Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
π¨TRUMP INDICTMENT UNSEALED w/ Robert Wolf, Eric Boiling & Tom Fitton
Recorded: June 9, 2023 Duration: 4:33:25Space Recording
Short Summary
The transcript discusses the legal complexities and implications of the indictment of former President Trump, focusing on the charges related to classified documents, including those concerning nuclear information. The debates highlight the legal challenges, potential political motivations, and the broader implications for the justice system.
Full Transcription
Nick, I've just sent you through a co-hosts to invite
if you start investing, if you start inviting guests
focusing on attorneys, that'll be great, just give it a couple of minutes.
Major news, guys.
Do you want to send out advice?
I'll send you the, I'll make you a...
Yes, so much as a little bit of course now.
Worstfully.
Any attorneys in the audience just hit us up.
DM me and the team will bring you up.
He's going to organize the panel.
Don't worry.
Don't worry, you don't need attorneys when I'm here.
Okay.
This guy can unmute his mic, you know?
I'm immute it.
No, look, I keep it on purpose so people know there is, like, it's not glitching.
If it's completely quiet, they'll think it's glitching and they'll just leave.
So I keep it on so they know that we're just...
Everybody thinks Mario's hard at work all the time.
And he's not, he's just sending me what's up saying, make me look good.
All right, guys, the John.
Lev, how are you?
Hi, Mario, thanks.
Good, how are you doing?
Good, Mike, good.
You're not a...
You're not at a garterine.
What's a gathering, Nick?
We have kids.
Where kids conglomerate?
Oh, a daycare center?
Daycare center.
So Levin's got a daycare center today.
No, I'm not.
It's during the day.
This half of them are sleeping.
Matthias, I know you've got most of the info,
so we're going to kick it off with you in a few minutes.
Just give us a rundown.
Just give another few minutes, Matthias,
and we can kick it off.
Can you hear me, Matthias? Just making sure?
Yeah, yeah, I can hear you.
All right, we'll do this in a bit.
Sounds good.
All right, let's pin above, guys, if there's anything to pin above for the audience to start reading through, it'll be good as we prepare to kick this off.
All right, maybe another two minutes, and then I kick it off.
Mary, I have to take a phone call.
If I drop, I'll come back out quickly.
Yeah, all good, man, all good.
By the way, Sully, what's the lawyer-lawier guys?
Like, his name is lawyer in his name.
Do you know what I'm talking about Sully?
Okay.
Yeah, Nate the lawyer.
Nate, no, is it Nate?
It's the guy that has logic, logic, yeah.
What is lame-ass name?
It's called logic.
Why do you call it logic?
Because he has L-A-W, bro, learn English.
Oh, does he?
Oh, I love it.
All the time I'd be thinking you couldn't pronounce it.
Yeah, Mr. DeSantis.
I'm trying to find his handle.
Nick, do you know what I'm talking about?
Logic guy, L-A-W-G-I-C.
The following.
It's called the following and then logic.
Oh, cool, send him out an invite.
Yeah, send him out an invite.
Let's get Benny Johnson in here as well.
Dr. Malibu, I can't invite him for some reason.
I don't know if he's shadowbound again
because he has a habit of being shadow band.
He's shadowbound.
Of course he is.
All right, I was to invite.
It's been a while we haven't had Ian here.
Send me out an invite.
Cool.
All right, guys.
You can shoot out the invites as you as you see fit.
I'll bring out some new speakers that I know.
And I think we can kick it off.
All right, Matthias.
Are you ready with the information?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Cool, go as deep as you can, go through everything,
just to update the audience,
where they have a panelist joining,
but what do we know so far from the indictment?
All right, so just about 20 minutes ago,
the official indictment of former President Trump
in relation to the classified documents probe
has been unsealed.
We know he's being charged with 37 federal charges.
I'll read through the counts for you very quickly.
Counts one through 31.
include willful retention of national defense information.
Count 32, conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Count 33, withholding a document to record.
Count 34, corruptly concealing a document to record.
Count 35, concealing a document in a federal investigation.
Count 36, scheme to conceal.
Count 37 false statements and representations.
We also know,
a former aid of his has also been charged and is included in this unsealed indictment.
We're going to break down those charges for you shortly. I'm having some people break that down.
Additionally, something to keep in mind is the content of the indictment itself. It's more than 40 pages long. It includes...
information such as where he stored these documents and what were inside these documents. So BNO is now
reporting that Trump stored classified documents in his bedroom, a bathroom, a bathroom, and a shower,
an office, a ballroom, and a storage room. In addition, it's being reported that some of the
contents inside of these documents, which we know that some of them were top secret,
contained nuclear information, information on potential attacks. We also are aware of
the Presidential Records Act,
which allows the President of the United States to declassify,
and we don't know how this will play in exactly to these charges.
Now, it's interesting to point out that there are many other politicians
who have been found with classified documents in their possession and that have been stored
improperly. Specifically, and most notably at this time, our own president, Joe Biden,
is currently under investigation for similar wrongdoing. So it'll be interesting to see how counts
one through 31 as well as count 33 is charged because if they charge former President Trump, they will almost
automatically have to charge President Biden with the same crimes.
If not, it would be clear that the justice system is impartial and biased in some way,
which has been the allegation and the claim of many Americans, both on the left and on the right.
Let me go to Harry, Harry, we've, I mean, he's just said,
breaking just said that with this indictment, obviously, if they don't end up,
Yeah, it was brilliant. Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, so I'm gonna go to Harry. Yeah, sorry, breaking. Can you hear, did you can hear Salaman or not? I cannot. Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, man, he was just saying that's a great update. Before you go to Harry, man, and get a debate going, I just wanted to understand, for a delay breaking. I brought you down and bring you back up, so accepting invite just so you can hear everybody. But just to, I want to understand the charges. Doc, have you gone through them yet?
No, I'm printing them out now, Mario.
I'll steal by you put me down.
No, no.
Stans says, just unmute whenever you've got more insight into it.
Paul, I'm not sure if you've gone into it through it as well.
But, Matthias, from what you've read so fine.
I know there was a CNN article as well about a leaked recording in which Trump
admitted that the, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
if I get it wrong, anyone.
I was earlier today and I haven't had time to go through everything.
But it was a leaked recording in which Trump admitted that the documents were not classified.
Am I accurate in saying that?
What you're referring to is a recording that they have that claims the opposite, Mario.
He admitted, he reportedly admits that some of the documents that he had in his possession were not declassified.
And that's why...
Yeah, exactly. So he did not, I don't know what I said, but he did not declassify information, documents he had.
So I'll read out this story.
So leaked tape shows Trump admitting he did not declassify quote secret information.
A leaked tape from 2021 shows that Trump acknowledged the fact that he had retained secret military information that had not been declassified.
According to the transcript, Trump says, as president, I could have declassified, but now I can't.
So that was obtained by CNN.
We now know that Trump has been indicted on seven counts.
Okay, the rest continues of what we know so far.
So that comes hours before the indictment was unsealed.
Can you add more context to this one, Matthias?
Your reporting is correct.
I think we should bring up Harry because he has a lot of insight from the other perspective
because I'm reporting impartially, of course.
So that would be a great person to bring up at this time to kind of go through that CNN report
and the more details about that.
Harry, go ahead.
Yeah, I mean...
Look, it's just overwhelming what we're seeing right now.
You know, this indictment said that Donald Trump had classified documents
pertaining to America's nuclear secrets and vulnerabilities of ourselves and allies
just lying around Mar-a-Lago, in stored in showers, in a basement where Nata, whatever
you, however you say his name, took pictures of the documents.
That's why he's included in the indictment because he's included in the conspiracy charge.
took pictures and sent it to people.
And there's also in the indictment,
the inclusion that Donald Trump showed classified documents
to people who didn't have a security clearance,
someone who was in his political action committee.
This guy was showing classified documents
to people who didn't have a clearance.
Right.
This, I have no problem with saying that two things.
One, fucking traitor.
Excuse my language, but if you steal nuclear secrets, you're spread around Mar-a-Lago.
You deserve to be held accountable.
And two, I think this, the fact that you're facing 38 felony counts, including 31 counts of violating the Espionage Act and further counts of conspiracy.
I think he's going to jail.
And look, I've never said that before because I always thought, oh, no, he's going to get away with there.
It's going to be like house arrest or something.
There will be, if he's convicted on these charges, there is going to be some time served in some capacity.
And I don't agree with the evaluation that they're going to have to charge Biden with the same crimes.
Because Biden...
to this time did not show them to other people.
He did not discuss them with people who didn't have security clearances.
And again, the point we have to remember with these charges is you have to prove intent.
You have to prove that they intentionally withheld classified documents, and there is that.
I mean, in the indictment, they talk about how Donald Trump himself was
authorized the withholding of the classified documents.
He himself packed up classified documents at the White House
before they left, knowing that they were classified.
There's even allegations that he authorized the destruction
of some classified documents.
We learned that the room that contained the servers with video footage
was flooded at Mar-a-Lago suspiciously.
Guys, this is a big deal.
And I really want to hear from the Republicans, the Trumpies up here,
because I don't know how you can defend this.
So thank you, Mara, for having me up.
I appreciate you.
Let me go to you.
Harry, just a follow-up question to your reporting.
So basically what you're, what you said about Biden.
So you don't think that any of these counts that are related to withholding classified information.
We know from CNN and other sources that the documents found
that were mishandled by then vice president Biden did contain top secret information.
We obviously don't know exactly the contents of that.
But to say that that one can be charged and the other cannot explain how that wouldn't paint a picture to the American people.
Absolutely.
We love to.
We love to.
Absolutely.
100%. So as I mentioned in my little rant just there, you have to prove intent. That's why the statute that Donald Trump is being charged with is willful retention of classified material, willful. You have to prove that they willfully did it, that they knowingly did it, that they intentionally did it. As of now, there's no evidence that Biden intentionally withheld classified documents. And that's why we just saw Mike Pence the other day, who he himself had classified documents on his premise, he was exonerated because there's no intent.
With Donald Trump, there's intent with Biden.
There's no intent.
And again, I want to make it clear that the Department of Justice should hold the same standard.
If they found intent with Mike Pence, indict him.
If they find intent with President Biden, indict him.
But that's the difference.
And that's what people have to understand.
It's not just like, oh, you took a classified document and they found it in your house.
There has to be intent.
And that's why it's different.
And then just one more point that this can go to anyone.
Just...
The timing of this, right?
We know that there are laws in place to prevent those who are running in major elections
from these kind of investigations, conclusions, and charges that may interfere with their position
in the election.
We know Donald Trump is the leading frontrunner of the Republican Party by a long shot
at this point.
