Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1073 Black Lives Matter SLAMS Democratic Party For INSTALLING Kamala Harris w/Andrew Bailey

Episode Date: July 24, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, & Ian are joined by AG Andrew Bailey of Missouri to discuss BLM rejecting the Democrats nominating Kamala Harris, Andrew Bailey discussing the HAVV system and voter role cleanup, Time Magazine admitting there was a shadow campaign during the 2020 election, and SCOTUS demanding New York respond to Missouri's lawsuit. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Guest: AG Andrew Bailey @AGAndrewBailey (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win.

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Joe Biden's alive. Yeah, he was he was seen getting out of a car and boarding a plane. So he is alive.

And I kind of have that normalcy bias, like I expected it. But considering we've been through, I guess, what, like a couple dozen unprecedented historical moments, I thought it was possible that he just never shows up again. He didn't really speak, though. So, you know, it is what it is. We'll talk about that. Kamala Harris has secured the nomination, at least in essence, calling herself the presumptive nominee. She's got enough delegates pledged to support her. She's got enough delegates pledged to support her. She's winning the prediction markets, but she may not get access to Joe Biden's funds because the Trump, I believe Trump's campaign, Republicans and Democrats are arguing you cannot

transfer funding from Joe Biden's donations to her. So all the Biden HQ donations might get refunded to their donors, which could be big. And then, of course, we've got the the big funny story. Black Lives Matter slams the DNC for installing Kamala Harris. And why this is oh so funny is that Joy Reid is basically saying, if you don't vote for Kamala Harris, you ain't black. She didn't say it literally like that, but that's basically what she's saying. So we'll talk about that. Plus, we're going to talk about the lawsuit against New York for interfering in the election. Supreme Court has ordered them to answer. And we've got the AG actually here with us. So before we get started, my friends, head over to castbrew.com to buy coffee. Delicious cast brew coffee. When you buy cast brew,

you're supporting our show. You know, with Ian here, I got to say, Ian's Graphene Dream is quickly becoming one of the more popular blends. Have you had it? I haven't yet had it, but we're getting incredible feedback. People love the low-acidity coffee. Appalachian Nights, of course, is everybody's favorite. So if you want to support the show, you can buy our coffee over at castbrew.com. But also, head over to timcast.com, click Join Us us become a member to support our work directly and you'll

get access to the members only uncensored show coming up at 10 p.m where you as members get to call in to talk to us and our guests to join the show and as a member you're making all of this possible we can't do this without you guys as members you basically fuel the whole operation so if you think the show is good and you want to keep going timcast.com click join us become a member but also don't forget to smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with all of your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Attorney General Andrew Bailey. Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Do you want to just give a quick introduction to, you know, who you are and what you do? Yeah, man, I'm the Attorney General for the state of Missouri. And so I represent the state and the people of the state. We're the law firm for the state of Missouri. And so I represent the state and the people of the state. We're the law firm for the state of Missouri. And we've done a lot of work since I've been in office, not only protecting Missouri consumers against fraudulent business practices and prosecuting criminals. We removed the Soros-backed prosecutor in the city of St. Louis who was refusing to do her job. It's the first time a state attorney general has taken legal action against a Soros-backed prosecutor. We've increased criminal prosecution statewide by 133 percent. So real tangible results were from the show me state results matter.

And we've taken on the Biden administration. I mean, more than 50 lawsuits against the Biden administration and the federal overreach that we see coming out of Washington, D.C. right now. There's no sanction in the United States Constitution for an unelected fourth branch of government. And so using lawsuits to assert state sovereignty and push back against that federal overreach when you've got that alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies infringing on our rights, it's really critical to the work we do. One of the most important lawsuits I filed is our lawsuit against the state of New York to stop a rogue prosecutor and collusive judiciary from hijacking our national election. I'll tell you, this lawfare against President Trump is poisoning our democratic process.

We're using every tool at our disposal to fight back. Right on. Thanks for hanging out. We got Ian hanging out. Yeah, geez. Well, speaking of poisoning, I wonder if Biden was poisoned. We'll talk about that on the show tonight. It just crossed my mind last night that maybe he was. I don't know. But shout out to Cas Brew. I love the graphene dream. I got to always remind myself, it's not low caffeine. It's just low acid.

So I'm still getting wired when I drink that stuff. But I had some of that 530. You can't have extra. Have you had it yet? No, I haven't. I really want to try it because I had never heard of low acidity coffee, but it seems like it makes sense. People probably love it for digestion and animal, things like that.

Less inflammation. Yeah. It's great. But you still got to watch that caffeine intake. Love you. Get it at Casbrew.com. I'm Hannah-Claire Brimel. I'm a writer for scnr.com scanner news. Check out all the work at Tim Kess news when we get started. Here we go. We got the first story from scnr.com BLM Black Lives Matter pans DNC as party of hypocrites for installing VP Harris as Democratic nominee. We do not live in a dictatorship. Delegates are not oligarchs. I have tremendous respect for whoever took over that Twitter account, that X account,

and is calling out the DNC for doing exactly what we've been calling him out for. We have this thread from Black Lives Matter on X, verified account. How many followers they got? A million followers. Sunday, Joe Biden drops out. Kamala announces campaign with Biden endorsement. Kamala says she's going to work hard to earn the nomination. Kamala makes calls to party delegates. Monday, Kamala Harris continues making calls to party delegates. Kamala Harris makes two public speeches. The Associated Press announces Kamala Harris has secured enough delegates to be the nominee by Monday night. Kamala releases a statement noting she has worked hard to go out and earn this nomination as promised. A 24-hour process of talking to party bosses is not

democratic, nor is it a process Democrats should be proud of. We do not live in a dictatorship. Delegates are not oligarchs. Installing Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee and an unknown vice president without any public voting process would make the modern Democratic Party a party of hypocrites. We call on the DNC to create a process that allows for public participation in the nomination process, not just a nomination by party delegates. Hear, hear Black Lives Matter. And I want to say this. We were just at the RNC, the Republican National Convention, and it was a great it was a whole lot of fun. Had a cheeseburger with a gluten free bun. How about that? And many people asked if we're going to be at the Democratic National Convention, to which I said absolutely not, because I've grown quite fond of living. I do not want to go to the DNC where it's going to be violent and chaotic. Wouldn't the left protest the right? Absolutely not. There were some protesters. They stood outside, they waved little flags and they complained and they said Donald Trump should

be in prison. And we said, OK, and that was it. The DNC is the door for the far left extremists. The far left protesting the RNC is basically them trying to scale the Great Wall and to break their way in. That's an absurdity. The Democratic Party, however, is a door guarded by a few party elites that they feel they can break down. Now that Kamala Harris is trying to play the I just get to be the nominee game and the progressive far left wing, especially with that protest we saw in D.C. of the anti-Israel groups taking over, these people are not going to accept this. So it's going to be a brokered convention. And just like in 1968, it will be a brokered convention. And just like in 1968, it will be a brokered convention. And they also expect it is going to be bedlam outside.

What's a brokered convention? There's no stated not. So normally in a primary process, everybody votes. The delegates from the area where the vote takes place are pledged to support the person people voted for, kind of like the Electoral College. So you've got like five delegates in one area and they say everybody votes for Joe Biden. Those delegates are loyal to Biden. They show up at the convention and they cast their vote. A brokered convention, they can do whatever they want. There's no nominee.

So Kamala Harris calls up all these delegates and says, you're going to vote for me. And they said, you got it. And she publicly announces, I've got the nomination. So the far left is not going to have it. Right. It deters anyone else from challenging her. It was amazing to me how quickly everyone sort of got in line behind Kamala Harris, who let's remember was a farther left option who did not make it very far when she ran her own presidential campaign. But it's like of the 47 Democrats in the Senate, 45 had had already thrown out endorsements for her.

One of the only ones who hadn't. Well, one was Bob Menendez, who's, you know, going to resign and has resigned and he was found guilty. So he's kind of in an outward position anyways. But then also it's Jon Tester from Montana who probably can't come out and endorse endorse Harris because he's in a state that is likely going to get flipped. I mean, there's a very serious belief that that will become a Republican seat. And then in the House, it's like, you know, I think in total I have 192 people have already endorsed of like 212 endorse Harris. I mean, they just fell in line so quickly, including Chuck Schumer, who waited 48 hours and then said, now that the process has played out, we're going to endorse Harris, which is like, what process? And you see when he clapped for himself and nobody clapped?

Yeah, it was really- Kamala won and then no one clapped. He's like, oh, okay, I'm clapping. On my drive over here, I was like, okay, this is the party that's been screaming about protecting democracy. We have to stop the threat to democracy. Then a candidate gets installed. And I see people posting about how grateful they are that a candidate got installed, threatening the democratic process for the people that are afraid of the threat to democracy.

You know, there were complaints in 2016 when Hillary Clinton, it seemed like the process was rigged in 2016. And so then to be reliving that seemed like, yeah, I mean, it was rigged in 2016. And yeah, I mean, this is even worse. I mean, at least that played out over a primary season. And here it's like this bait and switch where there have been primaries and caucuses for Biden. And then, clarify this too, rigged. Of course, the far left and the media is going to attack that by making the claim that we're saying Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went behind closed doors and shifted votes. No, no, no, no.

The media was colluding. The party officials were working to the greatest extent imaginable to block Bernie Sanders. We know that Hillary Clinton was given the questions in advance by, I think it was Donna Brazile, I could be wrong. It's been a long time. Donna Brazile. Yeah. And you know, the WikiLeaks emails that WikiLeaks released the emails. And we saw great party collusion to block Bernie Sanders, the popular Democratic choice. Once again, in 2020, all these candidates unite against Bernie Sanders, endorse Joe Biden to shift all those votes. And I think the reason they did this structure, keeping Joe Biden as long

as possible, was to block any other grassroots contender, because let's be real, RFK Jr. would be the Democratic nominee were it not for this game they played. Kamala Harris could not get a single, what did she get? A single delegate. Not one. She drops out in disgrace, and now she's the nominee? By what metric should she be the nominee? Black Lives Matter. Bravo for calling her out. But I'll say it. Chicago is going to be.

Let's just let's just pray for our friends and families in Chicago. I've been praying for Donald Trump, to be honest, for his safety and his health, because if something were to happen to him, I'm like war gaming in my mind. Who would become the Republican nominee? Would it be Vivek? Would it be J.D. Vance at this point would it be would it be nikki haley and then she's more salvageable than than kamala and then we get nikki haley and pompeo as the vp president vp and then they take us into war with iran like real quick what do you mean salvageable do you mean like

she'll be worse than no like like more palatable i guess is a better word nikki haley would be more palatable than this girl who got less, no delegates in her first attempt when her campaign was completely sunk in like a three-minute diatribe by Tulsi Gabbard talking about her record in California, imprisoning, like keeping people in prison for slave labor, arresting people. I don't know what exactly.

It was an amazing moment from Tulsi Gabbard. Really highly recommend watching that clip again. But I just, I pray for Trump's safety. We'll play it in a little bit. Really highly recommend watching that clip again. But I just I pray for Trump's safety and for a legitimate process right now. Yeah. Dripping with irony that the left continues to attack our democratic processes while screaming about being the sacred guardians of democracy. Right now, you've got Donald Trump, who was chosen for the Republican Party by popular mandate. They held the primary process. Nikki Haley was involved. Vivek Ramaswamy was involved. You had Ron DeSantis. That was a real primary. In the early

days of the primary, I remember when we were in Des Moines, Iowa, Vivek was legitimately like, I want to win. Nikki Haley is running. We were hoping Vivek would beat Nikki Haley, but we still wanted Trump to win. And the people voted and said, we want Donald Trump. And there you go. Vivek bows out and has now taken an amazing role. I don't know what his official role is. He's working with Trump or whatever, but he's been very active in Republican Party politics and speaking at many conventions. And he's buying up BuzzFeed. I mean, he is really committed to what he said he was going to do, which is he wanted to change culture. I think that's commendable. Even Nikki Haley has now endorsed Donald Trump. So they're all lining up saying,

look, this is the people's choice. The Democrats are doing the the opposite. And they're just like, you don't get to you don't get to say your choice was Joe Biden, because that's the only person we allowed. We ousted RFK Jr. Now Biden's leaving because he's infirm. And we're telling you it's kamala it is the democratic party anti-democratic calling the party with actual democratic voting processes fascists one of the so there's like a less than i think there are 12 uh members of congress less than 20 that have not they've released statements on biden leaving but they haven't endorsed uh kamala harris and one of them is rashida Tlaib.

And she's like the Palestinian-American elected official. And so I think there are actually more people who would have liked to see other options. And there is probably pressure coming internally, like fall in line, do what we say. Otherwise, we will potentially not support you in your race for reelection. AG, you're voting for Trump, I'd imagine. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I'm curious about the pressure in the party, because I know for a long time you have this split. You have Republicans who

despise Donald Trump, but it seems like that's mostly shifted away as many members of the party at the higher level, like people who have been in elected office for a long time, have begun to accept that the people think he's the right choice. Have you felt pressure from any groups to be like we like early on with desantis we don't want trump or has it been fairly easy to just say look i want to vote for trump i mean it's always been easy for me i was

the first statewide official to endorse president trump and it's because he leads a movement that puts americans first and has has led a movement that has expanded the republican party to places it wasn't going to go on its own and no one else was going to get us there. Look at this guy. He's your phone for Trump, right? I mean, the jury's out, man. I don't know if I'm going to vote. He's going to vote for Trump. But I'll tell you what, I support the democratic process above all. I mean, it's just we're at this point where a middle of the road person is just like, well, I don't want to choose Coppola, you know, a Kamala

cop who is appointed. Donald Trump, at least there's a lot of people who are behind him, but no new wars. I mean, you can throw everything out the window to say no new wars. Of course, they're going to call Trump a fascist. It's BS. This whole this concept, this logic, it's not it's illogical that you need to override the democratic process to protect against the threat to democracy is insanity. Truly the definition of insanity.

