The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Matt Kibbe & AG Andrew Bailey | 5/30/24

Episode Date: May 30, 2024

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joins to discuss the absurd rules the judge overseeing Trump's hush-money trial allowed before the jurors entered deliberation, including allowing last-minute evidence in the final closing minutes and not printing the juror instructions. BlazeTV host Matt Kibbe of "Kibbe on Liberty" joins to discuss how Anthony Fauci's house of lies and cover-up is crashing down upon him. The Left is on a mission to remove multiple SCOTUS justices, including Samual Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, from any case involving Trump or elections. Glenn calls out the nonsense and also exposes the Left's true goal: to destroy our institutions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

60% of the vans on Amazon come to vendor independent like Sac Magic. Hello, here Camille of Sac Magic. Our compresses, show of fraud are fabriced in Quebec, and our presence on Amazon

enlarge our clientele to the world entire. Trouvee to puttis like our own onotre.com. On today's program, I sadly revealed

that my on-air executive producer almost 20 years went to go see a very strange Nazi movie by himself, a documentary, at first, I believe, glorifying some of the Nazis. No.

Well, that's his story. You know, notice he stopped there? No. Well, good case, Stu. But we also get into the Donald Trump case, which is almost the same kind of thing. But he did that, I think. No-uh. Gavled!

You don't want to miss today's extravaganza. Here it is. First, you have to declare a lot of things when you're traveling on a plane. Guns, ammunition, knives. I swear to you, the sign says swords and fireworks and gasoline. I usually like, because you never know when I'm going to mow a lawn, and I just like a gallon of gasoline with me as a carry-on all the time. But anyway, one thing you don't have to declare is your burn a lawn.

Sure. Non-lethal alternative to safeguarding your home that will send potential threats running in the opposite direction. It's legal in all 50 states. No permits or background checks required can be used by all age groups over 18. And you can pack it in your checked luggage without the need to declare it as a firearm, making your airport experience, you know, better than it's going to be, you know, otherwise. I mean, it never is good. But the burner launcher saves you from a lot. lot of headaches. Right now, visit Burna, B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash Glenn. Get 10% off your burner launcher. It's burnah.com slash Glenn for 10% off. Check out the latest news about Burna as well, B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash Glenn. You're listening to the best of the Glenn.

Not an attorney, so I don't know, but the judge in President Trump's hush money trial told the jury that they don't even have to agree on the crime. They can all think, you know, I think his hair is a crime. You know, four of them. I think his suntan is a crime. And four of them can say, I think, you know, he falsified checks, whatever. Whatever they think the crime is, because it wasn't really defined, even if they don't agree on the crime,

if 12 of them thinks he committed some crime, well, then he's guilty. I've never heard that before. I've served on a jury. I've served on a jury with multiple counts. We had to discuss each count. And we found this person guilty on some counts and not on others. It would have been the easiest thing ever.

We could have been done in 10 minutes, if all we had to do was just, hey, these seven accounts on this guy, does everybody agree he did one of them? Yeah, okay, we're out of here. Is this normal? Andrew Bailey is here. He's the Missouri Attorney General. Kind of knows the law.

Attorney General Bailey, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me on. So, again, I don't know the law. But this does not seem like the American way of justice in our courts. Am I wrong? No, you're absolutely right. This reeks of desperation by the prosecutor and the judge to obtain a conviction. If people were not previously convinced that this was an illicit witch hunt prosecution,

they should be so now. This is insane. Look, since 2020, the United States Supreme Court has said that jury unanimity under in criminal law is required under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was not always that way. There were two states prior to 2020 that did not require jury unanimity under the Sixth Amendment and criminal trials. Louisiana and Oregon for lesser offenses.

And the Supreme Court fixed that in 2020. And so for this prosecutor and this judge to say, hey, whatever you think, go ahead and do what you want, it really, it violates the Sixth Amendment. It violates the president's due process rights because how's he's supposed to know how to offer a defense. If he doesn't even know what the target crime is, that he's, that is an element of the offense for which he's charged. But then also, it empowers this jury to become a roving commission. And again, that reeks of desperation. They don't care.

