some had some things right they knew how to build great soldiers you know throw the seven year old out to the lion he lives he's probably going to be pretty good not well yeah it wasn't meant to be we put him in model u.n there couldn't be a worse way to raise a future leader but if you wanted to get on the french side maybe you go

into Niger and restore the French dominant role in Central Africa, West and Central Africa. What do you think the, what are the chances that Macron either steps down or that Macron shifts gears over the next 18 months and tries to be the reasonable diplomatic one to try to extract Europe from its disastrous alignment with the Biden administration in Ukraine? And what's the chances that the U.S. military goes into Niger? in order to prop up the French to maintain that alliance a little bit longer in order to prevent that from occurring

because in their minds Ukraine is everything. It's so weird, but it makes no sense. But they really believe Ukraine is the whole enchilada that this goes back to Soros' influence on think tanks, etc. Soros's first big place was Ukraine back to 1991 before other parts of Europe and the United States, even though Soros himself is now with a shifting power to his son pulling back from Europe and the EU

because it says the EU can take care of everything Soros wants on their own. That's why you step up back. But what's the risk U.S. troops go into Niger? Because the U.S. arrogantly thinks there's a little risk of, you know, Black Hawk Down Part 2. And they think it would help align the French with Ukrainian policy long enough to get through the election. Right. Well, actually, Alex brought this up in one of our programs. I mean, he actually, we were doing a program about Niger, and he said, you know, is it likely that these people in Washington

who don't understand very much about anything, but who look at the level of military, the scale of the military in Niger, will say, well, why not, if you've got this problem in Ukraine, why not distract by a nice little war in Niger? You don't have much of an army there. You can send a, you know, the 82nd Airborne Division or the Marine Corps, and they'd sweep them a size. which they probably would, by the way.

I mean, you know, let's not talk up the Niger military. I don't know very much about this. Now, I think that would, and we discussed it, and we agreed that this is actually possible. It's the kind of thing they might do because they don't understand the risks that they would be running. Firstly, it would be, it would create a disastrous impression right across Africa. the United States and a Western power, in effect, invading an African country.

I mean, the look would be terrible. I suspect even some of the ECOWAS states who have been talking about intervening, would be enormously embarrassed. But the other thing is about winning over France and supporting the alliance, getting the alliance with France together. Actually, anybody who thinks that doesn't understand France. Yes, Macron might support it because he's Macron. He really doesn't understand France very well himself.

I mean, that's the first thing to understand about Macron. He's deeply ignorant of popular feeling in France. But France is intensely proud. country, having the Americans march into Niger in order to prop up France, firstly, it would be hugely humiliating for France. And secondly, given the kind of place France is, you know, cynicism, skepticism is always a natural religion, but they wouldn't say that the Americans are there in order to help us. They would say the Americans are going to Ineiger in order to help themselves. they're going into Niger to push us out and to make sure that they control the uranium and the lithium that is there.

It would not improve relations between the United States and France. It would make them worse. It's not, I think, something that these people perhaps understand. I'll any one person who I think probably would understand it. I think Robert Kennedy Jr. probably does understand it. I mean, for one thing, as I understand it, he speaks French and for another thing, he knows France. But this lot don't understand any of this. Try to explain it to them.

And I suspect all you get is the usual cliches about restoring democracy and that kind of thing. That's what they always hide behind, even as they carry out whatever scheme they have. And once they've settled on the scheme, no amount of talking or person. situation can ever make them change. Exactly. And you can, for those people out there that, you know, watch some of the early 90s movies, not only the TV show West Wing to understand the people who currently occupy key positions of power into the Biden administration. But I forget the movie. There was, they should remember Black Hawk down, but that's not the one that we'll remember.

They don't remember the movie we're like, tears of the sun. Out of where Bruce Willis goes into Africa and saves people from the terrible Africans, you know, trying to kill everybody. You know, Africans trying to kill other Africans that routine. that's how they imagine themselves you know the it's like that uh meme from game of thrones where it's how all white liberals imagine themselves as this all the slaves are carrying uh what's her what's her face up you know it's that mud and that and doing it in africa because considered the great shame of the clinton administration was not intervening in rwanda yeah um and uh instead he picked the balkans uh the now he also picked somalia and he also hit sadan and people just

kind of forget all that. But the, but that's why it's, it would be, if you're in the administration right now, you're a little nervous about Ukraine, you don't want to send troops to Ukraine, you want a little bit of a distraction from the various controversies and scandals burgeoning. I don't know how many more times they can indict Trump. I mean, right now, scandal breaks about Biden. A new Trump indictment has hit four times in a row, four weeks over the last six weeks. So when the next Biden scandal hits, I mean, maybe they'll add Arizona, ad Michigan, you know, just keep filing on this level of insanity. But the biggest other risk, there's already talk afloat that maybe they'll say that this

variant of COVID from Canada is really dangerous and they're going to retry lockdowns and see if that works. I don't think they'll be that crazy and go that far, but you can't roll out anything these days. But I think the biggest risk is sending troops somewhere they think would be easy to make themselves look like heroes. And what better place than Niger because they would be restoring the elected president. That would be the Western narrative.

That would be the narrative all across the U.S. media. Saving the Nigerian people from a corrupt, and they'd probably blame Russia, too. The Russians did it. You know, Wagner was there. They were planning it. They're conspiring to take over all the uranium so they can run the world. You know, some version thereof. There's already bits and pieces of that.