Yeah. I mean, they are focused on, they think that the ends justify the means. And that violates basic rule of law principles. It violates, it's antithetical to who we are as an American people, as a constitutional democratic republic. How can people push back against this if they truly believe this is legal? You know, I think taking action at the convention to the extent, I think that's where people are going to sound off on this. And, you know, at the end of the day, the Democratic Party, like I said, you've had caucuses, you've had primaries. Those people have spoken and now their voice is being stifled in silence.

This has never been about a process. It's always been about control, to your point. I'm, you know, I'm ready to join some of these protests. I literally don't want to join a leftist protest because they're going to burn things down and hurt innocent people. But I mean, in spirit, from the armchair level, I'm right there with if Antifa shows up in Chicago to protest the Democratic Party, I support their peaceful endeavors, challenging the party and calling them out. the dnc is as corrupt as they come they've it's been this bad since 2016 and what what what drives me crazy is i was for bernie 2015 i was

like you know donald trump seemed like another it to me he seemed like it was a clown show i was like i don't know what that is it does not not seem real or legitimate. It seems too jokey. Hillary Clinton was she she's she actively was like promoting war with Russia. And now look where we are. And I'm just like, none of these people make any sense. And then comes Bernie Sanders. And he's just some like he wasn't he wasn't worth a lot of money at the time. He was advocating for workers rights. He had a lot in common with Donald Trump.

And I mean it. Go back to 2015 and look at the policies they shared. They both hated lot in common with Donald Trump. And I mean it. Go back to 2015 and look at the policies they shared. They both hated the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They were in favor of better trade deals for the American worker. Bernie Sanders said no open borders in 2015. That's a Koch brothers proposal. And he actually said, my God, if we open the borders, what would happen? They'd all flood this country. Not that I like Bernie now. he certainly abandoned those principles and shifted completely in that direction but ultimately my point is here we are now at this point i'm just like the democratic party ousting him has proven there is no real

process there for the for the people who want to see change but there are and what irks me is liberal pundits and personalities saying we approve and accept the party choosing for us. And because we approve it, that's democracy. You never got to vote. You never got to say. And that's why I'm totally out. And so when you mention, Attorney General, that Donald Trump has expanded the party, look at me and many of our guests. You've got libertarian.

You've got Mises caucus people now who are saying they're going to be voting for Donald Trump because he has been a popular president. I think there's huge groups of people, huge swaths of this country that feel left out. And Donald Trump has given them a voice. They still love this country. Kitchen table issues matter to them. Donald Trump's the only one talking about those issues. Kamala Harris isn't. And if you feel left out, you feel like you don't have a voice in the process and you see something

like what we've seen over the past 72 hours with Kamala Harris, that exacerbates that problem. And I think that's going to continue to push people back to Donald Trump and the Republican Party. She said we were watching Fox and she's like, I'll put my record up against Trump's anytime. And I was like, what? What did you do? Like, if Joe Biden wants to make claims about his executive orders and the things he's done, like, OK, I guess Biden has signed executive orders and has advocated. What did Kamala Harris do? She did nothing. The borders are literally.

She didn't go. She didn't go. There's that interview where they're like, have you been to the board? She says, we've been to the board. And he's like, no, you haven't. She's like, well, I've also never been to Europe. Why is that relevant? I mean, it's worse. She's like, she's like, they keep saying, you know, we've you been to the board she says we've been to the board and he's like no you haven't she's like well i've also never been to europe why is that relevant i mean it's it's it's worse she's like she's like they keep saying you know we've never been to the border we have been to the border and he's like but you haven't and then she goes and i haven't

been to europe either yeah it's it's nonsensical the thing about kamala harris's campaign that i find fascinating is and maybe you can unpack this for us but they're starting to say well she was this tough prosecutor and therefore she can prosecute Donald Trump because he's done all these horrible things apparently. But she also has to be in a position where she defends the Biden-Harris administration. Remember, they never let us forget that she was there even when they had shuffled her sort of to the personnel background. And so she's trying to run on her legacy as a prosecutor, which I have always heard right and left, gets very mixed reviews, and also decide if she's going to stand by Joe Biden and say, I'm finishing the job he started,

or if she's going to kind of attack this guy who has now just recommended her. The calculations there must be crazy. Do you think the American public will respond to her as a tough prosecutor? No, I think she's going to own the failed policies of the Biden administration. People are looking around, and again, it's almost back to school time, and working families are like, how am I going to afford a new backpack and school lunches for my kids? That stuff matters to people.

And the border crisis. I mean, in Missouri alone, we've had 1,100 reported incidences of human trafficking in one year, more than 1,500 deaths from fentanyl exposure in one year, 43 innocent children who died from fentanyl exposure in one year. Those are real harms. So, like, Biden's failures to secure our national sovereignty and his hanging an open sign at the southern border are making Missouri communities safe. Every state's a border state. I mean, these things, again, they matter to everyday working Americans.

And Kamala Harris is going to have to own those things. While we got you here, I got a question for you that you may be able to actually answer. And I think there was an official statement from Missouri. I don't know if it came from you or what office, but you're familiar with the Help America Vote Verification story? Yeah, yeah. So this is, I've chosen February 17th, 2024, specifically as it is very large and terrifying numbers.

Just some quick context for people to understand. Help America Vote Verification is a system so that if someone is trying to register to vote, but they do not have an ID, the DMV, the MVA can submit the name, their birthday, and the last four of their social to the Social Security Administration to check to see if they are in the Social Security database. That way, the person can be registered to vote. There have been a lot of concerns as many states, particularly important states for the election, like Arizona, are seeing tens of thousands of registration attempts every week, in some instances biweekly.

In some instances, and the example that we have here from February 17th of this year, the state of Missouri had 78,421 verification requests with 23,253 coming back as deceased. I believe the official statement was that this is voter roll cleanup. I don't know if you can shed some light on what's going on. Yeah, you know, that's a process the Secretary of State's office manages to help the county clerks clean up the voter rolls to make sure that the deceased or folks are purged from those rolls. And so that's an important part of the process. But when you see numbers like that, especially in swing states like Missouri, bright red state, but Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Texas, yeah, 220,000. Yeah, I mean, look at that. I mean, you think about the 10 million people who

have crossed our border illegally or here illegally, and it is illegal for them to participate in a national election. Certainly in Missouri, it's a felony offense to the forms you have to fill out if you're fraudulently holding yourself out as a legal resident. You're not. Thatging the deceased, but preventing hijacking of the election process by people who have no legal right to vote. But is this confirmed? If you don't know 100%, but this is Missouri doing voter roll cleanup? I would need to confirm with our Secretary of State's office on the specific numbers, but I know that that is an ongoing process that the Secretary of State manages. It's super disturbing because it's like a third of the 70. It's the second most state of all of them.

It's Texas. Then Missouri, I think is number two, maybe. Yeah. Texas. But this is again, February 17th.

It's one Pacific, one specific. And it's a third of them were deceased. It's not just like all the other states. You'd get like 72, New Jersey, 72 of them out of 2,800. So that's like 0.1%.

A third, 33% of them in Missouri. What is going on that they're using Missouri? It looks like it's being used to funnel some sort of operation to get people on board. Well, this was registering dead people. And so here's the problem. Texas denied everything. Because when this story first broke, I think it was back in March, Texas has Texas only reports every other week. 219,323 registration verification requests.

4,559 came back matched but deceased. 36,000 came back with no match. OK, so hold on. We got ourselves here a big old problem. Let's operate under the assumption this is still voter roll cleanup. If Missouri is doing voter roll cleanup to the tune of in one week, 78,421 people, how were there 5,938 of those people that did not have a match in the Social Security database? How were 23,000? So if we want to say this is voter roll cleanup, 23,000 deceased makes a lot of sense. It violates the rules of the Help America Vote Act, which states this is specifically for

registering people to vote. It offers no provision for using it for voter roll cleanup, but it still might be the case. Then how do you have 6,000 of the people not actually matching? That would mean that Missouri caught in one week 6,000 people on their voter rolls who aren't in the Social Security Administration database. And I will stress, you don't get erased from that database. They do not reuse numbers. Going back down to Texas, 36,000 registrations did not have a match in the Social Security database. Sure, you can argue that some people's names birthdays and uh last four didn't match properly there were typos but this many you know 15 13 of

the people that's too that's way way too much and so it's with all the illegal immigration it's like correlated with all this illegal immigration if we uh if we jump to the latest numbers, which is July 13th, I believe Missouri has 27,371 with 3,347 that did not have a match. 317 were dead. Look at Nevada, that 36,000 of the 37,000 were not matched. Now that's crazy. This is the latest. The last reported numbers from HAVV, 37,181 in Nevada. These are alleged registration attempts without ID, and 36,600 did not match the SSA database.

In a swing state. In a swing state. A border state. So here's my concern, and this could impact Missouri. It's bright red, so it is weird to be like, well, what could possibly go in Texas, however, is not. And Texas could swing. But the fear now is that in 2021, Joe Biden signed an executive order that allowed the federal government to register people in states on behalf of that state without the state knowing. West Virginia came out and said, absolutely not. We reject all of these registrations. But what if what we're seeing is unknown to these states like Missouri, because these registrations that are being sent to the SSA are coming from federal authorities and the state has nothing to do with it.

These people then show up, get printed that they appear in these databases because the federal government sends in the paperwork, and then you end up with non-citizens. Or one theory is that what's happening is someone is illicitly downloading college and university databases and then trying to register college students who are not registered without them knowing so that a universal mail-in vote will appear at their home and then they could get an activist to go make them fill it out. It's scary stuff. I mean, look, we know that in 2020, several of the blue states changed the rules of the game in the 11th hour in order to harvest more ballots. And that swung the election. You look at that juxtaposed with the deep state suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story. I mean, those things, you put those two things together and you can see why people, the integrity, like self-evident integrity of the process has been lost.

Yeah, I think that's one of the big issues. Voters this year are primed to be concerned about what's going on. And while that's good, it also encourages low trust because you never seem to get the answers that you're looking for. No matter try how you might. Right. We don't know why the numbers are this way. There's not even clear path to get in. Yeah, I guess I can only say you're up for reelection. I'd imagine. Right. I think it would be prudent to figure out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. And in fact, you're going to see more coming out of my office in the coming weeks about some election integrity issues that we're working on as it relates to illegal aliens. Missouri is one of the last states in the nation that still makes

it a felony offense to knowingly transport criminal aliens into or through the state of Missouri. And so we want to stand by to help prosecute that in Missouri. It's also illegal to obtain a voter ID and hold yourself out to be a lawful resident who's eligible to vote if you're not. So again, that's a felony forgery. I imagine Missouri is one of the states that requires an ID to vote. That's right. It's funny how that works, where it's like when there's actual integrity in the voting process, everyone accepts it as normal. It's not even a question. But then these blue states where you don't need an ID to vote, it's racist to ask. Yeah. Nobody has a problem in Missouri. I mean, we would be hearing stories left and right from the Democrats in the media being like, oh, Missouri is suppressing the vote.

And you said that Missouri is one of the last states to enforce this felony for transporting illegal immigrants into the state. So that means that other states at one point did this and then repealed it. So other states have had similar statutes on the books, but have lost court battles. But I think you, you know, one of the things the court's going to look at when weighing whether or not a state can enforce a measure like that is, does the state have a compelling interest in enforcement? Like what's the policy problem? And when those statutes were enacted 10, 20 years ago, we didn't have an invasion. We didn't have 10 million people coming across our border illegally. We didn't have election interruptions and interferences from criminal aliens. And so the compelling interest is different now than when these other states lost their court battles. Missouri has not lost that court battle. We still have the statutes on

the books and plan to enforce them. How do you guys handle electronic voting in general? Because I'm concerned that votes are getting flipped behind the scenes by machines and we don't have access to the source code to verify. Have you sued Dominion or companies that try and operate without offering their source code to make them open source their software? We've got paper ballots in Missouri. Universal paper ballots for the state. Look, I've seen what a secure election looks like.

I secured a part of the Nineveh province, Iraq, in 2005 for their national constitutional referendum. And you know what? We pulled up in armored vehicles with boxes of ballots that were locked. We opened the boxes on Election Day. People lined up. They put their, you know, remember the blue thumbs? They put their thumbprint on the ballot. We collected them. We drove them to a secure place. And there was people counting them by hand while we watched.