What do you speak to or, and this goes again to anyone,
about the importance of delicacy when it comes to this process
as to not interfere with the election that's coming up?
I mean, let me go to Prodigal on that
because I'm pretty sure that even if Trump is indicted,
does not.
Oh, he cannot hear you. Mattes, you can't hear you, Suleiman.
Yeah, let me bring you down back up again one more.
Actually, maybe it's you silly.
So go ahead, ask your question, Sully, then I'll rotate you.
Yeah, well, actually, Prodigal, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's funny.
I mean, Harry, he learned some new words, and he thinks he learned something new,
but he doesn't realize that the sole authority rests with the president.
There's also a declassification memo for it.
Yeah, except Trump admitted on tape that he didn't declassify them.
We just learned that this morning from CNN, they received the official transcript of Donald Trump himself saying, yeah, I could have declassified this, but I didn't.
So, yes, of course, he had the sole authority, but he himself is on tape admitting that he didn't do that.
That's why this is so bad.
This is why this guy is screwed.
And not only that, but on page 21 in Section 54, Trump even admits that.
Between attorney one and attorney two.
I don't want anybody looking.
I don't want anybody looking through my boxes.
I really don't.
I don't want you looking through my boxes.
Part B.
Well, what if what happens if we just respond or don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?
Part C.
Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?
Part D.
Well, look, isn't it better if there are no documents?
What are these communications, right?
These attorney client, these are between.
That's why a attorney client privilege exists.
I got a phone call.
I got cut out.
Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
You had a private server posted on her private president.
But I'm going to guess right now is that this is.
And when she got a subpoena,
stop trying to.
Your ability to get on your case.
We're talking about just.
We're going to placate to Donald Trump is hilarious.
Look.
All right, protocol.
Go ahead.
Protigo.
He never had the authority.
This argument could be applied to Trump.
What did they say?
Oh, Biden was negotiating.
He was negotiating in good faith.
Trump says he was, too.
This is the same DOJ that we knew held exculpatory evidence for the Russiagate hoax,
for the Ukraine impeachment hoax.
This is the same DOJ.
The same DOJ who won't have to do that.
videos, audio recordings of Donald Trump saying these things.
The fact that you have this in an indictment.
It's a tiny volume of privilege and he's right.
Gabe, yeah, Gabe, go ahead. Gabe, and then we'll go to Ian. Go ahead, Gabe.
Right. So just this example here, not only for what Harry mentioned earlier, which is what CNN reported on, which was these conversations from the transcripts that were more detailed of what we already knew.
And then on top of that, you should have just wiped it like Hillary.
Prodo. Prodig. Let him finish Prodigal. Let him finish protocol. And then we'll go to Ian. Then back to you, Prodigal. Go ahead, Kepp.
So what I'm saying is here on page 21, this is one example of this happening, right?
We've got text messages between Trump and Nata.
We got other messages that are happening where it is explicitly dictated by Trump.
He is trying to move these boxes and documents around knowing full well that he should not have these documents.
These classified government documents, whether or not he fucking declassified with his brain.
is the idea that Donald Trump, in this indictment,
having a conversation with attorney one and attorney two,
now whether or not Rawling and Jim Trustee resigned
because they're a part of this investigation now is to be determined.
He should listen to Hillary's attorneys.
They told her to wipe the server and take hambers to the Blackberry.
Your argument right now does not hold water.
These are actual conversations that Donald Trump had and are recording.
Except Hillary never had the power.
This is how much of a lot is.
What is your argument?
I'm giving you actual quotes from the indictment.
I'm giving you actually close from the end.
The Upstream issued all of this.
The upstream issue is that they are breaking two and a half centuries of present to do this.
And you could do this with everyone.
Every single president.
So now you're trying to excuse the fact that Donald Trump took classified documents?
Every single president to last 30 years.
So you're arguing that a president like Donald Trump should be able to take classified documents.
You're saying that Donald Trump, he's the president.
What does that even mean?
He's not the president.
He's not the president.
We're all right.
Guys, guys, I don't mind a debate, but you literally talk.
Go ahead, Mike.
And then we'll go to Gabe and then we'll go to Prodigal.
Please, nobody interrupt.
Mike, you got on mute.
Mike, mute.
There is an upstream issue here.
I'm only going to make one quick point and then if it dips below that, I'll just bounce.
The issue is, is there is the system itself is becoming delegitimized because of the weaponization of the Justice Department here.
Regardless of what you think of the merits of boxes of classified documents.
Every single president for the last 25 years could have been indicted by a Justice Department.
We don't break that precedent because the entire system becomes delegitimized.
Everybody knows that lawfare can be used to take somebody out, but the democratic process is respected because people trust the Justice Department to not get in the way of who people vote for for president.
It has to be something huge if you're going to bring the Justice Department into this.
Classified boxes, you know, David Petraeus did a very similar thing and got like a wrist-lap misdemeanor.
As we talked about with, I think it was Doc or someone who was saying that with the boxes, I'm sorry, with the server with Hillary Clinton.
And the way she got off with gross negligence.
or that that standard was lower every single person the justice department is supposed to use a light touch the lightest touch possible whenever there is some sort of appearance of impropriety in order to preserve in the public's mind the legitimacy of the system right now what they're doing to trump through lawfare both in the new york city d a's office at the now at the federal uh doj level and then what's inevitably going to happen in georgia
You're getting half of the entire effing country right now who's getting the message that if you challenge this system, even if you win, even if you win the hearts and minds and you win the democracy way, the crooked justice department is going to come for you anyway.
It doesn't matter how much money you have.
It doesn't matter how many people think that you're right.
It doesn't matter how many times you win, they will take you down using the justice system.
And that is what broken countries do.
And that's what kills patriotism.
All right. So before you respond, Gabe, and then we'll go to other panelists.
Matea, is you still with us?
Yeah, I'm still here.
Can you just refresh the audience on what we know so far about the indictment, just for everyone that just joined, and then we'll continue the discussion.
And we've got Nick and Suleiman and Doc and others reading through the documents to kind of summarize it for us.
But if you can give us a quick overview again for the audience, because we got a lot of people joined in the last few minutes.
Sure, and I just sent it to the nest front and center so people can read along with me.
About 45 minutes ago, the indictment of former President Trump in related
classified documents probe was unsealed, and we know he's being charged with 37 federal
charges after being indicted by a grand jury, and he will be responding to that in Miami on Tuesday.
Now, counts one through 31 are...
are for willful retention of national defense information.
Count 32 is conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Count 33 is withholding a document or record.
Count 34, corruptly concealing a document or record.
Count 35, concealing a document in a federal investigation.
Count 36, scheme to conceal.
Count 37, false statements and representations now.
I was actually going to interrupt because someone just added together, which isn't hard if you look at the photographs, if convicted on one or two of these charges or all of these charges, the former president could be facing between 40 and 100 years in prison.
Now, we obviously know that the former president is in his 70s and would not live through that case.
Excuse me, I'm drawing a blank on the word, but that sentence, sorry.
Sentence.
You still die in prison?
Thank you.
Sorry, Mattias, can you say that again?
How many years is he facing?
He's convicted of everything he would be facing...
40 and 70.
He would be facing 90 plus years in prison.
Yeah, and add that to the 136 years in New York.
So right now, this present is facing a combined 250 years in prison.
Okay, sorry, sorry, let me, let me, Mike, Mike, stay with me, say with me.
So, I want to get the numbers straight.
So from the current indictment,
how much is he facing
Matthias and then Mike
what did you say it is Matthias
what was it over 90 plus years
in prison so so for
counts one through 31
the max term of imprisonment is 10
years count 32
20 years count 33
20 years count 34
20 years count 35
20 years
count 36 five years and count
37 five years
so that if my math is correct
is 100 years
So you add 100 years to the 136 years he's facing in New York City.
Right now, this president for a payoff during the 2016 election cycle and a box of documents at his home, he is facing 236 years in prison.
I grew up being told by my parents that life isn't fair, but this, but this system generally is.
I don't think me or a hundred other million people in this country after witnessing what they've done to Trump is going to pass on that lesson to my kids.
I think I think I'm not alone when I say that whatever sentiments people have in Pakistan or in third world countries about the system just being straight up fucking rigged, pardon my language, is the only practical lesson that can be drawn from what's happening right now.
I want to play the devil's advocate here.
I want to play the devil's advocate here.
Yeah, we do laugh.
It is funny.
If a normal person...
Your generation's doing horror.
No, it's the reason...
It's the reason I laugh.
Let Ian talk.
Let me talk.
Yeah.
If I can speak, I want to play devil's advocate here for a second, assuming someone else,
meaning someone who's not Donald Trump,
someone who's not at his level of authority or power...
would have done what Donald Trump did, and they faced the same 100 years, or however many years that he's facing for this, would you be okay with that? Or do you think he's above the law? I mean, I just want to ask that question.
Oh, this is to me. So when I started my statement by saying is that there has been dozens of presidents that have done actions that have gotten them close to the line or have gotten them in legal trouble.
And there has always been a light touch because of the fear of what it would do to the country if somebody who was at the level of president was brought down by the justice system.
Because there's always the concern that if justice is not blind, then nobody will have faith in it anymore.
And then you start to have the entire system come apart.
You look at what was done with the light touch with Hillary Clinton.
You look at what was done with the light touch with Bill Clinton.
You look at what the light touch that was done with...
During the Reagan era and with Bush senior, with Iran-Contra, every single president seems to get in some sort of legal trouble.
And what's always done is a way to sort of slap the wrist or apply pressure or the person incurs some sort of law costs.
But it's shy of...
literal criminal jail time.
Unless the thing is extremely rich.
And here what you're seeing is the exact opposite of that.
For example, in New York with Bragg,
you had a guy who,
you had a guy who went out of his way.
This is someone who always reduces felonies to misdemeanors
for typical crimes.
And you had something that was seven years old
and was essentially just a sort of, you know,
a campaign payment.
and it's 136 years for that.
Here you've got documents in a box.
This isn't some foreign spy.
This is the most recent president of the United States
in 100 years in jail.
This is intentionally done.
They stacked those charges.
Mike, they stacked seven charges over those boxes.
They came up with a big number on purpose.
And let's go to Andrew.
Andrew, go ahead.
I want to address what Mike just said because he brought up something that I think is directly addressed in this indictment, which is the idea that other people,
similarly situated people, former presidents, got what he described as a light touch.
Now, if you go down to count 32, conspiracy to obstruct, it lists the dates of the offense,
May 11th, 2022 through August 2022.
And what that tells you is that they are charging Mr. Trump.
for a conspiracy that began when he was handed,
or his attorneys were handed, the grand jury subpoena
between that date and the 8 August 2022 search of his home.