They're going to throw everything against the wall, listen to all this evidence, not give the jury written jury instructions and just convict them of something whatever you want. Well, there's, what is it? 32 charges, 32 counts, 34 counts. So if two of them believe, you know, he's guilty on number 29 and two of them believe something else, but they don't agree on the same counts, how is that justice? No, I think that's absolutely right. And again, it creates a roving commission. And that violates the basic constitutional tenets that underpin the due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial that has been,

incorporated against the state, and certainly at least since 2020. And again, I think it's desperate. I think it's throw everything against the wall. You know, it also reminds me of there was a Roman emperor who used to nail the laws to the highest point on the columns so that the Roman citizens wouldn't be able to read them. And that's a lot, what this is like. I mean, the judge is saying, jury, you, I'm going to charge you to find a crime, any crime you want, and I'm not going to let you read the jury instructions. Trust me, you got, you guys just go, back and pick something you want to convict them on. Okay, so tell me what the jury instructions mean and why would he not print? Because I understand also that it is clearly printed all the time.

So that's right. I've never tried a case where you didn't give the jury the jury instructions. Why would you not want to? Again, that's the law. Judges determine law. Juries determine facts. And it's up to the jury to apply the facts to the law. And so in closing argument, the prosecutor gets up and says, here's the elements of the offense. Here's the evidence that proves each of these elements. And it's like a checklist and you tick down it. Then you show them the verdict form and say, this is how you find them guilty. And if you're the defense, you stand up and say, the state didn't prove this.

They don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that. And it edges in the jury's mind what to look for in that instruction packet when they go back and deliberate. But how is the jury supposed to apply facts to the law if they can't see the law in front of it? also may I ask when the oh shoot he did something oh in the closing arguments for the prosecution

didn't they introduce new evidence or evidence that wasn't presented and he let it ride completely objectionable should have been stricken from the record and the jury should have been admonished to ignore that it's called facts not in evidence. It's one of the first objections you learn in any evidence class in law school.

And to have the prosecutor for the state of New York, Matthew Colangelo, Alvin Bragg, having that team stand up and testify as if their witnesses, the fact that had not been introduced is completely impermissible. It demonstrates an abuse of the judge's discretion. It should have been stricken from the record. The jury should have been admonished. But again, I'm going to go back to this idea of a roving commission. The thing about our experience under Colonial England, where general warrants were issued by magistrates and the British soldiers could search your home and quartering your home for no basis whatsoever, just on any level of suspicion. And you didn't even have to be charged with an actual offense that you would then be able to defend against. Vague allegations were sufficient to jail you. And so the founders erected these constitutional barriers to that kind of government intrusion into our individual liberal. And again, the Sixth Amendment requires jury unanimity, which has been violated here. But it also prevents a, the due process clause also prevents a roving commission where the law is

so abstract that the jury can roam freely through the evidence and choose any fact it wants to create liability. That is not the, again, that is not what this country is founded upon. That violates the president's constitutional rights. And it's once again, just demonstrate this was never about a legally valid conviction. This was never about an actual crime. there is no crime. This was always about taking President Trump off the campaign trail, and that ends up violating all of our rights.

Okay, so, so Andrew, I'm thinking about why this guy would do this, because I would imagine this is a slam dunk overturn. Wouldn't it be? Yeah, absolutely. It should have been dismissed at the close of state's evidence for failure to actually prosecute a criminal offense, failure to offer proof beyond a reason to out on some of the ailments, it then should have been dismissed once again at the close of all the evidence. This should have never even gone to the jury. And the fact that they've now rigged the jury process to avoid the unanimity requirement. And to create this roving commission, just once again is one more piece of evidence to prove the illicit nature of the witch hunt

prosecution. So do you believe this was done possibly, excuse me, do you believe this was done possibly because they just want the felon name after and then just dispute, well, it was some conservative court that overturned it. You know, we know the truth. I mean, that's the only reason I can think of why you would do this. Why would a judge want to be overturned, especially when it is so clearly going to be overturned? Glenn, I think you're absolutely right. I think two other points to make here. Again, the process and the timing. I mean, this is a crucial period when President Trump needs to be courting the electorate and public, and instead he's tied down into Manhattan courtroom. But secondly, think about how long an appeal takes. That doesn't

happen overnight. I mean, to the extent he is convicted, to the extent they have been an illegal, illicit conviction this week or next, sentencing will be pushed out 45 to 60 days, you know, at most. And then an appeal is going to take a year or more. And so this takes us in, you know, Even if President Trump is elected president, this will haunt him and this will undermine the first few years of his administration. This is just nuts. They poisoned a well that we'll be drinking from for years from now. I mean, you want to talk about the end of the republic. It's this kind of stuff that ends the republic.