I mean, it's that simple. And again, when you have a simple process that has paper ballots like that, the integrity of the process is self-evident. So you don't have machines at all? The machines collect the paper ballots, but then there's human checks on that. But again, this is all under the Secretary of State's office, and that's really who runs elections in the state of Missouri. Do you get along with the Secretary of State very well? Do you guys work closely? Oh, absolutely. Look, I work closely with all of our statewide office holders. Everyone's running in the same direction. We're all, for the first time in, gosh, a really long time,

it's top-to-bottom Republicans in state office in Missouri. That has not happened until recently. Wow. Right on. Yeah. I'm still concerned about all of this data because it's a story that that I mean, we have covered probably like 17 times and we've never gotten clear answers as to what's going on. They put it on hold for a while. Yeah. So that's not. Yep. The the reporting stopped. And I think it was in May or like the beginning of May just froze after we started reporting on it. A couple of months went by and then they stopped the reporting completely for like, coincidence? Yeah, right.

Are there such things? So, you know, we're looking at great polling for Donald Trump, especially after someone tried to take his life and he stood up with blood coming out of his face,

screaming, yelling, fight, fight, fight. That really inspired a lot of people. Now you've got, with Kamala Harris coming in, people are saying, oh, she's even worse than Biden.

But the more savvy people are coming out and saying, if you think you've won, you've lost. Because regardless of what's going on with Biden, Kamala, the DNC, we still have a shadow campaign to contend with, the likes of which we do not know. You're familiar with the Time magazine shadow campaign story? I'm not familiar with it. Let me pull this up and just give you a quick reference. We pull this up periodically. time magazine wrote a story this is uh what's the date on this february 5th 2021 by molly ball this is the secret history of the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election

to which molly ball literally writes for magazine, there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protest and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain inspired by the summer's massive, sometimes destructive racial justice protests in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump's assault on democracy. The article, written not even a month after the inauguration of Joe Biden talks about how CEOs, Zuckerbucks, changing and voting laws, people worked behind a shadow campaign. If if you want to call that rigging an election, by all means, go ahead and do so. I like to use

their words and say they ran a conspiracy that's what molly ball called it shadow campaign to secure the election to save us from trump and that's where we're at now so now that it's three months out from this next election the great fear is that they didn't stop yeah there's something else working behind the scenes so i mean that's why i just real quick i appreciate uh having you here especially because of lawsuits you, because you seem to be one of the very few people actually doing something. Well, you know, our lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, the most important First Amendment case in this nation's history. We're back down at the trial court level using merits discovery to root out the censorship enterprise from the Biden regime. You know, what we're talking about is collusion between activists, corporate America, organized

labor there. I think there's another element there, another layer, and that's the deep state. Again, we uncovered as part of Missouri v. Biden, the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, that the FBI was in possession of the laptop one year before the election and planted the seed in big tech that there would be a Russian disinformation campaign related to the to Hunter Biden. Right. And then there were they met with increased frequency between DOJ, FBI and big tech oligarchs in the weeks and months leading up to that story breaking.

And then it was suppressed instantly. That's not coincidental. That is government suppression of critical information that Americans needed to make good decisions at the ballot box. And so that's just one more layer when you've got the deep state. And is anyone surprised? Remember the Lisa, uh, uh, Peter struck Lisa page text messages in 2016, like before Trump was even in the oval office, they were already, the deep state was already plotting against him. And so, uh, yeah, I mean, people stop trusting our systems when they, they see and learn about stuff. What were those texts Lisa struck?

Yeah, Peter struck and Lisa Page. They were FBI agent and Department of Justice official that were conspiring and colluding to undermine the first years of President Trump's administration by injecting this Russian collusion hoax. And they were successful at that. I mean, they dropped the poison pill in the well that we drank from for several years. Yeah, I feel the Iranian, and they said an Iranian attempt on Trump's life. That's another poison pill, I think. I can feel it. I got probably a serious question for you.

You're filing these lawsuits. You're uncovering this collusion. Deep state elements, intelligence agents. You know, Chuck Schumer said they got six ways from Sunday from getting back at you. I just wondered if you had a food taster. Yeah, that's a good idea. I mean, and I'm saying it in a somewhat half joking way. Yeah, you're right.

I mean, look, the deep state has ways of getting back at people. They did it to President Trump. They're doing it to everyday Americans in ways we don't see. You know, again, let's talk about in the context of censorship. Again, that's government censorship of information that interferes with an election. That's enormously problematic for obvious reasons. But they're censoring conservative voices on big tech social media platforms that, you know, they are changing our culture in ways that we don't see. And it's much more pernicious and nefarious than in any point in human history.

Like if Joseph Stalin goes and shuts down a printing press, the whole world knows it's happened. They can see it. And he's only silenced the printed word. But what's happening now, if you're shadow banned, de-platformed, de-emphasized, if the story never breaks because it's suppressed, we're not only deprived.

First of all, we don't know the censorship is going on. And it's not only the speaker's rights who've been violated, but the listeners as well who may not know that they were going to receive a message that now they can't hear. But it's also the big tech, because the way in which we communicate is so much more multidimensional than just a simple printing press. It's visual imagery.

It's body language. It's all these other forms of communication that are being suppressed. And again, that's enormously harmful to who we are as a people. How much you want to bet the IRS is specifically targeting people based on politics? And how do you track for that? It's very difficult. We know that happened during the Obama years with the Tea Party, that there's this big scandal involving the IRS targeting conservatives. Why would we assume that stopped? You know, they announced 87,000 new agents.

Apparently, I guess audits are way up. That's been something I've heard. I've heard too. Yeah. If someone wants to fact check that. And, you know, when they announced they were doing this, Biden says, only if you make $400,000 or more, we're going to raise your taxes. Yeah.

87,000 agents aren't to raise your taxes. They, we're going to raise your taxes. Yeah, 87,000 agents aren't to raise your taxes. They would raise your taxes to raise your taxes. 87,000 agents are so they can comb through your financials. And then one day, working class, small business, mom and pop shop that makes, I don't know, cheeseburgers, gets a letter from the IRS that says, you owe us $384.

And they're like, what's this for? We paid our taxes. Our accountant did all the work for us. We don't have this money. What do you do, hire a lawyer? No, you're going to have to write the check. And that's what they're doing to the working class people. I'd be willing to bet it's politically biased as well, because you suppress economically your political opponents, makes it harder for them to take the time off to go vote. Simply put, and to make your point about censorship, one thing we learned with Dr. Robert Epstein, Google and Facebook are having a massive impact on the election. He explained that it's actually really simple. They ran a test.

On election day, in one of their tests, Facebook sent out a reminder to vote to 100 percent of Democrats. I think it was Democrats left-leaning. I think it was in the U.S. And only like 60 some odd percent of people on the right. So what happens? It's just that easy. That's the manipulative game that they play across the board. And we're trying to fight against that. Now, that being said, with the way things are going, I'm not confident they're succeeding. Yeah. I wonder if you could tell us what, because you've taken a lot of really bold action. I mean, you've lost against media, media matters, Planned Parenthood, the Biden administration, New York State.

But you're also fairly young in your career. I mean, what makes you, what made, what was the calculation going into this? Like, I think there are some people, and I'm glad you're not one of them, who would say, like, I don't want to anger too many higher powers. Right? No, I that's not a concern of mine. I don't want to be a politician. I want to be the Attorney General and do the job for the right reasons. I have no interest in politics. You got to be a politician, be the Attorney General, I get that. But you know, when first of all, there's nothing that's going to happen to me in politics, that is going to be any worse than my worst day you know overseas in iraq i've spent two years overseas in the war on terror so like i'm not scared of it like it's just yeah like it's not a not a fear of mine for reference you were in the army and uh

served in the army after the war in the war on terror was an armored cavalry uh scout platoon leader and then executive officer and troop commander eventually. But yeah, I mean, having led soldiers in combat like that and having the privilege to get to do that, you know, the politics of it doesn't scare me. But I also, I'm not like trying to climb a ladder to a higher office. So I have a little more audacity to do the right things and to be on attack. And I think too, like one of the things, one of the first things you learn in the Army, light infantry tactics. When you're caught in a near ambush,

you assault into the ambush. You don't turn and run away because you'll just get shot in the back. You're going to die anyway. Kill some bad guys on your way out. And that's kind of how

I approach my job. That's cool. I really think that that's like a boldness that a lot of people don't have. I think there is a fear that like if you challenge the Biden administration, right,

you'll upset the governor who's relying on the federal government for tax money or whatever. There's some kind of interwoven love. But I like that you're saying like I am here for this job and I'm going to do it to the best of my ability, because I think that that's what restores Americans trust in their elected officials, that they are actively doing the things that are hard and difficult and not thinking, oh, well, but I want to move up to a higher office. Why are you are you like the only AG actually doing stuff? You know, I partner with like-minded state attorneys general a lot. Last year, we partnered on 161, 164 cases together.

So there's a lot of partnership and overlap. You know, Missouri is uniquely positioned for a variety of reasons. Number one, because we are a red state, but we're recently a red state. And so if you think about conservative states traditionally have not empowered their state attorneys general because conservatives view it as a zero-sum game. More government, less freedom.

And so conservative states have limited the authority of their AGs. Meanwhile, blue states like Letitia James, her general assembly gives her any kind of law she wants to conduct lawfare and every other pernicious attack on our way of life. Missouri is uniquely positioned because we were so recently a blue state that has now transitioned. We were a blue state, are now a red state.

And so it's like the enemy has left weapons on the battlefield that we're picking up and learning how to use. There's like this retreating enemy that's left these weapons on the battlefield. And so the Missouri Attorney General's Office has some really unique statutory authority that isn't replicated in other states. But then again, I also think when you've got someone in office who just wants to be the AG and do the right things for the right reasons, look, America's under attack. I mean, we're absolutely under attack. You can't call this anything else. Our basic values, our way of life, our systems of democratic processes, I mean, all those things are under attack. We have another caravan of 3,000 migrants.

We've had these caravans coming to the United States by the thousands, intensive thousands, for years now. And it's just, they don't care. Our border czar, who is now running for, is a presumptive nominee, she never went to the border one time? Did she end up going eventually? I don't think so.

I mean, they might have shuffled her down. Let me double check right now. But the thing is, she was like the borders are and then immediately everyone stopped trying to talk about the border. I mean, Joe Biden didn't go to the border until what the second half of his current term. It was always something where and I think you're kind of referencing this where the values are not in alignment. They'll say, oh, yeah, we're taking care of the border by putting up new cameras and maybe we'll have new agents or something. But what they mean is we don't actually care that people are illegally crossing into the United States. We're actually kind of okay with it. And in fact, maybe we'll create this app and maybe another app to make it easier.

They're legitimizing, they're perverting the law to try to put an imprimatur of legitimization on illegal crossings. So it's not just that they refuse to build the border wall that they were commanded by Congress to do. And we sued them and won on that lawsuit so it's not just that they refuse to build the border wall that they were commanded by congress to do and we sued them and won on that lawsuit it's not just that they are uh catching release and repealing remain in mexico all you know we should not be catching and releasing and they you know caravans should remain in mexico if they're going to seek asylum but it's perversion of like the parole process parole uh under immigration laws for individualized determinations for limited entry for limited purpose limited amount of time well by biden saying hey we're gonna allow 10 000 guatemalans he's creating a visa program that was never authorized by congress again that's how he's

perverting the law so it's not just that he's not enforcing he's hung an open sign and inviting and those are yeah oh this is what's wild is that um all of these violate the rights of each individual state who has not had. I mean, this is the point of the Senate. Yeah. So that the states are represented the federal government before they do these things. Biden ignoring that is basically just trampling over the states. That's right. Yeah. And to the detriment of the people. Right. I mean, I remember seeing this report from Massachusetts saying they had so many illegal immigrants in the state that their shelters were completely full. These are shelters that are typically for homeless people or women

and children fleeing domestic violence situations. Like it's the resources that people in need that, you know, in a desperate situation rely on that are now being diverted to solve this crisis that we don't actually have to have. The Biden administration just said on day one, we hated Trump so much. We're going to reverse whatever he's doing. And we're not going to think about the consequence of this because we're trying to score this political, this political point that we aren't Trump and look, look at this posturing we can pull off. Well, I think it goes back to something you said earlier, which is that the left has rejected practical good, any pursuit of practical good in favor of radical progressive woke ideology. You see that in the border.

You see that in transgender issues. I mean, you see that across the board with all these issues. They have criminal justice. You know, again, the Soros-backed prosecutors don't enforce the law. And you know what? Victims suffer. It undermines the credibility of our criminal justice system. And all of that is, again, they are putting woke, progressive ideology ahead of practical good.

Both parties used to pursue practical good. We just had different arguments about how to get there. And now the left has completely rejected practical good. Let's jump to the story from Just the News. Supreme Court orders New York to respond to Missouri lawsuit over Trump lawfare this week. This seems pretty big. Is this a victory for you guys? Yeah, this is huge.

I mean, the Supreme Court has taken notice of the lawsuit we filed against the state of New York. And again, you've got a rogue prosecutor and collusive judiciary in New York who have prosecuted Donald Trump under specious legal grounds. The prosecution is replete with constitutional procedural error. Ethics violations should have never happened. I've never seen such a gross miscarriage of justice, but that's what you get in New York. And at the end of the day, that hurts Missourians and every other state because we have a right to participate in a national presidential election on equal footing with every other sovereign state. And Missourians are being denied access to and being denied the ability to hear from a presidential candidate in the heat of a campaign in the most consequential national election in this in this country's history. And so that harms Missourians. So you filed, I should say, on behalf of the state of Missouri.