And what the indictment says is that basically he hid and concealed these documents
from a federal grand jury.
He conspired to mislead his own attorney.
about the presence of more classified documents,
but, et cetera, et cetera.
So the light touch was when he got the grand jury subpoena,
and he fucked himself,
because instead of owning,
owning up to it and giving,
and honoring the subpoena,
giving back everything,
he fucked around.
And he shared on what Hillary Clinton did.
He should have white.
Yeah, exactly.
Hillary Clinton and the counsel to hammered the blackberries and destroyed the evidence.
Okay.
Exactly.
Andrew, your point is totally destroyed by that.
The light touch was applied to Hillary Clinton and it was not applied to Donald Trump.
And Andrew, can you in good conscience tell me that 37 separate criminal charges
For Bocke, I apologize, I have to interrupt with some breaking news.
Go ahead, guys.
Sorry, Mike, hold on.
Go ahead, Mattis.
Hold on.
Go ahead, guys, guys.
Hold on, Mattias.
I have to.
I'm so sorry.
I just shared in the nest.
We have some new photos that have just been published.
showing, allegedly showing the documents in question that were stored in the bathroom
in one of the storage units and in the ballroom.
This is coming from the indictment.
If you look through the indictment itself, it's the photographs are in black and white and a little bit like blurry.
But these are the, um, the clear.
Is that Hillary's bathroom or what bathroom is that?
It'll be Donald Trump's baton.
Can you let the guy break the news, please?
He did. He did.
All these little comments, these glib comments, they don't help, right?
I mean, I'm trying to understand what's going on here, and you're like interrupting some bullshit, some fucking joke about Corvettes.
Guys, calm to fuck down, let him report the news, and then talk about it.
Yeah, so we've got the images, I think he's spending on.
So picture of boxes.
We've got picture of boxes.
Yeah.
So there's actually, there's actually multiple photos of boxes.
There's one.
That's a lot.
Hold on, hold on.
This is, hold on, two seconds.
This is all the classified documents you had.
So this is, the ones that they have in the actual indictment right here, they have photos that are in the locker room, which is between like a linen, by a linen closet in a liquor room as well.
They're the ones that are in the bathroom where there are text messages where we're changing them from the ballroom to the bathroom.
There's also the ones that were photographed by NADA in the office where it had spilled over and NADA had taken photos of them.
So...
There are multiple photos showing that these documents were either in boxes located in random places that could be accessed by other people,
or they were in boxes and they had spilled over for other people to look at and take photos of,
which, again, shows you the lack of β well, I mean, let's just take it back.
If you β if β
This isn't an issue in terms of Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Donald Trump,
because the comparison is those two people, Mike Pence and Joe Biden,
were like, oh shit.
Yeah, they never had authority to declassify it.
Doesn't matter.
They had these documents.
And once notified they had these documents, then they gave them up and said, right, well, you can go through our house.
You can go through our office.
You can go through our, anything that you think would help you in terms of finding these documents that you don't have.
Go for it.
Donald Trump, and you can see it in the indictment.
And even Andrew brought it up.
And it was a May...
It was as of May after he got the subpoena, even before that as well,
there were multiple attempts by Donald Trump and his team directed by Donald Trump
To not get them.
Yeah, that's not right, though, is it?
What you're saying is not completely right because...
I'm just concerned.
Why does he have so many boxes of documents?
One second, Ian.
I'm interested in a file that he left.
Ian, yeah, there's lots of boxes.
I don't think that's that important.
Because he took all the evidence proven with crimes.
Cross-crime, Hurricanes shows what the DOJ did.
There's a lot of documents that we're talking about.
This is not one file that he left, you know, they brought back home in a
car.
Half of them are probably the DOJ and the CIA crimes against them.
I don't blame them.
So I've got to ask, though, is returning these documents a defense or does it negate any of the
elements of any of the crimes he's alleged to have committed?
Because as far as I can tell, Mike Pence and Joe Biden are equally guilty of this crime.
And frankly, I need to address one thing that, you know, I know you agree, Simon.
The lawyers immediately contact you because.
No, no, the natural fire.
Ian, but Ian,
Ignorant some of the laws,
it's,
Ignorates on the laws
back to them and
follow it.
Guys,
I can't hear anybody.
So Suleya,
that Ian.
Go ahead,
Salaamah, go ahead then.
Yeah, yes.
Look,
the problem is,
Tj is actually right.
There might be certain things that you can say,
you know what,
Trump did something different
and I'm reading through it.
I'm not.
He was caught on video.
I mean, caught up on audio.
No, listen.
No, no, your argument's weak because he's not being charged for just one thing.
As an example, on page 70.
How is it weak?
Like, are you going to listen, Ian?
They didn't touch the documents.
They called their lawyers and let the lawyers handle it.
He did it.
He was like, hey, can we like do this about this?
I'm not even disagreeing with that point.
I'm saying that's the same.
separate point. So according to you, if you're in trouble for seven crimes and only one's different
than the other person shouldn't get convicted, what a weak argument. One of the things that he's
being indicted for is that executive order, 135, 26, they claim is that he didn't have security
clearance to even have them. So you're telling me that he didn't have security clearance. He
didn't have a waiver, but Biden did.
But that's not the argument that's being made here. It's that he had these documents and no, no, no, sorry.
Hold on. Let him respond. Hold on. Hey, go ahead. The argument that's being made here, the argument that's being made here and is, you know, I would say good luck trying to argue against this is the fact that when it comes to these documents, right? You know, Harry mentioned it earlier. There is intent, intent to withhold to keep and.
and whatever the intent is to do with these documents after the fact.
But the fact that there are timestamps, we have audio recordings, video, photos,
and also direct quotes from Donald Trump and his team as to how to coordinate so that other people,
federal agencies, won't get these documents.
you're going to tell me that the difference oh they're the same thing they're not the same
thing because if you were to compare pens game every under every element of the crime they are the same
thing joe biden kept them in his garage that is intentional retention of these documents and you know
what and here's the thing there is but that's the entire thing that's no that that's there
Harry, you don't know what you're talking about because you think, no, that's right.
All right.
So, TJ, hold on, TJ, your, your mic is very, very, very fucking loud.
So I'll let you respond to TJ, but just move away a bit from your mic.
Go ahead.
And also move away from the personal attack.
Did you read the document?
Did you read the indictment?
Yes, I've read the indictment, and here's the thing, though. I'm not here trying to defend Donald Trump. What I'm trying to say is that this is an absolute dual system of justice, because Harry's out here making this ridiculous claim that there's not enough evidence to indict Joe Biden. A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It's one of the most common things that
Great. Well, this is a terrible ham sandwich, but look at the actual comparison.
That's precisely what I'm saying here.
You can, the fact is you're trying to add elements to the crimes that Donald Trump's being accused of.
What elements? We're telling you there are, they were actual, he's having comfort.
He's, I will, I will quote it again. I will quote it again.
Do you want to be an adult? Do you want to, do you want to let me call?
Okay, just have T.J.
Well,
Go ahead.
If you really want to have a conversation, let's live in reality.
I'm looking at the elements, and I don't think there's any element of it that says,
it's a whoopsie, Daisy, and you hand it over after the fact.
It's if you willfully retain these documents.
And frankly, the fact that they were in Joe Biden's garage,
it's at least enough to indict him as well, as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah.
I mean, again, that's not true.
Yeah, go ahead.
It's very correct.
Okay, go ahead.
Tira, I let you respond.
Go ahead.
So, okay, first of all, I want to say that I believe that this indictment is infinitely more serious than the Alvin Bragg one.
The Bragg one I was not a fan of.
This one has some real meat to it, and I think we should at least explain.
acknowledge that. Number two, as to what T.J. is saying, and I respect you, T.J., and by the way, I hope
everything's going well with your house and things like that. As to what T.J. is saying, I do not
agree, because the gravamen here is that when Donald Trump received, or one of the
gravamen's here is when Donald Trump received a subpoena.
asking to return boxes. What happened on that day was he basically said, oh, my lawyer's going to come
down and do this and he had Mr. Nauta basically move 30 boxes, 34 boxes into the storage room,
leaving Trump with 30 boxes. He did not respond to the subpoena appropriately. He basically misled
his lawyers. He obstructed justice. And then
even worse in a way to me is, and I don't know how these lawyers did this, he basically, after
the lawyers went through and Trump said, yeah, that's everything, that's everything, that's everything,
that had a third lawyer, Christina Dowd, I believe, say, oh yeah, a diligence search was made.
She hadn't been involved, which I found sort of awful from standpoint of her.
So what we're talking about here to a certain extent, and that's not all the charges, is obstruction.
He basically was asked to respond to a subpoena. He willfully went out and didn't respond. He moved the boxes to his private office. He also took boxes, frankly, to Bedminster places where we're not even aware that he had necessarily done that. So there's a lot of stuff here to parse through. And he is obviously, I don't want to be very clear. He is innocent until proven guilty.
We do not have any, there might well be other evidence.
There might be legal claims about classification, non-classification.
But I don't think the bulk of this is classification.
I think it's basically obstruction.
He lied.
He, he withheld.
He didn't tell his lawyers.
He told the Justice Department.
Is that not, Tira, is that not one part of it, though?
Like, for example, I'm reading through it.
That is one, but that is a big part of it that has not.
Let me just say that is completely different to the Joe Biden mic.
like tense situations.
Yeah, yeah.
The good thing is, yeah, yeah.
First of all, I don't disagree with you, but at least I can have this conversation with
you because most people are misunderstanding it.
That's one aspect of it, isn't it?
But there's other aspects that they're actually indicting him for, which also can be applied
to others.
And that's the bit what people are saying, this is...
Okay, so it's true.
Essentially, there's two discussions.
So, Suuilu what you're saying, there's two discussions.
There's some things that are very serious, which is what, would you agree...
People would be guilty on these things, right?
And he could have committed a crime, and I think that he should be indicted for that.
You should get in trouble for it, just as the others should get in trouble for what they did as well.
You know, I think that's fair, right?
I mean, law should apply equally to everybody, regardless of who they are.
I don't agree with this all the light-touch thing.
That's a Hillary should have gotten in trouble for the,
email.
So to conclude, so just to make sure we're on the same page, you're saying that there's
parts of the indictment that are very serious that Tira's going through, that we should take
seriously, again, innocent until proven guilty, significantly more serious than the Bragg's
indictment.
Number two, though, is that there's aspects of the indictment that...
could have been applied to others and they haven't and that makes this potentially politically motivated as well.
Is that what you're getting?
Yeah, definitely.
Yeah, yeah.
So yeah, I agree.
That's exactly.
You summarized it.
And we do have a special.