You don't win. Because it's not just about him. This goes back to what Stalin created, what the king, King George created. Find me the man, I'll find you the crime. You know, it, there, there is no justice if things like this happen. One last question. I served on a jury once and, you know, it was a serious case, but not a, you know, not a murder or anything else. But it was, it was, you know, abuse of a wife.

And we had, I don't know how many charges and we kept calling the judge. because we thought the judge was, you know, our friend and fair. And we'd ask him and he'd say, I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that. Here are the instructions. You have to go. And we'd call them back in. I can't tell you that.

Here are the instructions. And we couldn't agree on all of the counts. And so we ended up on, I think, on maybe two counts out of eight or something like that. Because we were split. if we would have been able to say, oh, you four want this and you four think that case and that four think this, we would have been out of there by now. Does it say anything that they have such a wide berth to agree on anything? And it takes them a while to get through this? I mean, I would have been done.

We would honestly, if we had those instructions, we would have been. been done the first day. Yeah, I mean, that's right. And again, that's why jury unanimity is so important to our constitutional structure, to our individual rights, you know, and also the due process clause to prevent that kind of roving commission. I mean, the prosecution's case here is best summed up as there is no crime. So let's see how much garbage we can throw on a wall, see if any of it sticks, and try to convince someone that it's criminal behavior. And the judge is going to collude with us, not allow the jury to see the law, and then agree that, yeah, you are a Roving Commission. Anything you want to find that's criminal, it's a grab bag, you pick it, you choose it, you don't

have to agree, let's get out of here with a conviction as fast as we can't. It is, and it undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system. I also think it's dripping with irony that this is happening in a state like New York where they're not prosecuting actual criminals. I know. I mean, this is a state that prides itself on criminal justice reform and, you know, bail for everyone with a, you know, cashless bail for everyone. And one standard of justice. this is Alvin Bragg's Monkjohn's website. I mean, how can he even look at himself in the mirror

and keep a straight face with that kind of nonsense going on? I'm sorry, no, I promised one last question, but again, one last question. The jury just sent the judge a note. They want to reread the instructions beginning with how they should consider facts and what inferences can be drawn. What do you take from that?

I think that's problematic. It means that they know that they don't have direct evidence to prove some of the elements. of the offense. But remember, there are two, there are two attorneys on that jury. And those attorneys are telling, look, we don't need direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence, which includes reasonable inferences, is sufficient to obtain a conviction. So it means they're stretching. And I'm, I think it's a reasonable inference for us as outsiders to draw that those attorneys are inviting that jury to stretch and use circumstantial evidence to try to find any crime.

Jeez. Thank you so much. Andrew, I appreciate it. He's the Andrew Bailey. He's the Missouri Attorney General. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate you having me on. Thank you.

God bless. What is the thing you're missing out on today because of pain? Whatever that thing is, what would you give to be able to do it again? And what if I told you you might be able to? You could. I want you to give relief factor a try. It's 100% drug-free. It's a daily supplement that helps your body fight pain naturally.

Developed by doctors, Relief Factory uses a unique formula of natural ingredients and addresses the inflammation in your body, which is where almost all of our pain starts. And it doesn't just mask the pain for a short time. You don't take it when you're in pain. You take it every day. Okay. And it helps to remove or reduce or eliminate your pain all day, every day. Wherever you're hurting, in about three weeks or less, you'll see a difference and

rediscover what it's like to feel better and live better every day. Over a million people have tried relief factor. 70% of them go on to order more because it works for them. Try it for yourself, please. Relieffactor.com. That's Relieffactor.com. Call 800 the number four relief. 800, the number four relief. Now back to the podcast. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. And don't forget, rate us on iTunes. A SARS-like virus now reached the United States. This really came from a market that sold seafood and put the mask back on. I want to tell you a little something about trust.

It may be the most important thing you can have in this life. Can I not clearly explain the circle of trust to you, Greg? No trust, no healthy relationships. No trust, you're paranoid at work. No trust in God, no faith. No trust. And every institution will crumble. We've lost trust, all of it, and not just in America, throughout the entire damn world.