You sued New York, its original jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court is the court that hears it. We announced the news when it broke, and many people said, but wait, Supreme Court's out of session. How does this work? Yeah, different dockets. So you've got kind of the Supreme Court's appellate review docket, and that's what mostly the Supreme Court does, is review cases that have been adjudicated at a lower court. But the founding fathers contemplated there would be disputes amongst the states and they codified a method by which we could redress those grievances in Article 3, Section 2 of the United States

Constitution. And it's the original action docket. And so that's separate and apart from kind of their appellate review. And so other states have sued other states before. Typically, it's about like water rights or boundaries. This is different because, again, we're suing the state of New York for hijacking this election and injecting poison into our democratic process through lawfare. But it's an original action of the Supreme Court. We file our pleadings. The court has ordered New York to respond. They have until tomorrow to respond. We'll see what they do. There are three claims you're making? That's correct.

Yeah. Number one, First Amendment violation. You know, the gag order that the court instituted in New York is unconstitutional. It violates President Trump's right to speak, but it violates our right to hear from him. The important point here is the gag orders in criminal prosecutions, there's a strong presumption against gag orders because of our First Amendment rights. But that's especially true, and those considerations are heightened when you're talking about a presidential candidate. A frontrunner. But beyond that, the gag order is supposed to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. Well, number one, the

trial's over. Number two, here the state, the prosecutor, got the gag order. If Donald Trump wants to put himself at risk by speaking out publicly about the trial, he should be allowed to do that, and we have a right to hear from him. So that's the first claim. The second claim is that, again, in Missouri, we had a caucus and there were electors who were selected based on that caucus to attend the convention and cast votes for President Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee. Those electors are being denied access to a presidential candidate because anytime he's spinning in a Manhattan courtroom or potentially in a New York state penitentiary or on probation in New York, he can't be campaigning. And that harms our ability to have access to him. The third claim is under the Purcell Doctrine. So the Purcell Doctrine stands for the proposition

that courts should stay out of decisions that would obfuscate or interfere with an election. And again, those considerations are heightened the closer in time you get to an election. And so the same should be true in New York. People are already asking me, constituents reach out all the time. Can Donald Trump be on the ballot? Am I going to get to vote for him? Is he going to get to come to Missouri and talk to us? Can he still serve as president if he's convicted of a felony in New York? So this New York court is violating the Purcell doctrine by injecting that kind of level of obfuscation into the electoral process. This is absolutely crazy because it brings up a lot of questions. Now, we know any reasonable person who reviews the criminal charges against Donald Trump in the hush money

case would scratch their head and say, what? None of this makes sense. And I'll break it down because I know there's people who haven't watched every show, but I'll try and make it quick. The charges against Donald Trump are for falsification of business records, but that's a misdemeanor and it's beyond its statute of limitations, meaning they can't bring the charges. What are we talking seven years later? They claim it's upgraded to a felony if you falsified business records in furtherance of a secondary crime. Now, they claimed that Donald Trump, the judge said to the jury, if you believe Donald Trump committed a secondary crime, it doesn't matter which one, then you can find him guilty on this one if you believe he also falsified business records. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but how do you, how does a court, first of all, upgrade a charge with the presumption of a secondary crime that has never been adjudicated through any kind of due process means or anything?

Yeah. The court is just decreeing the crime exists. That's right. And two problems there from a constitutional standpoint. Number one, lack of notice. 34-count indictment that, again, refers to false business entry for this based on another crime. And you can read the indictment it says another crime 34 times 34 counts that's a notice violation under the due process clause the president has a right president trump has a right to have notice of the alleged defense so

they deprived him of due process in that regard jury unanimity is the under the sixth amendment is the next problem so when the jury goes back to deliberate and the judge says hey pick any old predicate offense you want you don't have to agree. Under Ramos v. Louisiana case, it was handed down by the United States Supreme Court in 2020. It stands for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment right to fair trial includes the right to jury unanimity as to every element for which the defendant is charged. Wow. So they violated his constitutional rights to due process, violated his First Amendment right to free speech,

violated his Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity. You look at the fact that the prosecutors were politically motivated because they campaigned on a promise to prosecute president trump they should have been disqualified the judge has deep ties to the democratic party also should have been disqualified in missouri it's an appearance of impropriety standard well here there's actual impropriety it's not an appearance it exists so like they should have been that that this is reversible error it's an incurable impropriety. When I say that the case is an illicit witch hunt prosecution, that's what we're talking about is all of these problems that typically in a criminal trial, maybe you have one problem that results in what could be reversible error. But here it's like replete with reversible

error. Isn't this an emergency? Isn't this something the Supreme Court should take up within hours and shut it down? And that's the point. Everyone's like, look, if President Trump was wrongfully convicted, his appeal will figure that out. That's insufficient. That vehicle for raising these claims is insufficient to adjudicate the grievance that the state of Missouri and the voting public in Missouri has against the state of New York. The individual appeal process will vindicate President Trump individually, but that's going to take 18 to 24 months. And we can't wait because the election is forthcoming.

So the Supreme Court said New York has to respond by tomorrow, which means what exactly? Well, we'll see what New York files. I mean, they have a reply to our lawsuit, and they'll either try to convince the court that the lawsuit should not go forward. They could concede that there's a problem. I don't anticipate they would do that. To clarify, does your lawsuit, does it raise claims to those due process violations against Donald Trump? Yeah, those are central to, I mean, that's central to the argument that this is lawfare, not a legitimate criminal prosecution.

You know, again, the objective in New York was never to obtain a legally valid conviction it was always to take president trump off the campaign trail and silence him and they were effective at doing that and that harms missourians and all voters absolutely insane at a most basic democratic level that you have 50 participants in an election where each state will cast a ballot and you've got several states that are like well well, our clear choice is Trump, but we'll see what happens. So one 50th of the nation decides we will do whatever we have to, to destroy his opportunity to actually run a campaign. There, there, that is the most obvious and egregious election interference imaginable. Now, if it was something like Donald Trump shot a guy on Fifth Avenue

and everybody saw it happen, well, I don't know what leg you got to stand on. States can bring charges against people if everybody watched and there's a preponderance of evidence. Then you go to trial and he can prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, et cetera, et cetera. But here we're looking at any reasonable person.

And we saw this with Fareed Zakaria. He said these charges would not have been brought against someone whose name was not Donald Trump. Even CNN admits it. Yeah. And they've never, this statute has never been used in New York in the way in which they're using it against President Trump. Two other points I want to make real quick. You know, you've also got this problem when you talk about the statute of limitations. Again, that is even more problematic in this instance because the statute that creates the offense for which Donald Trump was charged, I think it's New York Code 175.10, but it allows for an affirmative defense. And when you've got an affirmative defense, that requires the defendant, who typically doesn't have

any burden of proof, to, by preponderance of the evidence established that he has legally excused from what would otherwise be criminal behavior. The due process violation is worse in this context because how can he take advantage of his statutorily granted affirmative defense and gather evidence to defend himself if he doesn't know what the predicate offense is? He just has to kind of prepare for anything like it's a weird pop quiz.

Again, the due process violation is worse in this instance because of that. Absolutely insane. I mean, at a most fundamental level, we as children learn about the right to confront your accusers. Yeah. And Trump never got it, right?

For what offense was he charged? We don't know. Sounds like he's going to get it. The Supreme Court was out of session, and I was angered by like, well, come on, guys, it's not summer camp. Like, get to work. But you said that they somehow were able

to legislate from out of session. How does that work? Yeah, so again, it's the difference between, like get to work. But you said that they somehow were able to legislate from out of session. How does that work? Yeah. So there's again, it's the difference between their term in which they review appeals to the Supreme Court. That's a separate docket. And that term has ended. But original actions are they're never out of term when it comes to original actions. Those are always filed directly with the United States Supreme Court. It's novel. I mean, it doesn't happen too often that states have lawsuits against other states, especially claims like this. But again, it's imperative because of where we are in this election cycle. And so the Supreme Court is absolutely reviewing these cases now as evidenced by the fact that they ordered New York to respond. Did they have to go back to the

wherever they work from or did they do it remote? Yeah, I believe they could do it remotely. I know that the documents that we file with the court are all printed on paper and distributed to the justices. So look, the justices and their clerics are aware of the lawsuit. They're reviewing the lawsuit. They've issued orders in the lawsuit. This process is moving forward. And again, we anticipate that we need to act quickly. We anticipate the court will act. So what argument could New York possibly have? I mean, what could they possibly say to the Supreme Court? Yeah, I'm interested to see what arguments they raise.

I mean, they could defend the legitimacy of the prosecution and then we get to, again, respond with all of these constitutional and ethical problems. But even when it was coming out, there were all kinds of people already, all media commenters on the left saying like, oh no, Trump's definitely going to appeal this. Like, this was sketchy. This was not right. So there's a possibility that within a week, the Supreme Court just obliterates

the whole New York hush money case? They just say outright, we nullify it, or what? Yeah, I think the prayer for relief here, first of all, yes, these cases need to go away. All of the law for against President Trump needs to be, those cases need to be dismissed or judgment entered notwithstanding the verdicts. And we've moved as the state of Missouri, we filed

a brief in the New York case demanding that the judge dismiss the indictment and vacate the judgment. The Supreme Court, have they already ruled on standing? They have not yet. So again, these are arguments that They could come out next week and say Missouri has no right to sue New York. They could. I kind of feel like that's what to do because you've got Thomas and

Alito and the rest are sit on their hands types. Yeah. And, you know, I think it's time we have an open and honest conversation in this country about standing. It's a jurisprudential concern. And under Article 3, the federal courts are limited to hearing cases and controversies between parties. You've got to show a concrete harm from a direct action of the defendant. I get all that. Those are important for individual cases. However, when you have states bringing claims, is it time to review our standing analysis and for that analysis to evolve in a way that gives more latitude to allow for states to raise claims on behalf of the people.

This was the Texas v. Pennsylvania back in 2020. The Supreme Court ruled on standing, I believe. After three days. They said Texas has no right to argue about Pennsylvania's elections. That's right. And here's the distinction between that case. First of all, that lasted three days. Maybe it was a few more, but I don't think they got to 10 days.

And our case against New York, what that previous case was asking was for the Supreme Court to redo an election. And the courts, again, under the Purcell Doctrine, they don't want to get involved in administering elections or reviewing elections or having anything to do with that. So that was a tall order. This is different, and this case has already gone longer and is receiving review. And honestly, the court may sit on this case and withhold a decision until sentencing because what the New York trial court does could change the whole landscape.

Two arguments here. Number one, if the court were to sentence Donald Trump to prison, well, then the Supreme Court might say, okay, now this is way more important to us. Number two, and we've made this argument both at the Supreme Court and at the trial court level, but after the immunity decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, you can go back and look at some of the evidence that was introduced in the criminal trial in New York and realize that's the fruit of the poisonous tree. That evidence should have never been used to obtain a criminal conviction because the president was immune from some of that behavior as we all knew

kind of going into that. So the New York court clearly raced ahead of SCOTUS to obtain that conviction, but all of those things are playing out. And I think that's why the court has paused and has taken a hard look at this. And sentencing is in September now? That's correct. Yeah.

And so there are things that may, could happen at the trial court level that could alter the trajectory of the case that's pending at the United States Supreme Court. Let's jump to this story, which will serve as a segue into the darker conversation. This is from the New York Times. Secret Service director resigns after Trump assassination attempt. Kimberly A. Cheadle gave up her post Tuesday after security failures that allowed a gunman to shoot at former President Donald J. Trump at an open-air rally. I'd like to pause real quick.

Can I fix this? They accidentally put at. I'll just say, Kimberly A. Cheadle gave a proposed Tuesday after security failures allowed a gunman to shoot former President Donald J. Trump at an open-air rally, who, might I remind

everybody, and the New York Times especially, had blood coming down his face from where the bullet struck him in the ear. Right. That was not injured in shooting. He was shot. He was shot. Right. And there's that's just it.

I understand the assumption when someone's shot is that they have a bullet wound in their body. OK, but I don't think we need to play semantics in the fact that this guy shot Trump in the ear. Trump was shot in the ear. OK, would you say it like that? Now, I don't believe this resignation is sufficient. I believe that there is either at bare minimum criminal negligence. But I think most reasonable people can can conclude based on all of the statements, media reports, law enforcement statements, whistleblowers, etc., that this was allowed to happen. And beyond that, you question, if it was allowed to happen, who is this 20-year-old guy to randomly show up?

This idea that it was just a bunch of accidents doesn't make sense. They first said that the roof was sloped so they couldn't get the law enforcement on the roof. The roof was not sloped. That's a lie. Rep. Eli Crane was there standing that the roof was sloped so they couldn't get the law enforcement on the roof. The roof was not sloped. That's a lie. Rep. Eli Crane was there standing on the roof, and he's like, what are you talking about? It's a very low grade. Then you had statements that actually there were law enforcement up there, but they were too hot. Then you have questions about the windows being unsecure, the water tower being unsecure. You have the rooftop that was totally insecure.