Can I respond?
Can I respond?
Yeah, sure.
TJ, I'll let TJ respond and then we'll go to a special guest.
We have Robert Wolfe on stage as well.
So, TJ, I'll let you respond first and we'll go to Robert.
I mean, I'm really just here calling for indicting all of these people, frankly, because, again, it's like, Mike, like, yes, I will agree that the obstruction case is far stronger against Donald Trump than it is against Pence or Biden. Frankly, I don't really know if there's an obstruction case to be made against either Pence or Biden at all.
But what I am saying, though, is they absolutely, after leaving the White House,
kept items that they were not allowed to keep.
If we're going to,
the way that, like, if we're going to,
If we're going to prosecute one, every single one of them should be prosecuted.
Penn should be prosecuted.
Biden should be.
There's absolutely enough information to send all three of them to a jury to decide.
And the thing is, it's amazing to watch, like, the leftist, like, not Tira, because Tira's making sense here.
But, like, Harry and Gabe saying, like,
Oh, there's not probable cause to indict Biden.
That's absurd.
That's absurd.
There's absolutely probable cause to indict all three of them.
And it is politically motivated whenever you're specifically choosing one person to go after.
It's absurd.
So we have, so we have, I do want to go to Mr. Robert Wolfe.
Before doing that, I'm about to tweet it out.
My team is about to tweet it out.
So Biden did respond to the indictment, to Trump's indictment.
I have not spoken to Merrick Garland at all.
I'm not going to speak with him
and I have no comments
that was Biden
just a few minutes ago
Robert,
I just want to remind the audience
put your questions down there
in the bottom right hand corner
I have a ton of questions too
and I know you guys do as well
so put him down there
Robert initial thoughts
on what we're seeing today
Well, I wish that this conversation was a little less noise and more facts.
So, Mario, I just say that to the broader group.
People should read the indictment using what's about isms.
Well, someone did this, so they should do that.
Often with indictments, lawyers do stacking.
So they have a couple key things that bring the indictment and then they add the other things.
It's not vice versa.
There is no question that when you read this, these classified documents included our military secrets on our nuclear, our weapons, the way we look at attacking and retaliation and protection, our allies. This is nothing like others.
We should just not start this.
Well, what about this and what about that?
Okay?
Just not accurate.
You guys should focus on the 49 pages.
You guys should focus on the 49 pages and the facts.
So, Robert, I have read through half of it.
I'm halfway through, but we start this show.
But...
One thing you mentioned is you said that, and again, see, you talked specifically about military secrets, nuclear weapons,
and then you said that the others didn't have that.
Now, how do you know unequivocally that the documents that Biden had and the documents that Pence had did not include those military secrets?
Because it's also what you do with the secrets.
Read.
Read.
read the 49 pages
where he either
showed people or knew what he was doing
or hiding things
just read it it's not the same
this is not political
this is about being an American
okay he put
no this is political and I'll say why
I want to answer this I'll be short
there's no there's no question for it
you should put your hand up please and then we'll go to you there's other hands up
he's short he's asking to trust is the old
go ahead sorry go ahead Robert
I was just saying that this is...
To the woman's aspect before.
He's innocent until proven guilty.
But if you read these 49 pages,
this is not anything similar to anything we've ever seen.
And how would you compare that, Robert?
How would you compare what we're seeing today
to what we saw with Alvin Braggs?
And can you say that one was politically motivated
because we never had the chance to discuss that one?
I mean, you know, I mean, you and...
Did the space crash or Robert?
No, he's not talking.
I can't hear him.
Oh, he's back.
Hold on.
I'll go to you next.
I'll go to you next.
I'll go to you next.
You will, you will.
As soon as he's done, I promise you, you will.
Promise you will.
Go ahead, Robert, are you back?
Robert is not back.
You're lucky prodigal.
Jump in.
I mean, Robert's argument is really weak.
And what is he's saying is read the document.
But then what he's saying is when it comes to Biden and Pence that they didn't do the same thing.
But then when you're asking for evidence, he's just saying, trust me.
Like, we don't know that they didn't do it.
Okay, but we don't have.
Hold on what Hillary Clinton had.
Well, it's one sentence.
We'll never know what Hillary Clinton had.
What I do know is when she had her server, CIA assets in China were wiped out, wiped out when she had this server that multiple people claimed they allegedly hacked back and forth.
So when Roberts here saying this may happen, I saw the memo.
Crossfire Hurricane. He had a DOJ that went after not only him, his supporters, and just people who didn't go along with their leftist ideology. Crossfire Hurricane is basically the entire hoax. If he took those documents and uranium one is included, which did push U.S. nuclear entrance at risk, there are certain things he would have kept and had the power to declassified.
which a vice president and a secretary of state never did.
Hillary cleners her blackberries and wiped her server and said she had tens of thousands of emails,
which later came out was a lie because there was more under the Wiener laptop.
We'll get back to this.
We'll get back to this, protocol.
We'll get back to this.
Sully, I know you had another question for Robert.
I think he's back now.
Yeah, I mean...
What's your concern?
What's your concern with Robert's?
He said Robert's argument is weak.
Can you explain it again?
Yeah, yeah.
There's two aspects of it.
The first thing is when people say, oh, you don't use what aboutism.
I know this has become popular now on social media.
Nearly everybody says it.
But when one gives examples of other cases, it's not just what aboutism.
I think, again, that's a very weak argument that people use on social media because I think it's a way out.
what we ask for is consistency, consistency of approach.
And essentially what you're seeing here is a lack of consistency.
Now, coming back to Biden and coming back to Pence, they had classified documents.
We don't know the content of them classified documents.
But if we don't know, but if we don't know, if we don't know, how can you compare to something unknown?
I don't understand.
No, no.
So what we do, I'm going to explain it.
I'm going to explain it.
So what you're essentially saying is there's three people and they've got all got classified documents.
One person's being targeted, right?
And because-
Isn't there, hold on, isn't there an investigation into Biden's?
So that's the point.
So now if they let us know, if they release what's in the content, then the argument can be more balanced.
We can have trust in the judiciary.
No, but the investigation is ongoing.
I don't understand why we're discussing.
Again, when the investigation, when we have when we have, when we have, sorry, hold on, no, let me make it.
Let me explain.
No, they dropped Pence's investigation.
So tell us what was in their documents.
Does anyone have any?
Go ahead.
And maybe they dropped, hold on, just maybe they dropped the intersection.
There wasn't anything concerning because, so, so, so let me go, let me, let me, let me, let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me make him comparison to to Mike Pence and Biden's.
Is it possible that we just talk about this one case and not.
No, so there's two sides.
You have to, so you need a talk about consistency.
Yeah, yeah, but you look, technically you don't,
but because this is so politicized and this could be,
let me finish what I'm saying, let me finish what I'm saying.
So because this could be politically motivated,
and this was argument, you know, even Tira said that the Alvin Braggs
indictment seems to be pretty weak and politically motivated.
Considering that argument, comparing to others does make sense.
And that's not going to go to Tira.
Let's not argue whether we should or shouldn't compare, and let's compare because a lot of people
are doing so.
Tira, the comparison to Mike Pence and Joe Biden that Suleiman is referring to, can you give
us your thoughts on this?
Well, I'll give you my thoughts, but of course we don't have facts exactly.
As to Mike Pence, my understanding, and I'm happy.
to be anybody clarify this was that after the the Donald Trump stuff started to emerge he asked for a search to be made of his office residence whatever it was someone found
So Mike Panse, Mike Pans voluntarily requested a search.
Voluntarily asked for a search, found very few documents, and immediately didn't even look at them himself, had his lawyers send them back to the government, right?
That's all that he was ever.
So, okay, so, Suleiman, on this point, can you please tell me how you can compare Trump's, the story with Trump and Mike's story?
So can you see that, I'm not saying no, when I use this word now, I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not saying anyone's doing it intentionally.
But can you see the game that people are playing?
So they use the big, scary language.
Oh, he had military secrets.
He had nuclear weapon codes.
He had this.
He had that.
Right?
That scares people.
But then when you ask him, what's different?
Then they ignore that part of the argument.
And they just say, guess what?
Trump wasn't giving it voluntarily up and he...
No, no, hold on.
So do we know, okay, let's stick to that point.
Let's stick to that point.
What do we, do we know, hold on, do we know what military secrets Mike Pence had?
Tiro, I'll go to you or doc.
We have no clue what the, I did not believe we know what those documents were.
Okay, so if that, okay, Tira, Tira.
No, because the DOJ is attacking Trump, aren't they?
What?
Hold on.
When did the investigation,
when did the investigation in the Mike Pence come out?
The investigations dropped.
Okay.
The investigation into Mike Pence came out at the end,
near the middle to end of January is when the documents were found.
And they were marked as classified documents.
They found a number of them in his home.
But when they actually looked into this,
there was nothing of merit.
So this whole like,
Solomon, like, argument where you're...
Did he have security clearance for those?
So in page 17, for example, in this indictment,
it says Trump breached executive order 13526,
which is that he did not,
even though he was president of the United States...
he did not have security
security clearance
and nor did he have a waiver.
Are you saying that Mike Pence
as the vice president
of the United States
did have security?
I'm not saying that they did or they didn't
but the thing that you're trying to...
And now you can scheme my partner.
No, no.
What you're trying to do right now
is you're trying to say
that these are equal in merit,
but they're not for many reasons, right?
If you go to the end of this indictment,
you find that it says that NADA
and Donald Trump
were intentionally
misleading investigators by withholding documents, relocating them, and not giving them up.
So the withholding documents, Gabe, I'm saying I'm not, I'm not, I would almost, I would almost guarantee, I would almost guarantee that if documents were found, there were military secrets or something, nuclear codes or what have you under, under Joe Biden or Mike Pence.
that these things would have been revealed.
Somebody would have found out.
Well, they wouldn't because they're, they're, they're part.
What do you tell?
Yeah, but again, you keep trying to argue this thing.
This Donald Trump had documents, text messages.
There's video surveillance of them relocating them.
There was intentional, there was intentional malicious intent, right?
Their malicious intent in terms of relocating, not giving them up, directly.
giving instruction, well, what if we do if we just don't give them the documents, right?
We can't prove intent by an allegation.
Okay, doc, okay, fine.
If you want to say we can't prove intent.
Don't presume his intent.
All right, good luck on that.
Let's not presume intent, but let's go based on the text messages.
that are between Nata, between Trump, the fact that there's audio recordings,
there's transcripts that are being revealed later today.
I mean, I just found out that it sounds like Jack Smith is going to give an announcement at noon,
so 3 p.m. Eastern, which I'm sure he'll talk more about it.