And it's really no mystery why. They lied to us over and over and over and over and over and over again. The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research. We didn't give them this much power. They took it with all those lies. And they still are. We did fight back. We may not agree with them, but the world.

rules of the rules. And we still are. FDNY personnel who oppose the mandate are making their feelings known. But they have so much control with blackmail, lies, manipulation, money. Their slimy, evil tentacles are wrapped around every institution, every avenue that could possibly lead us to truth. Every avenue, but this one. We're just one of the few. just one of the few that refuse to submit, refuse to bend the knee, refuse to let this COVID catastrophe go unanswered. Because without trust, this nation fails. And the only way to restore

trust is with a little bit of truth. It makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says. Thank you. History will figure that out of return. Truth is the only way to restore this nation and to restore every fiber of freedom that runs through. So tonight, we expose the truth of what happened. Not only the origin, the moves, the players involved in this entire pandemic narrative that is destroying us, but we'll show you the cover-up of all of it as well. Tonight, crimes or cover-up? Exposing the world. most dangerous lie. Now, that was 2001. And let me give you 60 seconds of what we talked about in 2001. What we knew by piecing things together without really anyone releasing documents.

Listen. And this is why it's a cover-up. We know that U.S. taxpayer dollars were going to Wuhan, China, through eco-health. So here we have a virology expert that claimed the consensus among their peers was that COVID was not natural. Part of his research was done via funding from the U.S. government to Peter Dazek and Echo Health Alliance directly to Dr. Shee in China. He responds with, quote, I spent New Year's Eve talking with our China contacts. I've got a lot more information, but it's all off the record, all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from an evolutionary theory.

That means this was lab made. Two days prior, he said COVID looked like it was manipulated in a lab. These are the conversation people like Fauci were having in private. Meanwhile, in public, they were denying everything and diverting attention. The dangerous sentences that were redacted, and that quote, there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted. Wait, what?

If scientists and journalists spoke out about any of this, they were silenced immediately. We were demonetized for a very long time because this network would not play the game. There was too many things wrong. In 2021, I did a special. just connecting the dots. There's one man, and I think he deserves an awful lot of credit, Rand Paul, who was like a dog with a bone, being a doctor and a senator,

he didn't have to play those games. And he knew Fauci was lying. Now, with Matt Kibby, some people are going to pay. Matt Kibby is a Blaze TV host of Kibby on Liberties also the president of Free the People who we have partnered with to air tonight's documentary all about the cover up as it comes crumbling down. My friend Matt Kibby, how are you? I feel like we've been working up to this moment for years now. We have. And people, nobody thinks anybody's going to pay.

But I actually believe. because of what you're going to start showing tonight. And with Rand Paul, there's no, it's going to happen. You know, you were right to your special in 2021 was one of the triggers that my wife would tell you that you've made her life insufferable because I'm just obsessed about this stuff. I know, right? And I've been obsessed now for four plus years. And I started off just having sort of a libertarian instinct that these authorities, authoritarian measures just didn't make sense and they were going to create so much collateral

damage. But when you start going down the rabbit hole, you peel away the layers of the onion. And it's something so much bigger than me as a cynical libertarian that always expects government to screw up. Oh, no. This is. But now, now I'm seeing this big thing. And I don't have a chalkboard, but I have one of those, those crazy quilt things where you use yarn to, right, to draw one line. to another. Right. And that was really the, the, a lot of inspirations for the series, a lot of conversations I've had both on camera and off with Rand Paul, who also was a dog with a bone that just

wouldn't let Fauci get away with it. I mean, he's a doctor, so he instinctually knew, could understand some of the, the claims just didn't make sense. Correct. Me as an economist, I'm way outside of my lane now, but we all had to become, uh, yeah, epidemiologists, right? Well, we all, we, the one thing we had in common, you and I at least, you know, because you're in a commas, I'm just a alcoholic DJ that just found himself here. But the one thing we had in common was it doesn't make sense.

And when it doesn't make sense, you can either sit in your little hole and dream up, you know, conspiracies or you can start digging and looking for the facts. And Matt, I had, at the time, you know this because you watched it, at the time, I had just enough of their conversations and enough of, wait a minute, this guy went into the meeting, these two went into the meeting and they changed their mind. And they were hardcore. Why did they change their mind? Wait a minute. This email redacted looks as though Fauci and, uh, dad, uh, Dasick are colluding to change the narrative and they know what's going on. Now you have the goods.