Donald Trump being released with an active threat. The Secret Service knew of an active threat and they still released Trump from holding. All of these things could not be an accident. So I'll just say as she's resigning, there are many members of Congress who are asking the question about was there an official in some official capacity and intentional actions taken against Donald Trump. And I know it's a very difficult subject matter, but looking at all the evidence that's come out in the media, I don't know how you conclude that the story is just some crazy 20-year-old who got lucky. It doesn't make sense.

And I think one of the other problems is, you know, she resigns and it doesn't make it okay. There still has to be an investigation. Mayorkas has this independent panel that he's saying is bipartisan. Mayorkas himself is being kind of sketchy. People were saying that he was, you know, declining to appear before the House Oversight Committee, even though the DHS is in charge of the Secret Service ultimately. I think one of the big problems is that we know that there are so many unanswered questions. And Cheadle's testimony yesterday really proved that they are not willing to be honest with the public. And they are really trying to sort of cover up. It feels like they're trying to cover up what happened. And I don't know that we can trust the federal government

to investigate itself. That roof was 150 yards away, roughly, from Donald Trump. And AR-15 fires about 400 yards. That's insane that it wasn't secured. I don't know if it was intentional, but that's either total insanity or they intentionally didn't secure a dangerous shooting spot. And then I was listening to Chris Martinson on Twitter really breaking down the audio from the shooting. And you hear two distinct guns. I mean, it's pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. Like it's three low sounding humming shots and then five like high-pitched ones he says it sounds directly like it's coming from two different guns still doesn't imply that they let it happen or that they did they did it intentionally but like

i don't know i mean obviously it looks like she was covering something up in the hearing yesterday because she was like i can't I can't disclose that. I can't disclose that. I can't disclose that. The reason why I wanted to jump from our previous segment, which was talking about the lawfare, the Supreme Court rulings against New York, the actions being taken by New York are unprecedented criminal criminal charges against Trump without proper due process, accusing Trump of a crime that Trump has never, they've never told Trump what crime that was. And in 2020, we had Texas v. Pennsylvania, states lining up against states. And now you have, we're at the point where somehow, somehow, every possible security failure

happened, which allowed a man to shoot Donald Trump in the ear, nearly taking his life, but not for a few millimeters. And the concern is when this happened, you even have Logan and Jake Paul saying, if Trump, if that bullet were a few millimeters away, we would have had a civil war. Now, I'm supposed to be the guy ranting on the street corner with the sign saying civil war. But now you've got such after this, the conversation has become so ridiculously mainstream. Even Jake and Logan Paul on their podcast are like, wow, we almost had a civil war. I can't believe what's happening in this country with what we're seeing with the attempt on Trump's life, with the things you've uncovered, A.G. Bailey, about deep state collusion with and censorship. Are we at risk of some kind of

national level internal conflict? And I want to preface this with I am not saying civil war. That's one of the components, but it could be balkanization. It could be something along the lines of individual states like declaring themselves sanctuaries from federal authority to a more greater degree. Do you see that as a possibility in any way? I think it's certainly a risk. I mean, look, people are fed up. They're tired of it. They're tired of being told how to think, what to think, what you can and can't say. They're tired of us eroding our national sovereignty through the Biden invasion. They're tired of the fact that they're working all day, they come home at night, and their dollars don't spend as well

because of the inflation, and they're tired of stuff like this. And this woman refusing to answer questions or provide any kind of transparency or any kind of coherent explanation to what is clearly a massive failure in security protocols. And when I was securing sensitive sites in Iraq as a platoon leader, we never would have allowed, to your point, never would have allowed an elevated platform within 150 yards of a secure site. You don't do that. And that happened here. And there's a reason that happened.

And she owes us an explanation. And her resignation does not excuse the officials from that. But going back to my point I made early on, the part of the problem is this rise in the administrative state. We no longer rely on Congress to pass laws and the executive branch to enforce those laws. And we no longer respect state sovereignty because we have this mushrooming administrative state, this alphabet soup of agencies that have this authority and aren't accountable to the electorate because they're bureaucrats that aren't elected. And so we need to slash and burn the administrative state. Overturning the Chevron doctrine, the reinvigoration of the

major questions doctrine in the previous two Supreme Court terms, those are weapons in our legal arsenal to fight back against the administrative system. Do you want to explain the Chevron ruling? Yeah. So Chevron was a farce that was put forth in the 1980s by the Supreme Court that essentially allowed, required the federal judiciary to defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of their own authority. That's an abdication of the court's role under Article 3 to determine what the law is. It goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. The courts determine what the law is. And so this never worked. And that, again, it excused Congress from actually doing their jobs and writing statutes, writing laws. And it allowed for this mushrooming exponential growth in the

administrative state. It allowed for the ATF to unilaterally declare, if you owned a pistol brace, you were a felon. That blew my mind. I'm like, wait, wait, I went to a gun store. I filled up my paperwork. They told me pistol braces were totally fine and mind. I'm like, wait, wait. I went to a gun store. I filled up my paperwork. They told me pistol braces were totally fine and legal. And I said, okay. And then a few months later, the story breaks. And they're like, by the way, so I call my lawyer. And he's like, take them off your weapons and separate them,

bring them to a separate property or store them separately. And you're illegally allowed to have them so long as they're not attached. And I said, how did a department, a bureau, just decide something was a crime? Luckily, Missouri filed suit and won that lawsuit to put a stop to that, because you're right. I mean, look, the Second Amendment says, shall not be infringed. That's the words. Shall not be infringed. And in Missouri, Article 1, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution protects not only firearms, but ammunition and accessories as well,

and obligates the state to stand up and fight to protect our God-given right to not only firearms and ammunition and accessories. So I was proud to file that lawsuit and get a win. Did the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine then eliminate or repeal all these things that had been done using the Chevron Doctrine? No, but it gives us better legal footing to challenge them. And it means that the tie doesn't go to the agency anymore. The agency is going to have to account for whether or not they're adhering to the plain text of the statutes that authorize them to perform certain functions. But I like the messaging around this when the Chevron ruling came out. Every mainstream media outlet, a lot of left-leaning ones were like, well, they're not letting experts make decisions.

This is so crazy. I mean, it is this. That's our constitution. Right. And it feels like we're in parallel worlds where there are some people mean, it is this. That's our Constitution. Right, and it feels like we're in parallel worlds, where there are some people who are like, well, here's the Constitution, and here is what we would like to happen, and everyone else being like, no, you guys are crazy.

That point was on full display in March when I sat at council table and we argued the case Missouri v. Biden. And Justice Kentucky Brown Jackson asked the question, well, isn't it, it seems like the First Amendment really hamstrings the government's ability to respond to an emergency. Like, yes, that's the that's the point. It is an irreducible, reducible, axiomatic principle that the rights that we enjoy come from God, not man, that the Constitution exists to protect us from the government.

The government exists to protect our rights. And in this era, we see government repeatedly weaponized against us. That is antithetical to who we are as an American. What was the other? You said the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine. Yeah, major questions, doctors. The other one.

And so that one says that Congress doesn't hide an elephant in a mouse hole. And so you see that in Western Virginia v. EPA. You see it in my lawsuit that we won when President Biden

first tried to cancel student loan debt. And what the court has said is that, look, if Congress intends to institute a program on this order of like social, economic, political magnitude, Congress has to speak explicitly in the text of the statute. The president has to point to the exact words in the law

that allow him to do that and with a fine print. And Congress has not so authorized the president. And that's why we won that lawsuit. That's why West Virginia won that lawsuit against the EPA. And so those are two independent founts of legal authority to fight back against the rise of the administrative state. But attorneys general will always be playing a game of whack-a-mole. We need Congress and a president who are willing to, again, slash and burn that alphabet soup. I mean, why do we have a federal Department of Education?

What role does the federal government? Our founding fathers never intended that bureaucrats in Washington, D. dc would have anything to do with our schools and at the state level so and things like and it's just bloat now it's just it's government job welfare exactly they're they're one of the concerns that you often hear is you know look yes but we got to do it slowly because if we slash 5 000 jobs the economic damage it's like no no no no no dude like we're not just giving people money for no reason. That's ridiculous. I kind of appreciate some sort of national regulation on education

in that if one school was teaching someone that two plus two equals three and then another school was like, no, it's two plus, then you're going to have a problem and we're not going to be able to communicate as a society. So I understand, but I don't think we need an entire department. I've learned in recent years because I agree with you about the bloat. I think it just turns into people getting hired. The founders intended the federal government to be a government of limited authority,

and under the 10th Amendment, which says that any authority not given to the federal government, denied to the states, is enjoyed by the states and the people of the states. The states are governments of unlimited authority, limited only by their own constitutions or the federal constitution. So the only point I'm making is that education is left to the states and it's up to states to regulate that. The federal government was never authorized or empowered under the enumerated powers given to the federal government to have anything to do with education. That's just one example. I mean, again, pick out of a hat any federal agency and let's determine whether or not there's enumerated authority for that agency in our constitution do you feel like americans have been sort of brainwashed to think of it as

being the federal government above all else we follow them first they forget the importance of their state it drives me bonkers when i hear people say oh the supremacy clause like no no no the supremacy clause doesn't mean that the federal government is supreme to the states on all things that's not what that means the supremacy clause is an interpretive tool. When you have a federal statute and a state statute that cannot coexist and be synthesized and that the federal statute is constitutionally valid, then the federal statute trumps the state statute. But again, that's only when you have an irreconcilable difference. That rarely occurs.

It's an interpretive tool, not an independent found of legal authority. What would happen if the Supreme Court comes out and says we don't care that New York is doing these things? We go back to the drawing board and we go find another tool to get to work on this problem.

I see the problem here as potentially an unstoppable force and an immovable object. It is clear to any reasonable person that New York is just acting extra judicially. They're using the force and threat of violence that they control at the state level to lock up, stop, and steal the 2024 election. It doesn't mean they're guaranteed to do it, but they're certainly trying to. We know that you can't criminally charge someone for, quote, another crime, end quote.

The Constitution doesn't allow that. If the Supreme Court doesn't answer this, and I feel like they won't, then Missouri can't just say, we accept that the game is broke, that the rules are rigged, and it's impossible to win. I mean, people across this country will lose their minds

as this continually devolves. But, as we've already seen, Tucker Carlson predicted in September that with the amount of lawfare against Donald Trump, we are moving into assassination territory. Now, a week ago, someone actually shot Donald Trump, narrowly missing him, his skull, but hitting his ear. We were but millimeters away from Trump losing his life. And then I can't discount everything that Tucker Carlson was suggesting when he was saying something like that is predictable because of what's happening before it. That is to say, the presumption is there are powerful forces that have tried every means possible to stop Donald Trump.

They accused him of being a traitor. It did not work. They waged lawfare in terms of impeachment twice. It did not work. They created new laws in New York to civilly sue Donald Trump for sexual assault, which made no sense. The story was completely ludicrous. They've changed the rules every single step of the way just to say we can and we will. In Georgia, they're going after Donald Trump. The federal documents case, they went for Trump. Now, of course, that one was recently defeated. Trump is winning every step of the way. The speculation around the presidential immunity ruling from the Supreme Court was that they would say, of course, the president enjoys immunity as to his constitutional duties. But for anything outside that, he does not. That was fairly obvious. What I didn't see

any pundit predict was that they would additionally say you cannot use any action that was in an official capacity as evidence of wrongdoing, which basically crushed the hush money case in New York, postponing the sentencing and allowing Donald Trump not to be sentenced to prison on July 11th, right before the RNC, where he was, of course, going to give his speech, accept the nomination, be the presidential nominee, and name his VP. And then two days after that, he gets shot in the ear in an unprecedented security failure, the likes of which you have never seen, and makes no sense to former Secret Service, like Dan Bongino, former Army snipers. I believe Eli Crane was an Army sniper. There have been many people who have commented on this who are in Congress. I believe Corey Mills as well, saying none of this makes sense. Dan Bongino pointing out that at Secret Service, you'd block line of sight if you

couldn't secure the roof. They didn't do that. You'd blur out the windows. They didn't do that. They didn't. None of it makes sense. And so my fear is there's a reason Tucker Carlson made the prediction in September that he did and they attacked him for it. But sure enough, ended up happening. Now we are looking at we know for a fact, those of us that are watching that text that that New York is. Just there's no law. There's none. Merrick Garland and the her tapes. There's no law.

Joe Biden broke the law the same as Trump. They say, we're not going to prosecute. The problem is evil law. It's different than no law. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, there's no law. Okay? There's no law.

Merrick Garland defies a congressional subpoena, and they say, so what? He can do whatever he wants. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon's in prison. Peter Navarro just got out. At what point does the system just, one day people wake up and they say there isn't one? You know what concerns me about the Trump attempted assassination of Trump is like, I think this machine, this deep state

is trying to remove threats to its process, whether it be Donald Trump or Joe Biden. And when Joe Biden refused to step down, then a couple of days later, he had a stroke. Is this confirmed? He had a mini stroke? I don't think it's been confirmed. It's not confirmed, but he's not. It's not confirmed that a mini stroke. But I do think it's fair to say that it is confirmed. He Joe Biden suffered a medical emergency. So he refuses to step down. They want him to step down, refuses and then has

a medical emergency. I find assassination attempts can happen with more than bullets. They can have poisonings like I don't put it past the system and i don't even know who it is that's the the biggest problem is like it's the shadows how do you defend against the shadows like it's been around for tens of thousands of years just really running the show and allowing kings to be in position it's not it's not just the shadow does not refer to a single person the element of surprise is a is a major component for any kind of conflict so it could be one guy today, a second guy tomorrow, could be a woman today, it could be a different woman tomorrow. You just don't know. Now, personally, I hear what you're saying on Joe Biden and how they may have tried to stop him.