What for you is the worst text message?
in terms of what you're talking about.
So for me, I'll be, because I'm looking at this, like,
so for me, I believe that the only issue here,
and this is why I get annoyed when people talk about military secrets,
no, but if this is, why, why I want to talk, sorry?
It's more than just, Gabe, hold on this particular one,
because we're doing the comparison on tramping pants,
but let's go back to the military secrets and nuclear launch details, whatever.
So why can we not mention it, Sully?
Because I'm saying when it comes to that aspect of it, the DOGA is demonstrating lack of consistency because we know that Pence and Biden and even worse than that Hillary Clinton, but people want to ignore that what prodigal was referring to.
had military, had classified content.
Classified content, did they have, okay, but hold on, significantly worse.
I don't know, like, I'm genuinely asking.
So we're talking here about military documents related to military intelligence
and related to nuclear attacks that Robert mentioned.
So do we know that Biden, Hillary, Opanse had similar documents?
First of all, I can clear for, I want to.
Mattias, perfect.
He gives the facts.
Go ahead, Matthias.
We know this has been reported by CNN and all the major outlets that the classified documents that were obtained by...
Biden's residents at a different location. Yes, those who mentioned the Corvette, we know that to be true as well, that some of those documents contained classified information and top secret information. We don't know the contents of that information, but to have top secret information in your possession stored improperly is what sparked
this whole situation with former president.
Okay, so we're, fair for all this fit,
but what I'm referring to is that,
Sileman, you're trying to diminish,
you said we should not mention the military secrets
or anything related to a potential nuclear attack
on the US or vice versa.
And I want to understand why can't we refer to it?
Go ahead.
Because, because you can see here,
whenever they mention it,
they mention it to make the situation look worse.
But then when you say, guess what?
you,
Biden and Pence
had classified documents
top secret.
We know,
Hillary Clinton also
Yeah,
but classified documents
could also be
travel records to
It could be anything.
They could be anything.
And that's the point.
And that's the point.
What's the point?
What's the point?
What's the point?
You're driving me nuts.
What you're saying is that
We know that Trump had military secrets related to potential nuclear attacks.
I don't know if it's on the U.S. or by the U.S.
We know that for a fact.
So I don't know why.
Like other points you've made are valid.
And, you know, whether this is politically motivated, whether they're going too extreme for political reasons.
Fair.
All this is a good argument.
I think you agree there's still a matter.
But the argument you're making, diminishing that there's military secrets or anything related to a nuclear attack.
You're not only finding.
I'm trying to understand.
Let me ask your point because you're saying,
no, we can't talk about it because Biden and Pence and Hillary,
I'm like, all right, cool, had classified documents, full stop.
We're talking about military secrets.
If he went to me, I was expecting to say,
because we know Biden and Pence and Hillary had military secrets and nothing was done.
Then I'd be like, oh shit, okay, that's concerning.
But they didn't have military secrets.
At least we don't know that they've had military secrets.
No, no, don't say it. Don't say they didn't.
We don't know. I don't know. I don't if you heard me say fix it right after I said.
We don't know that they had it. So how do you compare? What am I missing?
Why? So, yeah, yeah. So what, so what, so this is what the point I'm trying to say.
This is what I'm trying to explain to you. Why is it? Okay, you answer this question. Why is it? And I think this will help you understand my point. Why is it we know the content of Trump's.
What Trump had, and we don't know the content of, for example, Biden.
No, the reason why is because there was a subpoena.
He didn't respond properly.
They found out, and they did a search, and then they had to disclose what the documents were.
That's why we know.
In the case of Joe Biden, there was no subpoena because he said, search anywhere you want to, take everything you want to.
Got it?
Okay, so Suleiman.
But that's not right, because we know from the indictment.
As long as you don't move off topic, Doc,
because I really want to put Sulema on the point here.
Yeah, perfect.
And, Doc, by the way, just, as we continue that point with Suna,
you could disagree with everything else Tira and others are saying,
but on this particular point,
if we can focus on and be objective about it, I'd be grateful.
Go ahead, Doc.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I just drove the point out of my head, so go ahead.
The fact that, I got it back, Tira said that Trump did not respond properly to a subpoena,
turning over the subpoena to your attorneys and having them negotiate and discuss the subject material that,
a subpoena, the scope of the subpoena, what documents it would cover or not cover, that is entirely
the proper way to reply to a subpoena. Thanks.
Is it proper to basically tell your attorneys to go look in the storage room, those are all
the boxes I have, and then make sure that you have 30 additional boxes that is kept from
them? Is that how we don't know what's in those other boxes other than the allegation.
We know the allegation, but all I'm trying to say is the reason we have knowledge of the specifics of
of the boxes that were taken during the search is because they had to be disclosed pursuant to a court order
because Judge Cannon said, you must disclose everything, right?
That's why we know what was in the boxes that Donald Trump returned or didn't return.
And we don't know Joe Biden because there has been no legal proceeding right now.
And he, and didn't he move, didn't he also move stuff after the subpoena and he tried to hide it?
And so that's, to add to Tere's point, on May 20.
That's the accusation. That's the accusation.
Innocent, Doc, Doc, Doc.
And we need to put in our language in that way.
Doc, Doc, I understand.
You always, every time it comes to Trump, Doc, you always remind us to that.
But if it's about someone else, you never do that.
You do the opposite.
opposite. But in this case, let me finish.
That's not true, Mario.
Let me, let me, let me, guys, guys, Gabe, get, guys, let me just make sure Doc's point
is really clear because it's an important point, whenever we're talking about these things,
whenever we're talking about charges, innocent unto proving guilty with everything we're seeing.
And Tyra, you mentioned that as well. Go ahead, Gabe.
Yeah, so I was going to say to add into what Tyra said is on, this is, you know, one of,
one of the parts that are important is on May 23rd, Trump met with,
Attorney 1 and attorney 2 after they were to respond to the May 11 subpoena.
And it was in those conversations where he was deliberately trying to say, I don't want to give these documents up or I don't want to give these boxes up.
I don't want people looking to my boxes.
How do we just tell them?
that we don't have them.
What if we don't play ball?
Like, you know, what if we just tell them that there's nothing here, right?
So that is nothing.
I'm reading that right now.
So that is, look, this is what, this is why it's ridiculous.
And this is why you guys are not understanding the point about Biden and Pence.
because the only difference is
even this weak evidence
has been put in an indictment
or in this indictment
and therefore people are going to exaggerate
and for your boys
Biden and Pence
we haven't got that
and the reason is because they're being protected
No no no no
Gabe Gabe
Gabe hold on hold on
Mario you got lawyers haven't you
Right you're a business man you got lawyers haven't you
Make your fucking point
Is it right I'm gonna get to it bro
If you just wait I have some patience
it is normal when you speak to your lawyers, say, look, do I need to give them?
You dropped out of perfect time.
Tira, can you explain, hold on, Gabe.
Tira, can you explain to us again, or explain to Soleiman again,
why do we know the details of the classified documents with Trump, but not with Biden or Hillary?
I think you need to repeat it again.
So in terms of, let's go to Pence first.
Let's go to Donald Trump.
In terms of Donald Trump, we would not necessarily know it.
except for the fact that he had a subpoena.
He then had his attorneys make a search.
They delivered up some boxes and sometime after that.
But Peter, that's not right, is it?
No, that was, wait, wait, that was the second set of boxes.
He initially delivered 15 boxes.
Then the Justice Department discovered, oops, we think he has more.
They issued a subpoena.
He had his lawyer's search again, although he withheld boxes from that search.
They delivered up a red well.
And.
And then the justice, wait, can I just finish?
And then the Justice Department discovered
through, maybe through a video
surveillance that he had additional boxes,
right? So then they
basically had the rate.
Now, the reason why we know what was in the boxes is when the raid happened, they had to unseal everything, right?
So we knew the contents of what they took during the raid because Judge Cannon, I believe, ordered it unsealed, right?
So that's why we know.
We don't know because Donald Trump said it.
We don't know because somebody else.
We know because it was pursuant to court order.
In terms of pets.
Yeah, but you're skipping the part, you're skipping the NARA part,
where on January 5th of 2021,
Trump declassified all documents related to FBI's crossfire hurricane investigation.
And on the night that he was leaving,
the FBI came back in via Mark Meadows and took most of that information.
And now to this day, there's still a lawsuit going where the DOJ is withholding
declassified information by the President of the United States
legally. So to kind of skip that part, you're missing the whole. That is a completely unrelated point. Those were not the documents. How do you know that? Are you say that? Okay. So you're claiming, respectfully, how do you know that? That those are the documents that Trump then took with him?
No, but you cannot claim that you know that they aren't. You have no idea what's in the documents. How can you make that accusation that it is nothing to do with it? You're basically making an allegation that doesn't show up anywhere else. I get that. You could be right. I seriously doubt it because what we heard was those documents were then taken somewhere else. But.
I'm not going to be able to totally refute that.
I do not think based upon this indictment because that would be really foolhardy if they kept talking about classified documents when Trump had very specifically the day before he left declassified everything relating to Operation Crossfire, right?
We know that.
Right, which then they came back and they said, hold on, we want to, we want to go through for privilege information.
We'll give them right back to you.
That's what they were told.
You know, John Solomon's dealing with this right now.
They have a lawsuit going.
And they said, oh, right, let us take a look and we'll give them back.
Well, they took them.
And they.
And they went to NARA and the NARA handed them over the DOJ.
And they're still withholding it.
Now they're even saying Cash Patel doesn't have the right security clearances to view it,
which is absolute nonsense.
Now, in the indictment, it goes over quite a few times about foreign adversaries,
foreign nations, attacks on U.S.
So I can understand why there might be some sort of correlation when it comes to crossfire
hurricane and foreign entities because it wasn't international.
operation. You had foreign government's
FISA courts. So to say that it has
absolutely nothing to do with it is false, especially
because it's related directly to NARA.
where this entire indictment is related to.
Now is the one that started this whole process in bringing this up.
So I don't know if they're related, but we can't say that they're not.
Mario, I just want to really, I really want to make that point more clearly in my, I didn't do a great job.
The documents, and I believe, I'm sorry, call is that your name, the documents that, Charles.
Charles. I'm sorry, Charles.
When Trump declassified those, they were taken away.
You just said they were taken away.
They were not taken by Donald Trump.
They were taken by representatives of either the DOJ or NARA.
I'm not sure.
Those are-
The FBI.
Fine.
The FBI.
Those are, then what you're somehow suggesting is that those documents are,
then found themselves what, in the possession of Donald Trump the next day, which he took to Mar-a-Lago.
I don't think that makes sense logically. I do not think we were talking about the same documents.