Tell me what you have found and what is now available. So, I mean, and it's been pretty banner a couple weeks on this stuff because a lot of Fauci's deputies are starting to talk. I think they know there is trouble coming. Right. They know the trouble's coming. So we now, we had a former NIH director announce in testimony that, of course, we were doing gain of function research. Jeez. So pretty much a smoking gun where, you know, Fauci is constantly calling Senator Paul a liar.

The oversight, the responsibility, the constitutional responsibility, you have a mid-level bureaucrat calling him a liar. I'm like, okay, there's something there. Yeah. So you just start, you start to unweave these things. things. And the scary thing about this, this series is really trying to be open-minded about how far we're going to go. But I think this, this is a story much bigger than simply, uh, rogue bureaucrats chasing money and power. It's much bigger than even sort of arrogant scientists saying, I can redesign these, these viruses and not cause anything else. I'm more powerful than God

nature. You're just peeling it back. And this is what Jay Batacharya tells me in the first episode. This wasn't a public health response. It certainly wasn't a scientific response. It probably is a national security response. And why are they even involved? And that's to me, wait, wait, what do you mean by that? It's a national security response. I mean that the actors, and we still don't know who they all are. Don't work at NIH. They don't work at the CDC. They work in the alphabet agencies,

starting with Homeland Security. Fill me in on that, because I didn't see that coming. I thought we were going to go to the Pentagon. Tell me about Homeland Security. Well, Homeland Security, FBI, maybe the CIA, but they use words that don't,

explicitly say CIA. But it's funny, you... Really? The CIA wouldn't be clear on something? You slipped up and earlier and said 2001 instead of 2021. Right. Which was a Freudian slip because I think this story goes back to the response to anthrax and the response to the war on terror and a bipartisan, an obsession with bioterrorism, both Cheney in the Bush White House, Joe Biden, a guy you may

have heard of before, who was... And he occasionally has heard that name before. Yeah. I don't know. I know that name for some reason. I don't know if you would recognize that. I know. But we're discovering, I believe, and uncovering a mad science experiment driven by the security agencies to come up with this grandiose mad science experiment where we're going to imagine what our enemies might do to us. We're going to go harvest those viruses. We're going to manipulate them. And then we're going to come up with a solution to everything. Okay. So wait, but, you know, people don't understand. Congress got to do something. No, that's the The Constitution is meant to slow people down because there's something happens and you're like,

we've got to act now. No. But can you give anyone at that time, if that's where you believe this starts, the benefit of the doubt that they honestly thought maybe they were doing the right thing? Oh, I think we should still assume that arrogance and misguise. people with too much power and too much belief that they're smart enough to do such wild crazy things. Right. We're explicitly trying to come up with a response to some biosecurity threat. Remember, anthrax was a scare. And we didn't know who did it or why they did it, and we probably still don't know who or why.

But they were saying, we need a response. What if our worst enemies come up with a deadly virus and destroy us? You have to ask how we ended up in China building dangerous viruses. Yes, you do. But I think, and I think Jay Bautacharya, who I talked to in this first episode, he believes that it was a well-meaning but catastrophically dangerous and stupid policy. And I think if Fauci would have come out right away and said, we were involved, we were doing this, That's probably at least a chance of that, but we were well meeting.

He would have paid a big price for it because it was against the law. But people would have kind of understood. But the minute he started being draconian and making us pay for his life, he was doomed. Yeah. So I think there's two pieces of that. He's obviously being a consummate apparatchik. He's a bureaucrat. He's a climber.

He's politically savvy on TV. He knows how to lie well. But I also think there was this philosophical, ideological, ideological bent that all of these central planners had. Yes. They actually believe that they can rationally redesign civil society from the top down, giving scientists and other experts all the power. This is the whole basis. A civil society 2.0? Yeah.

That's the whole. color revolution thing. They can redesign. It's the Fabian socialist. It goes all the way back. I mean, the entire progressive movement was this arrogance, right? But it goes back before that. The guy that founded socialism

of French aristocrat, he actually had this vision where he would replace civil society with a council of scientists. Correct. And they would just rearrange the dominoes and were just molecules, I guess, in this scenario.