A really good breakdown was by history legends, who does a lot of fun, interesting videos, especially compared to, like, all the kings and generals and all these other shows that looked like they were cool. out to be totally frauds during Ukraine. They just push out Western propaganda, left and right, CIA profit. It's not even good propaganda. But it's like, for some reason, all people that hate Elon Musk, like to print this stuff, too. It's like, all be able to tell the truth about Elon, all put up all these pro-Ukraine videos out of the blue.

It's like, what inspired that? When did they become geopolitics expert? But that is the one other area I'm concerned with, other than the insanity and the indictments and how we as a country manage that. I'm hoping that in the elections in 2024 become verdict day that Trump wins and that that puts an end to all that nonsense at some level. Biden could always solve all the problems in one clean swoop by pardoning himself, pardoning Hunter, pardoning Hillary,

pardoning everybody that's ever committed a crime in the Democratic Party, and then just throwing in Trump and maybe Assange as an extra bonus to make it look like it's all about Trump and Assange, it's really all about Biden family and Democratic Party corruption. I did see the latest talk that maybe the U.S. would go along with sending Assange to Australia, where I assume he wouldn't be meaningfully criminally prosecuted. I can't imagine the deep state wants Assange hung as an example. But actually putting Assange to a trial would be really politically problematic for the,

because again, most of the scandals he exposed, good portion were the Bush administration, but a good portion were the Obama administration. And so, and of course, the Clinton emails or aspects of the Clinton emails, particularly the DNC and the emails and the WikiLeaks that they disclosed while he was in Ecuadorian embassy. And then we also seen, you know, it's amazing how one breach can take down a country. After Ecuador cut, you know, let, you know, throughout an asylum person from their own embassy into the British hands, in the case of Julian Assange. That country has just gone completely downhill.

And the crime is so high now that there's, you know, a leading presidential candidate was just executed on the street. Another leading, I think maybe it was a publisher, or political figure was recently also assassinated. The cartels, it's like once you, you know, let that breach in the dam to allow corruption to control your country, it doesn't stop. It just, it kills the foundation. It destroys the foundation and collapses.

Yes. But yeah, I am hopeful we don't do something really crazy or stupid in the next 18 months. Yeah. Well, you're hopeful in the 18 months, Robert, but it's the Biden. Well, I just say, more crazy than that was already happened. We already crossed every Rubicon known demand. Yeah. We just haven't caused World War III or war anywhere else beyond Ukraine and wherever else.

our military bases are at the moment, which is a ridiculous number of countries. Credit to Bobby Kennedy, who says going to take them all, bring everybody home, going to have a peace dividend. He, too, is connecting for people, economic problems in the United States with the war machine. Because the war machine, this globalist empire, that's what's sapping us of resources at home. That's why you can't afford a house. That's why you can't afford a car. That's why you can't afford medicine.

That's why your college student loan debt isn't worth the money you paid for it. That's why you're in the situation and position you're all. end because the war machine keeps ripping us all off. And in the same way the Trump is, I mean, you're seeing these two people, Republican side, Democratic side, parallel populist messages on key issues, which is going to get more radiance in the American public than maybe ever, at least since 1968. Wallace was his own animal. But there were aspects of Wallace that were populace. And then Bobby Kennedy would definitely, Bobby Kennedy's father was definitely very, very left populace. So we'll see how all that, you know, there's a lot of things that are promising.

And there are a lot of things that are scary happening to the same time. Absolutely. I still believe and want to believe that the antibodies, if you like, within the American system are still strong enough to bring this whole thing under control. But certainly this is a disease that there is afflicting the Republic, which is very, very powerful and very dangerous. Well, I am, I've exhausted the things I can say. I don't know whether there's anything Alex wants to add. Well, we're at two, two and a half hours almost. So let's, let's wrap it up.

We'll answer the questions in a dedicated Q&A. That was, that was an awesome live stream. Absolutely. It's always an awesome. It's always an awesome. I have to say, I think this one has risen to the challenge of the moment. because I don't think there's ever been a time, ever been a live stream that we've done, where the issues we've discussed have been this serious, actually.

And of course, it may all turn out well, but if it does, it's because we're having people like us are having programs like this. Yeah, no doubt about that whatsoever. And, you know, maybe I'll be in St. Petersburg soon. We will gladly meet you there, Robert. We hope. I'll be hanging out with Ed Snowden. Yeah.

We very much hope. From what I understand, he's, he's living in St. Pete, isn't he? Yeah, yeah, he's doing pretty well. Everything seems to be the kosher. So, you know, it'll be, you know, what is it? How do you say hello in Russian? I forget. My favorite Russian word is still no, because it's niet.

It sounds like a real no. Priviets, yes, right. But I forget how to say hello in Russia. But what's Dazvedania? That's like a toast of something. goodbye goodbye goodbye goodbye goodbye no svidia that's the toast you're good health but can i just say robert absolutely i would be delighted to meet you in

st petersburg but i still hope and believe that we will first meet in the united states with all of these horrors behind us and we'll be able to meet and toast each other and say that we fought the good fight along which side lots of other people Bobby Kennedy, lots of others, people on Donald Trump's side, and that as a result, we won that battle and that the Republic is secure and safe, that is what I want to see happen. So that's what I hope. That's what I still believe is going to happen. And that's what I fervidly pray for. Well, as Ben Franklin put it, we either hang together or we're going to hang separately.

Exactly. It's going to be a hard fight ahead. that's for sure all right thank you to the great robert barns where can people find you robert for oh yeah for all the content we have exclusive content got hush hush videos up on ukraine amongst other topics kennedy assassination you name it bourbons briefs barns law schools bunch of stuff we all do it at vba barnslaw dot locals dot com the link is in the description box down below and it will also be as a linked comment as well. Thank you to everybody that joined us on this live stream.

Take care.