Certainly, we're not. No, no, we're not. I apologize if there was miscommunication.
Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is it has nothing to do with these particular set of charges.
So, Sulayman, did you get your answer on why we know the contents of the Trump documents versus Biden or Hillary?
Your, period, so all of the content that has been released in this indictment, the specifics of it that I'm reading right now.
Your is your argument that we actually knew all of those specifics before when the subpoena occurred?
Well, there are a couple of pages, right?
And I have to be honest, it was after page like 29 or 30 where they went through everything.
I'm sorry, I have to jump in.
Jack Smith, the special counsel is speaking now.
Let's take a listen.
You're going to put it.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Matthias, you're muted, Matthias.
And experienced in the Department of Justice.
They have investigated this case hewing to the highest ethical standards, and they will continue to do so as this case proceeds.
It's very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
To that end, my office will seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused.
We very much look forward to presenting our case to a jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the dedicated public servants of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
with whom my office is conducting this investigation and who worked tirelessly every day upholding the rule of law in our country.
I'm deeply proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
Thank you very much.
Why Florida, sir? Why did you decide to bring cases in Florida?
All right, special counsel, Jack Smith, makes a very short statement to the media and press says that he seeks a speedy trial that all those indicted should be proven, should be innocent until proven guilty, says that the jury will take place in the state of Florida and thanks the FBI takes no questions.
So he was just...
speaking very briefly there doing his due diligence of getting in front of the cameras,
but nothing of substance.
Is he answering questions now or no?
No, he's not taking any questions.
He walked out.
There's no question.
Yeah.
Okay.
So are you asking to your question?
Excuse me?
Yeah, Tira.
Tira was answering.
Yeah, so listen, I can't answer.
Hold on.
What was, what was, what was, what was, what was the question?
Suliwan was asking whether all the documents referenced in this current indictment were previously referenced in Judge Cannon's court case, correct?
Correct?
Was that what you were asking, Suleiman?
That's exactly.
Okay.
Now, I can't answer that.
About page 30, they started to list four or five pages of boxes.
I remember there were also four or five pages of documents referenced in Judge Cannon's case, but I didn't go back and forth and check.
I think the vast majority of them have already been...
released in that proceeding, but the new information to me was the Bedminster stuff and stuff relating
the specifics of potential stuff relating to General Miley and Iran and stuff like that.
I don't know that we had that particular bit of information when Judge Cannon made her rulings,
but that's, I can't, you know, I have not gone back and forth and checked, okay?
That's my answer.
Someone else maybe has done that.
Thank you, Tira. That was my point.
So my point is, the main reason we know what's in the content is because they're basically targeting Trump.
Now, separate of that, we have...
Hold on.
After everything Tira explained to you, that's what you understood.
Are you being serious?
Yes.
Like, you can debate what we're seeing today, but to conclude and to twist what Tira explained to you three times into, oh, they're targeting Trump.
They might be targeting Trump, but this has nothing to do with the explanation you're giving, and that's not faded to you or anyone else.
No, no.
Bro, Mario, you need to listen to you.
I'm listening.
All you just said.
You're being emotional.
Calm down.
Right.
Okay, go ahead.
Go ahead.
Right.
So her, Tira's argument is this.
that some documents, based on the subpoena...
She's just explaining what happened.
No, she's not.
Everyone, whenever they make a statement,
has got some kind of biases or arguments.
But just make your point.
Sully, let's see what, Sully, Sully,
make your point so we move on.
They got...
Let's see Sully what he wants to say,
because all he did say is repeat the same shit
are they targeting Trump,
which, again, could be Aqaba has nothing to do with this point.
But finish your point, Sully, so we move on, please.
Yeah, yeah.
Ian, what were you going to say?
No, no, hold on, hold on.
He's avoiding his point.
Let him finish his point.
Don't say anything.
Don't let him, don't give him an out.
Ian, don't give him an out.
Go ahead, Sully.
No, no, no, it's not an out.
I was just going to smash Ian at the same time.
Right, so basically, this is my point.
We know that this is Tira's argument and I need to verify it, but let's just go with what she said, that there was a subpoena and because of the subpoena, some documents were given to us, right?
But it's because of this indictment that we know the specifics.
So we know, for example, allegedly, and I haven't got to that page yet, there was military secrets, allegedly there was nuclear codes.
No, no, hold on.
Not nuclear code.
You're crazy?
No way there's nuclear codes.
Nuclear capabilities is the exact word.
Okay, so what does that mean exactly?
Can anyone elaborate?
Does that mean there's information?
Austin, Austin, yeah.
Hold on.
My understanding is there you can do it.
Yeah, if it's about Iran, then it's about the nuclear capabilities.
So it's not explicitly detailed within the documents what country nuclear secrets are related to.
However, it's only detailed that it has to do with a foreign entity.
And so that can be anything from an allied nuclear program like France,
towards a potentially hostile nuclear program in development like Iran
or an existing sort of like hostile nuclear program, such as like North Korea, right?
So there's, I mean...
And I think that's actually really indicative, and this is why context matters towards
the actual sort of information being provided here, is that information on a nuclear program,
whether that's an allied nation like the UK, whether that's a hostile nation like Iran,
that is incredibly damaging information if that gets released to the world at large, right?
That throws severe sort of trust issues between the United States' allies.
but also it presents a sort of imminent security risk
towards US analysis and US intelligence-based analysis
on the nuclear capabilities of current nuclear programs
or prospective nuclear system.
But also one question there also,
like why would Trump
Like logically speaking, why would he have classified information about nuclear capabilities
of the US or allied countries?
What does he have so much documents?
Yeah, and maybe I'll lead with a, let me add another question to it and I'd love
you to answer and then probably someone on the other side, maybe doc or someone to answer is, and
obviously we're speculating here, but first why would he have this specific information
with him?
And number two is...
the amount of classified documents we saw on the photos,
how does that compare to what we know
regarding the documents with Biden, Pence, and Hillary?
Because I know with Biden, it wasn't that...
It wasn't close to as many documents, but I could be wrong.
Go ahead, Austin, then Doc.
Yeah, so first and foremost, in regards to, like, why would you have that information originally?
Obviously, you know, as the president, he's classified for that sort of information.
Why he decided to keep that, I'm not going to assume here.
It could be anywhere from he wanted to the 7-8, which he just wanted to hold on.
claiming he didn't have security clearance though.
No, no, no, no.
No, when he originally received that information,
he obviously had clearance for it, right?
Otherwise, he wouldn't have had this document.
No, no, on page 17, they're saying that
he didn't have security clearance
and he had to sign a waiver to get it.
Okay, in that case, he signed a waiver to originally get it.
Dick Lehman, he didn't.
But, no, but in regards to Mario's specific question here on why did he decide to retain it,
I really do think that's anyone's guess.
I think only, you know, really Trump knows that right now,
and hopefully the investigators can get to the bottom of that.
What I do know, though, is that, and I think it'd be a hard argument to make
no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on,
to have someone who's, you know, no longer cleared to access or hold on to that information,
be running around, like...
Look, guys, I don't think that having Jimmy Carter running vendors in his cabin while holding Iranian nuclear secrets is a good idea for the country at large.
So I think at the end of the day, Mario, originally he signed a waiver or he was cleared for this information to hold it.
He decided to hold on to it after his term of office.
Why he decided to do that as anyone's guest, but it's clear that the Justice Department is pursuing this because the claim is that he conspired to obstruct the investigation into reclaiming it.
And Doc, anything to add on those two questions?
I'm not sure if you're there.
I'm sorry, Mario.
I'm reading through the complaint.
I'm just giving half an ear to the conversation.
Do you want to refrain?
Yeah, I'll ask.
I'll just ask it again.
No, no way.
It's no need to be smooth about it.
Say, can you reframe or reword the question?
No, I didn't hear every word.
Can you please be clear?
Just saying, bro, I didn't hear you.
I didn't hear anything.
Repeat it.
bro i didn't hear you two questions so the first one regarding the classified documents having
military intelligence and potential information on nuclear capabilities um any and this is a speculative
question is why would trump have that information obviously we're assuming that this is all these
allegations are true and then the second question is i want to compare the volume of classified documents
that trump had based on the photos we saw
compared to Pence,
Biden and Clinton,
from what we know.
Austin asked that question.
I would love to get your answer as well.
So from what I know,
what,
I've seen the pictures. I'm halfway through the complaint. We don't, you know, pictures of boxes and the accusation that they contain some boxes, some documents, top secret material.
It's just not specific enough to draw a conclusion about the legal liability that Trump might have here.
You know, it's reasonable to expect that Trump kept all sorts of documents, right? Letters from, from,
voters, you know, whatever.
If you go to, I've been to the Reagan Library several times.
There's thousands and hundreds of thousands of documents that are retained by the presidents
and displayed eventually in their libraries.
Barack Obama had his entire library moved to Chicago before the election in 2016.
He had the military move it, and he had an office opened up for the National Records Office
opened up in Chicago to manage those.
So if you want to, if you want an Obama era document, you can make a request, a FOIA request,
but it goes through the Obama library.
You know, Trump didn't go through those mechanations.
And I can't say that Trump isn't in trouble here because I haven't gone through this.
And we haven't seen Trump's attorney's responses to this.
So that's when a really balanced debate can be had about the legal liability that Trump might have here.
As far as the, in one comment from what I've read so far, the executive orders that Obama signed, and that's 13, 526, and I haven't looked at the other ones yet, those don't reasonably apply to a president.
Those reasonably with declassification authority as the executive, quote unquote, right, under the Constitution.
And that's going to be a key issue.
as to whether or not these laws under the Records Act or these executive orders apply to a president.
And as far as I've read through that executive order, it doesn't specifically set out that Obama's executive order binds future presidents.
It cannot, just by the virtue of what an executive order is and is not.
Thanks.
I just sort of.
Yeah, hold on.
Eric, pleasure to have you.
I appreciate you accepting the invite.
Mario, thank you for having me. Always good. Your spaces are the bomb. They're the best, brother.
I appreciate it. I hear it. I just want to throw some, you know,
just highly speculative opinion out here because I'm watching, as we all are. We're reading
the indictment and we're watching. I see the pictures and the pictures are disturbing.
You know,
Jonathan Turley on Fox just said that he's likely facing multiple 10-year, potential 10-year
jail sentences if convicted on one of several, so multiples of 10-year potential time behind bars
if convicted. I just have to ask, I mean, if this is the standard that we want to go
forward with, I mean, because it is clearly a turning point.
in jurisprudence and how we treat presidents.
I mean, there's wide belief that presidents have the authority to declassify documents while
they're in office.
I mean, it's the executive branch for a reason.
The other judicial branch is not supposed to infringe on the executive branch.