You're streaming the best of the Glenn Beck podcast. To hear more of this interview, find the full episode, wherever you get podcasts. Okay. This is so out of control. We're going to start with what they're trying to do to the Supreme Court now. Everything, if you watched last night and you're a Blaze TV subscriber, thank you. I said it a couple of times in show. We do not save the Republic if we don't know what's being done. You cannot walk blindly into the next six months. And I don't know anybody that is really laying it out like we're laying it out. But once you understand the Rosetta Stone of what is happening to us, all of these stories make sense. Now, why are they going after the Supreme Court justices right now?

They're going after Thomas. They're going after Alito. They're going after now Amy Coney Barrett. Why? Well, you would say to get them to recuse themselves on anything Donald Trump, and that's what they're saying, but that's not it. they are destroying that institution because all institutions need to be destroyed, discredited, and made to look fascistic. You'll notice if you're somebody who is honest and you haven't been, you know, co-opted by one party or another, our republic is in real danger.

Either way we go, we're in real danger. And I don't mean because of Donald Trump. I mean, will Donald Trump surround himself, and so far I think so, surround himself and listen to enough constitutional people to hold the line on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? He did last time. He talks a game. He is an entertainer. Can anyone understand that? He uses hyperbole and he's an entertainer.

He's actually quite funny if you understand you don't take his words seriously, or I'm sorry, literally, you take him seriously. How many times did he say last time, you know what, I should just get rid of the, we should just abolish the license for the press. Well, there is no license for the press in the first place. and conservatives, I would hope, would be against that. So they try to make him into Hitler while they are making us into a semi-autocratic state. We are very close to becoming autocratic, meaning a dictatorship. All you have to do is either pack the court or attack the court. This is all part of a what's called a, what's called,

color revolution, something that we did with our tax dollars through the CIA all the way through the Cold War. And we all thought it was okay because we were fighting communism. But they never stopped. In fact, they found a better way to do it. They went through the State Department, and then all of these NGOs, I lay this all out last night, all of these NGOs that can do the work for the CIA and the State Department but they work together and they have overthrown

the Middle East I didn't realize it at the time but it wasn't it was a few hours in when we heard that the White House had called Zuckerberg and everybody else and said don't stop the social

media don't because social media was part of it that's how you have a color revolution. You have to co-op the media. You have to then have a semi-autocratic, not fully, a semi-autocratic government where you can say, this is fascistic. Then you have to have elections. Once you have all of the pieces, and I laid them out, there's seven, there's seven pieces of this. I'll explain it later if we have time. But watch the show. It comes out on YouTube today. Good luck with that.

comes out on YouTube today at 6 p.m. on my YouTube channel, YouTube.com slash Glenn Beck. But I lay it all out. There's seven steps. We have all seven of them now. So what are they doing to let's start with Alito? Well, let's start at the beginning.

What did they do just a few months ago with Clarence Thomas? Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a friend and rode on his jet. And that friend, now this is going to come as a surprise to you, Clarence Thomas went on vacation with somebody who is conservative. He didn't go with a deep, deep progressive. You know, he's never taken a vacation with George Soros. Who would have thunk? So they go after him.

Then they go after Samuel Alito. Now, this one is getting worse and worse and worse. What was it? First, we know that his wife just on January 6th flew the flag upside down. Well, that would be appropriate no matter which side you were on. And I think at least everybody I know in my circle of friends, and I don't have George Soros fans in my circle of friends. We were all horrified and thought our country is in real peril on January 6th. It would be appropriate. for either side to have flown that on January 6. Okay, that's the argument we have been having. Okay.

But I've got some new facts that have just come out. And it's quite interesting. Then we find out that she flew the appeal to heaven flag, which is, of course, just means Christian nationalism. Well, it also was the ship, was the flag for all of the ships in Massachusetts. George Washington came up with a flag, and it was all really kind of about the lumber to make the sails and the masts of buildings and to be, I'm sorry, of ships, so they could build ships and have these giant masks because we had giant trees. but let me tell you now what we do know on the Samuel Alito thing.

What we just found out is that it's really not about the flags. It's not about January 6th. There's some neighbors of Justice Alito. Now, I know what this is like to have neighbors who love you and who hate you. and we'll do everything they can to destroy you. I know. I lived in New York City. There was a woman that moved, and she's 35 years old.