I just don't think they need to. I think we've all seen Biden's failing for the past few years. It's a silly concept. I don't I'm not purporting that it happened. It's just, it struck me last night while I was listening, and I thought, wow, I hadn't put that one into place, so I might as well talk about it on the show today. What?

I don't... 2021, you have January 6th, and you have people who are still being held. You've got one guy who's been held in solitary, on and off, without any charges. We're going on three and a half years. This guy's never been held in solitary on and off without any charges. We're going on three and a half years. This guy's never been charged with a crime, but they won't let him go.

What we are seeing now, especially with the contempt charges against Merrick Garland, Democrats break the law and get away with it. Republicans go to jail for the slightest infraction. The lawsuit you have against New York, Supreme Court absolutely needs to say, New York, you're done. We nullify all of it. It's just gone. And if they don't, and I suspect they won't do anything, we are inching towards a reality where people on the right are going to say Washington is illegitimate because they don't actually uphold or enforce the law. They are no different than roving bands of bad guys with guns,

because that's all we're seeing. Federal law enforcement raiding Donald Trump but ignoring Joe Biden, they're not acting as if they're agents under the law, bringing accountability and equality under the law. They're quite literally just dudes with guns enforcing mandate from Democratic Party officials. I have a lot of hope with the Supreme Court right now, only that because they are demanding New York respond.

They didn't have to issue that demand, as far as I understand. Yeah, I mean, they didn't have to accept our filing. They could have just dismissed the filing on the pleadings and said, no, Missouri, we're not going to have this lawsuit. So, I mean, yeah, look, this is moving in a positive direction in the sense that we're going to have a chance to have some of these issues litigated. And again, I think that the Supreme Court, you know, one way they could kind of sidestep the issue is to pause on a ruling until such time as the state court in New York takes action at

sentencing. Because if the court sentences President Trump, the court should do the right thing, just dismiss the indictment, vacate the judgment, turn him loose. But if the court doesn't do that, they could, like the trial court could say, well, President Trump, you're on bench probation, supervised by the court with no conditions. Well, then he can talk again and he can be campaigning again and he can have his appeal play out, and then that kind of lessens the impact.

He's still gagged. Yeah, he is, and that's the point. The gag order is supposed to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. The state asked for the gag order, and the trial's over. Right, it's a funny thing about them delaying sentencing, which is like on the one hand, Trump not in prison or doing whatever, getting to be out when a lot of people were really scared about what would happen to him. On the other hand, it just allows this gag order to remain in place, which like you've pointed out, is actually benefiting the prosecution in a lot of

ways. It allows the gag order to stay in place and it also heightens the harm under the Purcell claim. Yeah. I'm glad you're here because you are an officer of the law and you obviously appreciate law. I think a lot about law and chaos. I play a lot of video games, Baldur's Gate, Dungeons and Dragons, and Alignment. You've got law and chaos. You can be lawful or you can be chaotic. And then alongside that,

you could be good or you could be evil. So you can be lawful and evil. You could be chaotic and you could be good. That's like Robin Hood. So when law becomes evil, I wonder how do you protect or defend against the king gone rogue that, well, you don't run under the castle and scream because the guards are going to axe you down.

So I'm thinking, I'm a bard, man. I've got to use my magic for what I'm good at, which is making music and sound and inspiring the populace through grassroots. There is no strategic maneuver in a situation like that. When you have tyranny, there's no strategic maneuver. There's only eventual chaos in every direction, right? So we'll talk about the founding fathers in the American Revolution. I love this point. I make it all the time. One year and one month after the war had already begun is when they signed the Declaration of Independence. So you literally have the founding fathers being like, why are you

shooting us at stop? We don't want this for a year. It's not that there's a lot of people who have this idea in their minds that the founding fathers got together and said, you know, this king's kind of a dick. Let's declare independence. And then they did. And then they sent the letter. It sails to England. And then he reads it and goes, oh, well, then I'm going to declare war on them and we'll have a war. And then three months later, troops show up. Not how it happened. The regulars were already there. They were suppressing people's rights. They were trying to seize weapons and regular people just started fighting. It was chaos. And then in response to the fighting, which was started by the crown, we for the most part, I mean, they're the oppressive force.

You end up with the Continental Army forming and a war emerging just naturally out of chaos before finally the Founding Fathers are like, eh, we're going to declare independence, I guess. They've been fighting for a year at that point. And they would have, anecdotally, or at least as a sidestep, they would have had no chance without the French. The French won the war. I believe the without the French. The French won the war. I believe the Spanish as well.

The French and the Spanish. It was basically a proxy war between France and Spain against England. And the French and the Spanish used the United States as like Vietnam to wipe out the English, destroy their navy. And then they were like, yeah, and we did liberty. So like Beaumarchais, you know, heroes of the French. Well, yeah. I mean, so if the king had reconciled himself

to the law, done, then there could have been a reconciliation between the colonists and the crown. But it was, to your point,

it was that continual, like, further movement down the path of chaos and lawlessness that resulted in this exacerbation of the problem. The crown's saying, it's Parliament,

don't look at me. The king's like, don't look at me. And then parliament is like, we, we control the colonies and the colonies were like, okay, now we, now you don't imagine what would have happened in global, in world history. If the crown and parliament in great Britain said, colonists, we hear what you're saying. We'll work it out for you. Why don't we have some representatives from each colony come to Parliament to speak your piece, and then we'll rule as the... Then there's representation. Things calm down. The United States remains part of the British Empire. Imagine what the world would have been like if they weren't so obstinate. And what I see now is the deep state, they are doing the exact same things.

They are saying, don't know, don't care. It's our power, F you. Nothing else matters. Well, you ask Ian, like, what do you do in those scenarios? How do you? There's nothing to do. My fear is that eventually you will end up with people on the right waking up one day and being like, there is no government. That's deeply concerning.

I'm constantly thinking about this right now. Like, how do we preserve against this? It requires... I mean, you know what it is. That's the biggest problem. I will tell you this. It is very, very plain to see. Merrick Garland broke the law.

He is not being charged. Steve Bannon was ordered to answer a congressional subpoena, and he said, I can't under executive privilege. And then eventually they said, then we're going to charge you for it. I think that's BS, but fine, if that's what they're doing. Merrick Garland also rejected a congressional subpoena. Okay, fine. Well, he should be charged. They said, no, you don't solve this by bending the knee to tyrants who are smashing and burning everything to the ground. We're trying to ask them to stop smashing everything and burning to the ground. The answer would be Merrick Garland should be in jail for four months in prison for four months, the same as Steve Bannon.

And then my answer is the system works. There is equality under the law. The problem is you can ask people like Steve Bannon. And then my answer is the system works. There is equality under the law. The problem is you can ask people like Steve Bannon, you have been found in contempt, go to prison. And he says, OK, because Steve Bannon believes in this system, the negotiation, the the the I suppose the terms to be given aren't coming from us. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro went to prison. They said, OK, we abide by the law. It is the Democrats, Joe Biden, with her investigation, not being charged for the classified documents. And Merrick Garland not going to prison despite the fact that he literally broke the law.

So the negotiation is, if we want a system to be maintained, you have to participate. But they're not. So we run dangerously close to a point where you're going to get a bunch of people. It's going to be Bundy Ranch times 10,000 in the United States. And that's what I feel. This is my concern is that I don't think Biden was running the show and making these decisions. I feel like it was corporatists, potentially international cartels of banking establishments and business dealings and things that are, would be happy to see the United States dissolve into chaos. So for them, it's almost like a win-win.

It's like if we decide we have to fight, we lose and they win. If we don't fight, then we lose due to the fascist oppression and they win through technocracy. So that's where I'm at right now. Like the walls, I feel them, I'm like... And I don't think that's actually inherent to the American spirit. I think Americans don't like to be on edge like that.

They would much rather rebuilding and moving forward in a positive way. Yeah, man. That's why I was talking about graphene earlier. Did I mention you can do these? You talk about graphene

every day that I've known you. What is that different? On the back window of your car, you got those black lines, those defroster, but they don't put them on the front windows because they block vision.

So you make graphene glass ones that melt the ice that are transparent. Stuff like that. Let's create shit and go to Mars, man, and just do something good. Overly simplistic. There are people who don't care for any of that. They are barbaric and want to watch the world burn.

What's the issue? That Donald Trump didn't want any wars? Apparently. There's a meme. All of these presidents who started 15 plus wars and killed thousands of people in and american troops die in the process nothing then you get donald trump someone tries to kill him and they didn't at first no one cared for the first four years it was like that's not true they accused him of being a traitor yeah and before trump got a got uh uh before trump was even the nominee,

someone at a rally tried grabbing the gun from a police officer to kill Trump. He did like a soft coup in the beginning. They were like trying to slant him in the media

and push him down that way. And then it slowly escalated to where we're at right now. Deep State's been against him since day one. He's taken everything they've thrown at him to include a would-be

assassin's bullet and is stronger than ever. Oh, our internet's down. Are they? Yeah. Is the show still recording? The show's still recording, but internet's down. So, yeah.

When did it go down when they were talking about the deep state? Oh, no. Did they mention the king? We did have a time that, like, the power went out when someone was talking. Oh, that's interesting. The CIA. YouTube's down. The lights went out.

I think YouTube is down. Interesting. Because I still have X on my phone. I was going to say, I have the internet on my computer. Are we still live? They're like, if we can't take out the show, take out the entire internet. It just came back right now. Hello, everyone.

We're back. How very, very strange. Are people saying that we disappeared? I just want to say Luke Rutkowski texted me and said, call Hannah, Hannah on the show. No, Luke. It's Hannah Clare, Br Hannah, Hannah on the show. No, Luke. It's Hannah Clare, Brimlow. For the record, get it straight. Yeah, so our stream rate is zero.

YouTube has just come back, but we are not, nothing is being sent out. So you didn't hear that, world. All right. No, it's in the audio podcast that'll be on Spotify and iTunes. Cool. Well, I'm looking forward to going live again. OBS, reconnection successful.

And we still do not have an up rate. Let's find out. Yeah. Alright, audience. Oh, there we go. And we're back. We're back, audience. When did it cut out? Put it in the comments. I believe that was YouTube that cut out. Apparently YouTube dropped. Did someone say something that offended the deep state

for like the past minute that blacked out for the last three years? I don't think we said anything specifically unusual that hasn't said before unless they were on a particularly sensitive day. Yeah, we didn't shut it down. So that was YouTube that went down. I do wonder about the infrastructure of large tech companies. I mean, this is something that I've

wondered about for a long time. You're pointing at me. Oh man, this is my issue. This is really important to me. You're right. I mean, it's not just, look, the big tech marketplace transparency for consumers to know the quality of and components of the products there or services goods or services they're purchasing right those don't exist in the big tech marketplace because section 230 the cda has been misinterpreted and that has allowed not only government censorship which violates the first amendment but corporate censorship that again your shadow ban de-platform

de-emphasized and it's not just your rights as a speaker that are being violated, but your listeners rights as well. And again, it's more pernicious than any point in human history because the medium of communication is so much more dynamic. And it's done in a clandestine manner. And so as state attorneys general, we need to find tools in our toolbox to help fix that problem. I think that consumer protection law and I think that antitrust law are two options that we're looking at in Missouri. That's interesting. Do you feel like people realize the importance of the attorney general when they're going to vote? Because basically from what you're saying, you have the ability to impact people's lives in so many ways. I mean, in this conversation, we've bounced from

the election to stuff that's going on in Missouri, but also like you've done stuff with Planned Parenthood with, with consumer protection. I mean, it, it seems like maybe this is an office that people don't pay enough attention to. I think that, uh, people in the state of Missouri have started paying a lot more attention based on the work that my predecessors, uh, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmidt have, you know, they leave behind a legacy of excellence that I'm carrying on and proud to be doing that. And we, we, we build off of that and take it in new and different directions. And so I think people are starting to pay attention and see how important it is. And you said that Josh Hawley was your law professor and he also has endorsed you for reelection.

That's correct. Yeah, that's pretty cool. Were you guys following that? I'm sure you were that tech outage a couple of days ago, a few days ago. It was like Delta is still screwed. Yeah. Delta's still screwed. CrowdStrike issued an update. And I could be wrong about this, but I heard people saying that it was one of the codes linked to a

null identifier or something. I forgot what it's called. Is that what it was, Serge? Basically, it was equivalent to a dead link. So imagine you had a code and it was like, after X amount of time, click AOL.com, but there isn't one. So this update tells all the computers

to pull memory from a dead space that has no memory, so everything just crashes. I'm wondering, do websites like YouTube, do companies like you, have the legal authority to just cut access to a user

at any moment? Like, what happened to us? I don't think that's what happened. I'm not saying that, but... I mean, isn't that what Facebook and all kinds of social media platforms do already? They say, you have violated our terms of service. We won't say how you must leave now.