Maybe an attorney, a constitutional attorney can correct me, but if this is the
if this is going to be the new precedent going forward are we not going to have he who hold if
or she who hold if the office or president can basically go after just about anyone they want to go
after i i think there's so many doc points out obama there's hillary clinton there's mike pence
there's who knows how many millions of documents are sitting in warehouses chinese restaurants
garages basements or or mara lago ballrooms no one knows
It just feels like the timing Joe Biden finally is the documents, the 1023 documents that the House Oversight Committee saw yesterday for the first time coincides with an indictment of Trump.
And I don't know. This seems really banana republic to me.
Can I just make it too comment?
Can I just ask Eric a question then?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So Eric, one of the arguments I've been making on the stage before you came was,
you've got accounts number 1 to 31 and they refer to willful retention of information.
of a national defense information.
We know that, for example, Pence and Biden did have
some top secret information, possibly.
Also, Account 32 is conspiracy to obstruct justice.
We know Clinton and her deleting of emails.
So, and my argument has been that this is a lack of consistency,
and due to the lack of consistency, it shows a targeted attack
but i'd love to hear your thoughts so my my thoughts so on mine are exactly that and
maybe i can't express them properly so the president is is elected a president from wherever
inside the aisle um
appoints an attorney general.
The attorney general oversees the DOJ,
the DOJ who also oversees the FBI,
CIA, IRS, et cetera.
And all of a sudden, this DOJ,
this Merrick Garland, the attorney general,
says we're going to open up investigations
into Donald Trump,
in his documents, yada, yada, all the counts that we're reading.
In addition, we're also going to raid his private home
with some of the 100 FBI agents in the middle
or late in the evening.
And, you know, and then,
When it comes to the sitting president, because Trump is a former president,
comes to the sitting president whose attorney general happens to be a Democrat as well.
Well, when Biden is rumored to have similar classified documents in his garage
and in a, you know, it's Biden down or else.
Eric, you're breaking up a little bit.
Yeah, Eric, you were just dropping in and out.
If you can hear me unmute, otherwise, Mattias, you have more news before we go back to Eric.
Eric, hold on.
Yeah, you're good.
Now, you're back, Eric.
You're back.
Go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead.
Very quickly.
It feels like the...
Two-tier justice, I shouldn't say two-tier, the left-right justice system.
Whoever holds the office of the president will appoint an attorney general,
they'll carry out the will of the president, which it's not supposed to,
but it seems in this case that's exactly what's happening.
They're going after Trump to get Trump, not because of anything other than we were concerned
about document retention because there are certainly people on the left who have done
similar things, as you point out, so on Hillary Clinton has private service that she burns
and bleaches.
And, uh,
And who knows what Obama has and et cetera.
But the rating of Marlago versus asking Joe Biden's attorneys,
would you mind please, guys handing over these boxes, please, please, please, we'll beg you, please.
And then.
You know, Mar-a-Lago, they're guns blazing, 100 agents at Mar-a-Lago at sundown.
This is clear bias, and if American people don't see it, then they're biased.
And guess what happens when a Republican becomes president?
The same shit will happen.
Gabe, you had a question for Eric?
I'd actually like to comment directly on Mar-a-Lago, if possible.
Yeah, go ahead.
We'll go, I'll go, Gavin that, Austin.
Go ahead, yeah.
So the quick thing I wanted to point out was, like, you know, the whole narrative, like, oh, isn't this like, um,
odd timing for these things to be running against each other. And we also have to remember that
the grand jury was brought together last year, well before any of these new investigations or
revelations by the Republican Party have come forward and when they're going to release this
document or this whistleblower or this and that. So when it, you know, it's the same type of
argument I hear when people are like,
Oh, it's Joe Biden that's pulling the strings and navigating Merrick Garland to navigate a Jack Smith.
I mean, we have to remember that this is being held in the state of Florida, right?
You even have Judge Eileen Cannon, the one who is so pro-Trump in protecting what a president can and can't do with documents that she's the one that's overseeing this right now.
So it goes really against this idea that there's some crazy conspiracy by Democrats versus Republicans as to a coordination to say, well, we're trying to distract you with this bombshell investigation and this indictment.
It's just the fact that this is how it played out.
These are looking at the endowment.
This is what it says.
Eric, let me ask you a question.
Eric, let me ask you a quick question.
Could both be true?
Could this be politically motivated?
But, you know, a piece just from Yahoo came out now, Yahoo News.
And if Trump did take secret documents that included U.S. nuclear and weapons programs from the White House,
could it be that Trump crossed the line in this case, plus this is politically motivated?
Could both narratives be true?
Of course, of course. And bias can also be evident.
Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, I'm commenting on his problems.
Everyone has problems. That's not the issue.
But he's clearly cohorted with prostitutes and drug dealers and people who may have an interest in what's contained in some of those documents.
Maybe someone knows that...
a prostitute, a pimp knows that a prostitute sleeping with Hunter Biden and they're,
they're messing around in a, in a home that has classified documents. What's the intent of
of the documents. Does anyone here think that Joe Biden has classified documents in his garage
because he wants to use him to negotiate some sort of payout? I don't. Does anyone think Trump does?
I don't. It feels to me like everyone gets these documents. They get a bunch of things.
They want to put it in their presidential library at some point. And in the meantime, well,
is there higher classification, more highly classified documents in Trumps and others? I don't know,
maybe. But
I mean, really, you're going to have to prove that the guy intended to use the information in the document to somehow ingratiate himself, to somehow sell the information for either money or influence or power.
And I don't think you're going to be able to do that.
So what is this really important?
really all about because he obstructed because he told him to go fuck off the FBI because he's
that's Donald Trump. I mean, that might be it. Like he told him the fuck off and everyone said,
Hillary is smart enough to say, oh, I'm really sorry, but I accidentally, you know, wiped my servers
and I smashed 13 Blackberries. It's, you know, and maybe they were like, okay, well, fine, but
Trump told us the fuck off. So guess what? Here's how the FBI takes it when you tell us to
fuck off. You know, you know,
special counsel, Jack Smith, find more.
I don't know.
But let's not fool ourselves.
Do we actually think any of these people, Hillary, Trump, Biden, Obama, Pence,
whomever else, intends to sell state national security secrets for remuneration?
I don't.
So, Eric, at the end of the day, does this concern you?
I don't know if you've read the entire indictment or not,
but you definitely have a pretty good grasp of what's going on.
If you're the Trump camp, if you're Trump's legal team, how concerned are you about this?
I mean, is this looking really, really bad?
Are you looking at...
So I think they're very...
I think they're very concerned.
I have two Trump lawyers on the show tonight.
We'll ask him that.
I think trustee and the other guy dropping is probably concerning.
Um...
You know, Tacapinos, I talk to him a lot.
I think they are concerned.
You know, it's like everything.
I don't know if anyone's ever been in trial before or been subpoenaed or deposed.
Well, you kind of laugh it off and you're like, yeah,
forget and then all of a sudden when it gets closer and then all of a sudden you're actually in
it becomes a lot more real as it gets closer i'm sure it's real for trump right now i'm sure
it's fucking real for him right now right because you don't he i'm sure he thinks he's going to
get off but you don't know and the possibility of the other side happening i mean shit they
fired tucker carlson who the fuck saw that come right you want to talk black swan events
We're living in an age of Black Swan events.
COVID, Tucker firing.
I mean, Trump's got to be going, well, maybe, but that, so who knows?
But the question is going forward, do we want this where a party?
Yeah.
The head, the titular head of a party has so much power that they can influence the justice system against an opponent.
So, Tira, let me, let me, let me, I know you've got a question for Eric.
So let me, let me ask you a question, Tira, and then I ask my question quickly, and then we can go to, you can go to Eric with a question.
There's a lot of things that are going on, and some of them seem warranted, others seem to be very politically motivated, that are going against Trump.
Could this, and I asked that same question to Eric, so I want to get your thoughts.
Could some of the things that are happening, some of the charges, you know, be valid and be warranted, but also be heavily politically motivated?
Would love your thoughts on this, Tira, and then you can ask your question, Eric.
Well, and also Tee, before you answer that, let's ask the audience as well, same question.
What do you guys think in the comments from right inside?
Do you think this is a political attack or is this?
Or both.
It doesn't have to be binary or a bit of both, as I asked Eric.
And as Eric said, as Eric said, it's very possible.
And I think, Tira would agree.
It both are very possible.
Look, I thought, as I said, the Alvin Bragg charges to me, I didn't understand why after sort of not wanting to do anything for a year, he all of a sudden decided to do something.
It does, I mean, his aides, his lawyers resigned because he wasn't acting firmly enough.
So to me, there might have been some pressure there.
I don't know who gave that pressure, if that makes sense.
I can't answer whether that was...
Tish James or the governor or somebody completely different or if he felt pressure just for some
unknown reason. But there, I think there is the suspicion that there was a motivation other than
just the indictment, let's just say. This one is a little different. Jack Smith has been acting
pretty quickly as these things go. I forget exactly when he was put on the case, but it wasn't
that long ago, was it?
and he has really gotten a ton of people to, you know, a ton of information, a ton of evidence, whether or not you believe it's probate is different.
He's gotten a lot of people, you know, he's been working very quickly, and I tend to think that this was not...
he himself is not political.
Does that make sense?
He was given a task.
He looks at the evidence and he basically is not being political about it.
There is evidence here that is concerning.
So there I would say, I think it's a little bit more of a, you know, I believe he was doing his job.
Whether you should give special deference to an ex-president to me is something I don't agree that you should, but I recognize the sensitivity of this.
I guess what I wanted it.
I also, Sule him on one thing, I did put up in the nest,
the documents that Judge Cannon had ordered release,
the list, you can go back and look to see
if it's the exact same thing in this current indictment.
I honestly have not bothered,
but please feel free if you wanna check
whether we knew about all these documents.
beforehand. Eric, I understand what you're saying. Let me ask you saying. If Donald Trump had
basically just, you know, dicked around a little bit and then finally sent back all the documents
that he was asked for all the classified ones hadn't, or, you know, gotten boxes taken out,
etc. Hadn't done anything that sort of reeks, at least if the indictment is correct, of
obstruction. Do you think we would be here? Because I don't. See, I think that.
Okay. Sorry, please answer. Thank you.
Well, no, I would agree with you, and that's what I was alluding to.
And I think the obstruction charge is the way they pursue this.
Like if he had just cooperated, in my feeling, and I've known the guy for 20 years.
I know everyone says they've known him.
I've literally known the guy for 20 years.
In New York, he used to call me at home while he's president.
I've known him very well.
He is he, I don't know.
I don't think he ever intended to obstruct justice per se.