She moved into her mom's house, just a few doors down from the Alito's. She is a BLM activist, also a retired PBS executive. Okay? She decides to move into her mom's house with her boyfriend and their pandemic. and their pandemic puppy. They needed a pandemic puppy because the masks, of course. So she decided that she was going to start picketing the Alito's house abort Scotis, fascist Elito.

Alito was at January 6th. So she's picketing the Alito's house. the Alito's house. This is before the flag. She then plasters her mother's front yard near a school with political signs that say

F Trump. Trump is a fascist. You are complicit. And then her daughter or her boyfriend called Mrs. Alito the C word. she was a little upset.

You know, especially your 70s, you're in your 70s, you're not living in Britain. The Seaward is really probably the worst thing you can call a woman in America. That is when she hoisted the upside down flag. Their house had been picketed. They had now somebody in the neighborhood across the street. with absolutely no reason for children, no concern. And then when she brings it up, her or her boyfriend calls her the C word. Yeah, I think that would be somebody that would say,

you know what, our country has gone to hell. What the hell? What is this? We can't be civil? Because she went after she took the signs out about Donald Trump and everything in the school. that's when she went to this woman, Mrs. Alito, and said, graciously, thank you for removing those signs. That's when she was called the C-word.

Okay. All right. So it had nothing to do with Stop the Steel. But did the New York Times until today even allude to that? No. No. No, we just heard about how the upside down flag was flown on January or right after January 6th because she was a big supporter of riots right across the street from where her husband works.

Makes a lot of sense. Now, what else did we find out? Well, we also found out that remember when we, Stu, we tried to tell you the story of the, the appeal to heaven flag. The first place I went was Wikipedia. And then I went to other sites to verify. But I quoted Wikipedia by saying it was a sign of distress that was used in the 60s. Do you remember that paragraph?

Used in the 60s. And then I said, and also now, blah, blah, blah. And I questioned that. We both questioned that. I knew it from the 60s. I have never seen it any place else. Do you remember? Mm-hmm.

Okay. Well, now we know why. Wikipedia had edited the pine tree flag page, and it's still happening. On Wednesday, it was just a normal flag. By Friday, it was a symbol of Christian nationalism and right-wing extremism. Now, guess who used to run Wikipedia and set all the people in place? Who is the CEO of Wikipedia? The woman who is now running NPR that we've been talking about in conservative circles

that is so far left, remember? The guy from NPR said, we're completely out of control. And do you know where she worked before Wikipedia? She was at the State Department where she was working in countries we were doing a color revolution. Do you see what's happening here? Now we have Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland. He's arguing that the Department of Justice could force Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and now Amy Coney

Barrett off of any election case, anything about Donald Trump. He says, you know, the time has come where we just can't trust these judges to do the right thing. Okay, so what are they accusing now Amy Coney Barrett of doing? Well, nothing. However, her husband is now representing a local Fox News, news station, okay, in some court case. So would that be like Judge Juan Merchant, the one that is in New York on this Stormy Daniels case, where his conflict is his daughter is raising tens of

millions of dollars on behalf of the Democratic Party? I mean, because he's just doing what John Adams did. if you want to look at Fox News as something horrible, a local Fox News station, oh, it's just the most evil thing ever. John Adams represented the British when we were fighting the British. So he's just doing what he's supposed to do. A conflict of interest will maybe, I don't think so. could you have any more? Like, I don't know. What he does will help Amy become a bigger judge someplace else.

Where we have the judge in New York playing all kinds of games just to make sure that he gets a conviction and making his daughter very, very famous and able to raise tens of millions of dollars for the Democrats. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Or not. Americans do not sit down. Don't riot. I don't have to tell you these things. You just appeal to heaven and stand your ground.

Do not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity. You are on the right side of history. May God save the Republic. When you were little, you have braced some of course of recreat. Always in trying to negotiate, exchange these cards of hockey, the bonhom,

these bracelets, even de collation. You know that each thing has a value very before to have to be counted. And from, the things have not really changed. Negoti-tit-titred TD you can't renew with your instinct of negotiation.

With without operation gratuite, no amount of minimum and no free mensual. You're made for negotiate for the appellee-nogist-tit-T-D

is made for you aid. Telecharge it right now.