So then you can still log in. You can still go to facebook.com, but I'm saying, can they issue a denial? Like, so you can't even go to the website. It just gives you a four. Yeah. What is it? And again, some of this is being done

at the government's demand. Some of this is government coerced censorship, as we've proven in Missouri v. Biden. And now that we're back at the trial court level, we can use Merritt's discovery to root out that vast censorship enterprise. We need to build a wall of separation between tech and state to protect our First Amendment right to free speech from government censorship. But separate issue is the corporate censorship. And I still think that there are tools at our disposal now, unless and until Congress takes action to amend or repeal Section 230 of the CDA. It should be. I think I don't think it needs to be. It could be amended.

I don't think it needs to be repealed or could simply be ruled on by the Supreme Court. Yeah. The issue is not that tech platforms, online Web service providers have immunity. The issue is that they also have, Section 230 gives them not just the immunity, but the right to police as they see objectionable. It's a sword and a shield. Exactly. And it should be just a shield. Yep. You are allowed, the rule should be, you are allowed to only remove through criminal writ of some sort. So if someone posts something that's illegal,

you can flag, and a judge can say, that's illegal. Yeah. I think that's, because right now what's happening is, you know, you've got x.com, and they're like,

oh, you know, we can remove whatever we want, and we can't be sued, because that's not our speech. So they selectively remove all the opinions of people who think, like, there's only two genders. That was actually one of the big things they did. They banned misgendering. And so, but it's fundamentally reshaping our culture yep it by by by uh you know filtering the information flow in in what has become the public square

and the remedy for disfavored speech in this country has traditionally been counter speech not censorship certainly not government censorship so here. So here's a funny component of Section 230 as it works under the law. If I make a news website or if the New York Times created a space on the front page, a small space, and they said any user can write content and submit it and it may appear in that box. And so let's just say TimCast did it, right? Any user can write whatever they want. You can't sue me for hosting it. And so then one day on the

front page it says Kamala Harris kicked a dog. Big breaking news. And then you look in there, you see the author, you see this news story. It looks completely legitimate. You know, we're NewsGuard certified as a legitimate news source. And the people are like, wow, look at this report. And they say, we're going to sue you for posting. No, no, no. That was user-generated content. We didn't write it.

So there's another problem in this, in that the law would also allow, as per Wikipedia, this is the big problem. Here's your avenue for a lawsuit, probably, if you want to approach this. Let me, let's do this. I'm going to pull up Wikipedia, James O'Keefe. And I actually do hope you use this and launch your suit, because we talked about this a few years ago. All right. James O'Keefe, Wikipedia. James Edward O'Keefe III is an American political activist who founded Project Veritas, a far-right activist group that uses deceptively edited videos and information-gather gathering techniques to attack mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Both O'Keefe and Project Veritas have produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video, encounters in academic governmental,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So it is my understanding James O'Keefe takes issue with this Wikipedia page in that it falsely characterizes and demeans, defames, and libels. The argument that I was told is that you can't sue Wikipedia. Section 230, right? Well, hold your horses. Where on this page does it say it was written by any users? Does it? No.

What's the byline? The byline is from Wikipedia. Yeah. So I've talked to lawyers and I've asked them about this. I said, okay, hold on. On Twitter, if Ian Crossland posts, it says Ian Crossland

and then under it says, I just plain don't like graphene. And then you can't sue Twitter or X now because it's under Ian's name. He said this. My argument is Wikipedia may allow users to write whatever

they want. That's on the back end when you view the source. When you look at the source material of how it's written up and it's got users' names next to it in the history, that's what's protected. So if you click view history on this, these individual posts, this is the Twitter of Wikipedia, the username and the thing they wrote. However, they then, as Wikipedia and entity themselves, write that the article in aggregate is from them specifically. I believe there is a strong case to sue Wikipedia making that argument. Yeah, they look like a publisher. I mean, 230 was intended to say that these online social media platforms are not publishers under kind of common law defamation libel. They look more like a publisher when they they're claiming ownership over the content there. I agree with that.

And to your point, I mean, from a consumer protection angle, it's too hard to understand the label. It's too hard to understand how consumers, the information consumers need to qualify whether or not to believe this is not readily available to us. Let me add a few more components. Wikipedia has super users. So if you sign up for Wikipedia to edit the article, you can't. People make this argument that on Wikipedia, you know, anybody can sign up and write whatever they want. You literally can't. Wikipedia has editorial guidelines. Only certain sources are allowed to be used. And there are super users who have the authority to lock and boot you from a page. Notably, James O'Keefe is locked out. We need to see it. We need to see Wikipedia sued because they are asserting this. Now, in this instance, James O'Keefe himself would

have to sue Wikipedia for defamation and say, this isn't a user-generated page. When users generate content akin to what Twitter is, where you can see the user's name and their arguments and the things they've wrote, that's Twitter. I agree. The revision history of the page is protected, each and every one of these posts. But Wikipedia then allows, under editorial guidelines with editorial super users, to aggregate all of that into a post. So I make this argument. And I don't know if you're an expert on this as a lawyer. So if I worked at the New York Times and I said, I'm going to create a draft article in the New York Times back end, and I will let anyone write anything they want. However, as a super user, I can selectively edit and remove things that don't follow my rules. Then once they write a story about Kamala Harris kicking a dog,

I say, okay, publish. And it says Kamala Harris kicked dogs by the New York Times. That is not protected under Section 230, right? It shouldn't be. Again, the courts have misinterpreted certain provisions within Section 230 of the CDA, and I think that's caused a lot of the problem. But we're seeing states take action, too, right? I mean, Texas and Florida both passed laws that ended up at the Supreme Court in the net choice cases.

The Supreme Court kind of punted on that, so it remains to be seen how those laws are going to impact the marketplace. But I think everyone recognizes there's a problem in action. Well, here's some defamation. It says Andrew Bailey, politician. You can't stand for that. You know, I think at the top where it says from Wikipedia, it should actually say from 7,400 users. And there should be a hyperlink that should take you to them.

And it should say super users. This article has been edited this many times. And then you'll be able to sue the individual people for defamation, not the website. This is the problem right now is when I asked, OK, on Twitter, on X, if Ian defames me, I can sue Ian, right? Yes, of course. OK, well, in the history of this, you've got the most ridiculous scenario. How do I sue a guy who wrote one word? So I, uh, we actually talked about this in the show and someone built this system where everyone is allowed to submit only one word. You can't sue someone for saying dog.

Can you sue a guy who wrote Kamala? No. If I go on Twitter right now and type the word Kamala, you can't see me. I didn't say anything. What if someone wrote Kamala, the next person wrote Harris, the next person wrote kicks, the next person wrote kicks, the next person wrote dog, and then it publishes an article. Who do you sue? That's the problem with Wikipedia. No individual, or I should say there are people who are writing big paragraphs, but some people only add a word. And so someone, someone might write, and here's, here's a question for you. Kamala Harris pets dog. Someone else comes in and changes the word pet to kick. Can you sue someone for writing the word kick?

No, but at that point, you'd have to sue the super user that published the amalgamation, I think. It's the individual who wrote kick and clicked publish. Is the argument then, because here's the argument then. Every single user who clicks publish is assigning the entirety of the article to themselves as a user. No, no, no. Let's talk about this. Kamala Harris pets a dog. You go in and you change pets to kicks.

Publish. And you go, I didn't say she kicked a dog. I just wrote the word kick. Someone else wrote Kamala Harris and dog. That wasn't me. So I didn't make the statement. No. What court is going to agree with that? Right. You'd have to go with the word kick. Someone else wrote Kamala Harris and dog. That wasn't me. So I didn't make the statement. No, what court is going to agree with that? Right.

You'd have to go with the timestamp. You'd see if you actually did put the word kicks in to fill that sentence out. In which case, you as adding anything to that article and clicking publish, you're not publishing one word. You're publishing the whole article as a statement from yourself as a user so here's what we need to do people on the right complain about wikipedia all the time launch a series of lawsuits against every single user citing the entirety of the page and they'll say i didn't write anything about a cow kicking a dog i was writing about her time at university

no you published the full article did you not not? When you clicked edit, did it show you the entirety of the article with everything in it? And you clicked publish. Therefore, you published the entirety of the statement. I think that's what we need to do. Now, my Wikipedia actually isn't bad. Not like James's. So there's not really much in there for me to complain about. It actually says Tim Pool is considered left and right.

And there's nothing in there that's like overtly defamatory that would be the thing is though if it's a big article with a bunch of false narratives and then you go in and change one of the words to actually something righteous then they could sue you for all the false narratives in the article that we have to change the system it makes no sense so so what's happening is the left, predominantly leftist liberal activists, go on Wikipedia and put bunk sources and lie, cheat and steal all through this stuff like James O'Keefe. It's just lies. And what's the remedy to correct the defamation when they go? I only I only wrote one word. Don't look at it. We're talking about a political or a legal remedy, which should exist and does exist. And also the technical remedy, which I've always sort of advocated as opening the software code. It is open source. Is all the software code free on this thing?

Yes, Wikipedia is completely open source. Because then someone can spin up a clone of the site like Wikipedia, and then people will start using Wikipedia because it's less local. The Wikipedia system is used for everything. Have you ever gone to, like, Star Trek Wikipedia? No. Wikias. They have 50 billion different versions, and they're used for specific things. The problem is Wikipedia is the premier principal online encyclopedia that is used by many people as a directory for sources.

Yeah, Google will put it in search engines and things. It'll have it linked on the side. Well, we got to go to Super Chats. So smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with all your friends. One like equals one. Fight, fight, fight. Become a member at TimCast.com. The members-only uncensored show will be coming up in about 18 or so minutes.

You don't want to miss it. We went a little long. I cut into Super Chat time, but we'll try and read what you got. Clint Torres says, howdy, people. Howdy, Clint. It's always with the first Super Chat. Tim is controlled. Opposition says if Kamala turns on Israel, she's got my vote. That is what I refer to as Israel derangement syndrome. The idea that Kamala, who is not qualified, who is, I mean, also just deeply uncharismatic, openly corrupt,

accused of sleeping her way into politics, the idea that you would support a person because she hates Israel suggests that you have an emotional disturbance internally pertaining to Israel by which you would be willing to damage your own country if it means that you get to insult another country. She turns on Israel. She's insulting another country. That's anti-America first. That's America last. That you're voting for someone who hates another country but doesn't support your own? America last. I think Kamala Harris struggles with her national security platform. Again, right now, she's just going to have to parrot whatever the Biden administration

did. Deeply unpopular on the Palestine-Israel-Hamas conflict, right? They tried to sit on every side of that issue. And ultimately, you know, it did not help them. There are a lot of people who were saying, I will not vote for Joe Biden over the Sioux. So she's inheriting that. I actually think this is one of the things that will be interesting when it comes to see who she taps to be her VP. Because that person, you know, there's a rumor going around.

Could be anybody, a ton of governors are on the short list, but there's a rumor that she might pick someone who has more diplomatic and national security expertise to balance out her shortcomings and their stance on any kind of not just Israel, but like Ukraine, you know, Taiwan, any sort of geopolitical conflict would be telling. Max Reddick says, Tim, Destiny is saying some reputation damaging comments about you. He made a video claiming that you maliciously lied about your no-go zone coverage in Sweden. That's a pretty serious accusation. Destiny is having a mental breakdown.

Something pertaining to his wife leaving him. I don't know too much about it because I don't care for, you know, low tier e-drama streamers. But he's particularly upset because we said on the show last week he would not be welcome on this show ever again, not because I have any personal beef with him, but because it is against the rules of every platform to glorify or advocate for the death of other individuals. And for that reason, I'm hearing other podcasts saying they don't want to work with him because if he says that on the show, they will get a strike or they will get banned. So I can't say too much about, he can say whatever he wants. You know,

you know, one thing I got to say, guys, the biggest mistake anyone can make if they're talking to me and they want to be friends with me is to let me know that strangers on the internet are saying naughty things about me. And it happens all the time. Like all the friend would be like, yo, like, Hey, you said there's a video about you and i'm like my guy this guy's got a hundred thousand subscribers the young turks make videos about me like destiny is just some low-tier drama streamer who's complaining and glorifying that people are dead and what are we doing we are we are privileged and and and we have the honor of sitting here with an attorney general talking about lawsuits at the federal level to defend election integrity.

So, by all means, if low-tier streamers want to complain and get into e-drama, they're allowed to do it. We're going to try and have serious conversations to the best of our abilities with great people who are – well, I mean, I think you might be the only guy who's actually – Ken Paxton's doing a lot of good stuff, but we appreciate the work you do. And you've done stuff with Patrick Morrissey, the AG of West Virginia, right? Yeah, absolutely. Oh yeah, Morrissey's good. Yeah, we just were, I was on a panel at the RNC speaking with General Morrissey,

hopefully next governor of West Virginia. It's a privilege to be here. I appreciate you all having me. Would you ever want to do a roundtable with other attorneys general? I would be happy to. Yeah, it'd be a great opportunity. I wonder who is your foil, right? If you are the conservative AG, you know, kicking down doors, filing all these bold lawsuits, who is like the Democrat? I assume it's Letitia James, but like, is there someone who we just don't pay attention to, who gets even more crazy stuff through? Okay. I want to do a game show, political trivia,

and it's left versus right, where we, I, we got to do this. We have to do this. I think it's left versus right where we got to do this. We have to do this. I think it's a moneymaker. It's a banger. But I don't know. I mean, the election is so soon. The idea would be to go out and ask people like, hey, are you a liberal or conservative? Would you like to come on a game show, political trivia, news and politics trivia show, and win prizes and have cash prizes and stuff. Because I can tell you this. If you were to debate A.G. Bailey, Letitia James,

it would be like watching Mike Tyson box a five-year-old. She's... There's just no question. And we've talked, I've talked to a lot of people. Liberals will not admit this. But I guarantee you, if we did a political game show with run

of the mill conservatives and run of the mill liberals, the conservatives would win six out of 10, seven out of 10. You, you ask real simple questions about Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, uh, Vladimir Zelensky, uh, Vladimir Putin, and they're going to be able to answer at a higher rate than liberals. Just no i don't know what to say i don't know i wouldn't do very well on that show i actually might do better than i think i would let's read some more we got summit forgery says timcast members have been hosting a creator's workshop sundays 3 to 5 p.m eastern in the discord a space for small business and hobby types in culture building at its finest join us this sunday the 28th where we'll we'll be celebrating one year

of weekly workshops go team, that's really cool. Become a member at TimCast.com. There's cool stuff going on. All right. Captain Insano says, Andrew Bailey, you're amazing, man. I live in Springfield, and I'm proud to have you as my AG.

MAGA. MAGA. Sorry, everybody. Appreciate that. Appreciate that. Yeah. Let's go. Ethan Sacco says, AG Bailey, I've got my. Appreciate that. Yeah. Let's go. Ethan Sacco says,

AG Bailey, I've got my entire family voting for you. I tell them I don't care what else you do as long as you vote for Andrew Bailey. Yeah. Well, it seems like a lot of people are really happy with what you're doing. I appreciate the support. I mean, this is basically what happens

is we see the breaking news about you filing suit against New York, and we're all like, finally! Like, we've been freaking out. Like, where is and with all due respect, like West Virginia is deep red. I mean, we could be seeing more state level actions challenging these what's what's going on. And it seems like you you're definitely doing the most with what with all due respect to Ken Paxton and Morrissey. I know that there's action being done, but it seems like you're in the running, charging ahead in front of everybody else. Proud to be leading the charge.

You know, I've got great colleagues, but yeah, at the end of the day, we're going to do the right things for the people of the state of Missouri and proud to be leading the charge on some of these issues. Right on. Barely a Millennial says, I live in Indiana. How do I motivate my AG to act when it comes to returning lawfare? Perhaps if more states moved this way, this madness would stop. What do we do? Just bombard your letters with postcards? Like, what's the game plan? Yeah, look, you know, I'm proud to have, was it four or five states that signed an amicus brief in support?

So, you know, Montana, Alaska, Florida, Iowa were all involved in filing an amicus brief in support of our lawsuit against new york and i think at the end of the day again that as this case progresses you're going to see more attention and and have other opportunities for other other states to get on board and everybody's got a their own jobs to do and it's i think the important thing to remember here is each state has different legal authority for their attorney general that's guided by the state constitution state law and so again like the the the weapons were issued are determined by our general assembly and are the people of our states and i just have a unique set of i have a unique arsenal to use but do people come to you and say like hey you were mentioning before people are calling your office saying can

i even is it going to be on the ballot is how what am i is it is it enough to just go to the attorney generals with the things that you are concerned about? Maybe they don't have the authority to take the exact action that maybe you're taking, but part of it is just being in contact. It's accessing your government. Yeah, the government exists to serve the people and protect the people's rights. And so folks should absolutely have access to the government. What's the most effective way? Calling the office over and over again kind of thing?

I mean, yeah, we track our constituent service inquiries and we actually have folks can sign up for newsletters and we will even target if you're interested in a particular topic like pro-life issues, then whenever we take pro-life action, we will email you that stuff. We also have a website that we've redone in order to make it more user-friendly where you can file complaints or reach

out. And so we do everything we can to do outreach to the folks and allow for the folks to get in touch with their office, phone calls, is that better than letters? Phone calls, emails, yeah, all of that. I think letters, all of those things are great ways. Coordinated phone call campaigns, like if you get 50 people to call at one o'clock on a Tuesday, is that super effective to get your attention? He doesn't want to say anything because he's going to be like, why would you sell them this? I'm trying to build coalitions of like-minded state attorneys general.

But I think your office in particular deserves credit for the fact that you're just so on the ball on X. I mean, whenever you have a press release go out, it's great to see because it's right there and you have so much information. You have all the links anyone needs. I assume Missouri voters, not everyone's on X, but a lot of people rely on it, especially reporters. Just being able to get the message out quickly is amazing. Credit to my staff. I'm the quarterback, but I got a team around me. So my communications director, I owe her an enormous debt of gratitude. She does so much to help me keep the public informed, and I could not do it without her and her and her entire team. So credit to my staff for putting us in a position to be able to play winning football. So Jacob Hawley says, Mr. Bailey,

what do you think about a peaceful divorce of our country or some type of civil war? Also, will you maybe look into being governor of Missouri? Also, Wisconsin is better than Missouri. I love that. Will you maybe look into it? Check that out for us. I was in Wisconsin last week. Beautiful state. Missouri's home for me. I love the show me state. And that's where I'm raising my family.

And, you know, I'm going to serve in whatever capacity I can in order to inflict the most damage upon the enemy. Enemies of freedom, safety, and prosperity. Do you think that one day you might run for governor or something like that? You know, it would be foolhardy to rule out options, so I don't want to do that. But I'm myopically focused on being the attorney general. That's all I want to do. I mean, I didn't come to this wanting to be a politician.

I don't want to be a politician. I want to be the attorney general. I want to do it long term. I don't know how anyone does it. It's brutal, man. Politics is a prison riot with fewer rules. And that's okay. We'll take it.

But I am dedicated. I'm raising my four small children in my home state. And I get up in the mornings during the school year and I take them to the school bus. And it reminds me why I do this. It's so that they can enjoy the same freedom, safety and prosperity that I got to enjoy. How long have you been in office? About 18 months, 19 months now. 19 months.

Were the people of Missouri aware that you would be doing such a good job when they voted for you? But what I mean is it might sound a little silly, but there's there's people who are in office where you run in somewhat normal times on a normal position. And then when you come to this extreme and egregious of lawfare actions, I see you as rising up to the challenge and doing what every other state should be doing to challenge the, like what we see in New York, what the Biden administration is doing. So I wonder if when, you know, when you were campaigning, were you saying like, I'm going to start filing these, these suits against the government for the BS they're doing? You know, I was appointed to my office when Eric Schmidt was elected to the United States Senate. I'm filling out the remainder of the unexpired portion of his term and running for my own term.

So I'm running for office right now. But what I would say is that, you know, people, the people of the state of Missouri didn't really know me when I was appointed to this office. And my hope and desire is that over the past 18 months, they've seen the work we're doing and are proud of. And I think that that's reflected in some of the comments you're getting. That's reflected in the comments that I get when I'm out on the trail. And again, it's like, this is the show me state. Results matter. Politicians talk.

I get to work. I think your story is so interesting because, you know, you got appointed to take over this term. I keep saying reelected, but really it's just to return to the office you're currently in, elected for the first time. But again, like you came in sort of guns blazing, so to speak. I mean, I think a lot of people who were taking over a term that they weren't elected to might be like, well, I'm going to play it cautious and then I'll get

reelected. And you were like, no, people want me to do this and I'll act now. I was just put in the batting order in the World Series. Why would I not swing for the fences? You know what I mean? I wonder if that's why you're doing so well then, right? Well, yeah, I'm unfettered from kind of those normal considerations that might inhibit my audacity.

A lot of the people who got in, who get elected, their first term is building coalitions, but also making agreements with certain political action committees and things like this. That's right. You come in and you're like, I got a job to do. And I don't owe anyone any favors. Yeah. I don't owe anyone anything. Like, I can make my own decisions. I'm not beholden to any special interest groups.

I'm not beholden to any entity that might otherwise, again, stymie forward progress on issues that are important to the people. For the first part of the question, we did talk about it quite a bit already, but I'll give you just a real simple version if you want to give us a quick answer. Do you see a risk of some kind of peaceful divorce or balkanization in the U.S. over what's going on? There's absolutely a risk. I think people are fed up and tired of it. I think that, again, the government exists to protect our rights, and we see government

weaponized time and time again against us. And when you have people that feel like they don't have a voice in the process, whether it be because we have unelected bureaucrats passing laws instead of the people's elected representatives, or this shadow government who's running things in a deep state that we can't trust, those things make people not want participate and and withdraw and and that's enormously problematic problematic we've got to get back to a place where we elevate the rules of the game above the players and the outcomes it's a rule of law issue as you so clearly uh articulated in your analysis earlier yeah it freaks me out because i think we might see you know like the bundy ranch kind of standoff but the entire

country just people being like you guys don't have authority anymore because you're not legitimate. All right, let's grab some more super chats. TRD says, allegedly, there are poor unemployed people in Missouri that are donating tens of thousands of dollars to Act Blue. James O'Keefe has showed these as likely illegal donations funneled from billionaires. Will you look into it? Yeah, look, we're going to use every tool at our disposal to make sure that contributions that are solicited in the state of Missouri are done so, or not done so under false pretenses. You've seen that in our work on the Media Matters case and other cases. We're willing to take bold action in that space. There's a viral tweet going around right now. We didn't get into it because I don't know if it's confirmed or not, that

the donations to Kamala, they're arguing arguing came from one billionaire who broke it up and was illicitly it was it was it was being illicitly sent through hundreds of thousands of individuals james o'keefe had an investigation where he went to people's homes and he said how come you donated 57 000 times five dollars and they're like what and it's like yes over the year how is that possible this would mean you're donating five times a day and these people are like i have no idea what you're talking about. It's also legal, as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong,

to give someone every year a gift of like $13,000 untaxed. But if that gift has a purpose down the line, then it becomes illegal? Well, so consideration is the term for something in exchange of value. So if there is money given with no consideration, it's a gift.

And there's actually a couple different ways it can be handled. It can be handled as a yearly tax-free gift, which goes up every year. I don't know if you know the answer. It's like $13,000. I don't know the amount, but you're— Something like that. But then there's also lifetime gift totals, which can be higher in the millions. But if there is consideration, then it's taxable.

So, yeah. Well, it goes—to become a criminal offense, you always look at the mens rea, the mental state. Like, yeah. Well, it goes to become a criminal offense. You always look at the mens rea, the mental state, like what was the intent behind it? And sometimes that's difficult to ascertain, but that would be the result of a criminal investigation. Yep. So what was your question?

Because if a billionaire gave $10,000 to 1,000 people and then they all gave that money to a candidate, if there was consideration ahead of time. Well, and if there was an intent to evade campaign finance law okay then we got a problem so if a if a billionaire gave a hundred thousand people you know a thousand bucks each or whatever and then said see you later whoever do whatever you want but then they all gave it to kamala yeah he's gonna get get arrested. But that being said, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. If he gave it to Trump,

if he gave it to Kamala, they'd say, looks good to me. All right, well, we were going a little over. My friends, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with all your friends, head over to timcast.com right now,

click join us, become a member. The members-only show will be starting in a couple of minutes. You don't want to miss it. We're going to have member call-ins and we're going to talk about some serious issues but I'm curious as to what you guys have to say and ask. So again TimCast.com. You can follow me on X at TimCast as well as Instagram.

A.G. Bailey, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, hey, we really appreciate you guys having me on the show. Big fan. Just so proud to be here representing the people of the state of Missouri. We're going to keep fighting the good fight. And people are going to follow you on Twitter, x at agandrewbailey. That's right. Check us out at ago.mo.com on the official side,

and you can sign up to get news about the work we're doing. Or if you live in the state of Missouri and have a consumer complaint or other issue, we've provided forms and points of contact there on the website. Man, that was so informational, dude. That was awesome. Truly epic. Thank you for coming, and points of contact there on the website. Man, that was so informational, dude. That was awesome. Truly epic. Thank you for coming, and thank you for divulging the info. And if the show did cut out, I hear at one

point it'll be on Spotify and other websites. You're going to hear us going, oh, it's out? Yeah. I don't know what point it came up, but we were having an epic conversation about the deep state. It was really fun. YouTube, I believe YouTube drops the dropped portion, and so if you're watching or if you watch the video, it just skips over.

So I guess the main thing, if you want to get it all, check us out on Spotify. I'm Ian Crossland and I will see you later. Yeah, thanks so much for coming on. I feel like I have to tell everyone that you didn't actually know your own ex-handle because you're so focused on what you're doing, I guess. And you're like, we have to ask my staff members really quick. So I think that's really cool. I think

it's a testament to how dedicated you are to your job. And I hope we come back soon. I'm Hannah Claire Brimlaw. I'm a writer for SCNR.com. That's Scanner News. Follow all of their work at TimCastNews on the internet. I'm on Instagram at HannahClaire.b. I'm on X at HannahClaireB.

Thanks for all of your support. Have a good night. We will see you all over at TimCast.com in just a few minutes. Thanks for hanging out. you