The guy, if you tell him to do something and you demand him to do it,
his nature is to not do it.
And I can just see him tell.
It's like one of his lawyers saying, hey, justice says or if FBI wants to,
you know, look through some of the documents and wherever,
in the ballroom or the bathroom or the bathroom or whatever the hell they are.
And he says, well,
moving to the other thing,
come to fuck off and lock the key and let him come talk to me first.
That's just the way he is.
And unfortunately for him right now,
he's feeling the brunt of that because they slapped an obstruction charge on top of it.
Again, it's less about what was the crime and whereas the cover up, the cover up, it feels to me they are really going to nail Donald, try to nail Donald Trump for the cover up, not the crime, because if we be truth be told, if you want to talk whether it's a crime or not, then all of them have violated this.
And they're all maybe liable for not just Trump.
Like it doesn't matter if it's the secret nuclear codes aimed at Iraq.
Iran or a conversation with the president of Brazil, if they're classified, they're classified.
You're not supposed to have them. You're not supposed to have them.
Forget the degree of classification. It's breaking the rule.
I mean, let's be honest. I believe he's being prosecuted and persecuted at the same time.
And breaking you've got some breaking news, I believe. Go ahead.
Yeah, we're just starting to get some reactions trickling in from Congress.
I want to read for you the tweet that Representative Biggs of Arizona just put it forth,
which states we have now reached a war phase.
And that sentiment is similar to other...
other Republican congressmen and women who we've heard from Marjorie Taylor Green, et cetera.
Something to look out for will be a response.
I know he posted something late last night, but a new response since the unsealment of the indictment
from Governor Ron DeSantis.
And it's the threefold reason why it's interesting.
Number one, of course, this trial will take place in the state that he governs.
Number two is he's a...
political opponent currently in the
candidate in the race for president
against former President Trump and number three
what will he
what will he say about President
Trump will it be polite will it be
negative because we know that the former president
has been digging him on the campaign trail
since his announcement
now what Eric made
What Eric hinted to two separate times, which is very important, it's investigative pace.
And I think that Tira mentioned it as well.
Something to think about it. And this is actually a question for Eric. When you see the Hunter and Biden, Hunter Biden investigation potential incriminating evidence on his laptop, a tax crimes investigation, potential investigation into falsifying of records related to a gun that he may or may not have had. And then more recently, we know of that in 2020, a FBI whistleblower came forward to the FBI, a highly credible informant.
alleging a $5 million pay for policy scheme involving then Vice President Joe Biden.
And that's been a back and forth all month in Congress between the FBI.
And as you mentioned, just yesterday, the committee, the Oversight Committee, was allowed to view that document.
And then Chairman Comer and Raskin are going to be allowed to view two additional documents in relation to that.
When it comes to pace...
You have this Trump indictment that is from the moment of the raid on Mar-a-Lago to today is less than a year.
And Hunter Biden's been under investigation for four plus years.
And now we know that President Biden, then-Vice-President Biden, has been potentially under investigation for more than three years.
What does that indicate when it comes to a double standard, potentially?
Yeah.
Well, to me, it indicates that there was a changeover in presidencies two years ago.
So, yeah, so investigation is 100 Biden happens under a Trump administration and a Trump attorney general.
It doesn't get resolved.
And in the meantime, Joe Biden upends Trump's second term and installs Merrick Garland and
You know, all of a sudden, it's all eyes on Trump.
Let's go after Trump.
It's just, just,
It's creepy, swampy, horrible DC behaviors.
It's scary parties, folks.
Honestly, we take a step back.
In weaponizing, and I know the left's going to hate me saying,
or somehow getting these intel departments,
the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, NSA,
politically motivated and biased is extremely alarming,
extremely alarming.
You would hope.
that I come I'm old enough to remember when the FBI was badass enough not to be viewed as liberal, not conservative nor liberal, just the FBI.
Everyone should be afraid of them. Everyone should worry about an FBI investigation.
Now it seems like only conservatives should worry about. 51 FBI senior FBI officials write a letter saying that the Hunter Biden last stop stories of misinformation and now they're proven wrong.
Right.
We're in a really, really strange place.
Eric, I've got a question for you.
Yeah.
So...
I always thought this whole argument about whether the president can declassify from the other side was very weak.
And the reason for it is because we know the president can't declassify and there isn't a procedure in place based on the constitution or any other process.
But when you look at this specific indictment, it seems to suggest in the recording which has been transcribed.
And one just let's hope that that's been transcribed right, but let's assume it has.
because you never know with these transcriptions.
But let's assume it has, it does seem to suggest that he in it himself didn't believe that the documents were declassified or some of them.
You know, I hear this and I also said it heard.
We're not declassified at the time of the recording, right?
When we're, I don't, to be honest, I certainly mind, I don't know when the recording was prior to him leaving office or after.
Right.
It was in 2021.
It was July of 2021 after he left office.
So the recording says, I did not declassify the documents.
Is that what we know or we understand to be true?
If the recording is, if the transcript of the recording is accurate, and I don't know that it is,
he essentially said in this case of this particular document that he was apparently looking at,
I did not declassify this.
Okay. Well, then he, then the case against Trump won't rely on whether or not he declassified the documents. It will, it will, I guess, land on what his, what it should, honestly what it should be intent, right? I mean, what was the intent to have those documents?
Does anyone have any...
Yeah, so I want you, Eric, I want you to speculate.
What, what, why would any president want to have classified documents that include nuclear capabilities of the U.S. and or allies?
And I know it's speculating, but I'm just trying to connect the dots.
Like, I just cannot see any reason.
I, I, I think Trump is the kind of guy who said, just take everything with us, you know, we'll put in in the library.
I don't...
I find it, and you're going to need a smoking gun.
You're going to need someone to say to Trump,
hey, you know, there's some nuclear codes in there that can be sensitive.
And he says, it doesn't matter.
Let's go.
Let's take them.
And I haven't, I haven't been classified him.
It's a tall order.
I mean, he's not dumb.
He guy rarely, if ever,
use the phone. I mean, rarely, certainly didn't carry his own phone around. You know what I mean?
Anytime I got a call, it was through the White House switchboard and it was usually him calling from
somebody. He didn't, all the time he was president and even most of the time afterwards, I don't
think he, you ever saw him with a cell phone. Recently, I think you do, but, but for many, many years,
you never had a phone on him. So he's not a phone.
a fool. So, I don't know.
Eric, Eric, Eric, just a notable guest who's been on the show multiple times that you'd know just said that when you mentioned Trump will do what he wants.
But and then they said, can you ask Eric, does that mean, if that also includes breaking the law, shouldn't he be held responsible?
What law?
Yeah.
Well, we still the charges for one.
And that's that.
The, the, the, the charges we sold to do.
Oh, obstruction.
Yeah, you want to know something?
Yeah.
Yeah.
If he obstructed and had the opportunity, then he might get, yes, he might get convicted of obstruction.
But then again, you go, okay, but what was the purpose and what was the intent?
Well, not so much that might, but do you, Eric, believe that he should?
If he did, you know, if they prove intent.
through obstruction of justice and he had some sort of malicious intent to use said classified documents against or for other, you know, benefit for himself.
Would you say that he should?
Yes. Go to jail.
Okay.
Go straight to jail.
Yeah.
If he had intent to use any of the information on documents for personal gain, hell yeah, go to jail.
So let me, would you agree with that statement?
Yes.
Yeah, I mean, if he was using the document specifically against the national interests, then yeah, I do believe you should.
But I actually think Eric makes a salient point that, and it makes sense to me, and this was the argument I was making before before you got.
before I was interrupted, that essentially,
when you look at the fact that they basically,
you know, making things sound worse
on one of the things they are,
these text messages,
and in the text message,
he's just asking his lawyers, like,
do I need to give them?
Like, can we stop them from coming?
That's normal, that would be a normal conversation
you'd have with your council.
And so the fact that they're trying to use that
and make it sound worse, and even people on stage have been,
I think that's just a very weak argument.
It just seemed like it was a case where he hadn't thought it through,
and then when they tried to push him and wanted the documents,
he was just trying to find legal counsel to find out that, like,
but how many times you...
How many times you need to...
100%, Solomon.
100%...
100% that is like Eric he did the same he did he did the same with his uh when they
wanted him to disclose his uh financials he he fought he fought and fought and when they
finally came out it was nothing but so he didn't need to fight well i mean there was there was
something right like he was a sitting president and he had accounts in other countries so even
though he was railing against china he himself had a bank out in china but to solomon's point
before this which was
around, you know, having these conversations, you know, this is something where you do have to wonder,
it's more than just like, oh, do I have to give them? It's,
move them around so I don't have to give them.
It wasn't necessarily a question as to like, do why?
I mean, he asked the question of like, do we have to play ball?
Can we just say we don't have them?
Would it be better if we just didn't have the documents?
So just two seconds.
I'm not sure of Tira or Doc or anyone could give more clarity on this particular point,
but I've got a note here from Zev Ben Benjamin.
He says the US Atomic Energy Act states that anything related to U.S.
nuclear weapons or energy cannot be declassified.
That is correct, but I don't believe that has actually been tested in court against a president,
but that would presuppose that Donald Trump had said he declassified certain documents.
But guys, let's assume.
Go ahead, Eric.
Can we just assume?
I mean, we're playing semantic games over what was on the pieces of paper.
Yeah, let's just say if they've been classified, someone deemed them important.
So it doesn't matter if it's nuclear...
strategy or conversation with another foreign leader,
it's illegal.
It's classified.
You took it, but what was the intent for?
I mean, it doesn't intent in every other action.
aspect of the law, and that's what we're talking about here right now.
It's going to be a judge deciding whether or not, you know, Trump goes to jail if he's convicted
or if he gets, I don't know, probation or, you know, whatever.
What's the intent?
The guy, I don't think any of these leaders that we've been speaking about had the intent to harm
the United States.
Or let's do it a little bit less, you know,
me and spirited, I don't think any of these people took the documents in order to
some sort of, they have some sort of remuneration down the road when they're not president
or vice president or secretary of state anymore. It's don't. But Eric, the intent required for
an obstruction charge doesn't go to the underlying intent of holding the documents. It is the
intent to obstruct an official proceeding or a, you know, right? And that's the problem with
what you're saying.
Yes.
Tara, you're right.
He got pulled over on the side of the road.
He was doing 90.
And he told the tripper to fuck off.
And the trooper said, yeah, I'm pulling you in.
Yes, you're 100% right.
But it wasn't, he was doing 90 because he was trying to run people over.
And I think that should be taken into account.
I mean, you want to hold every single thing that's going on to every single elected official.
I mean, our jail, there wouldn't be enough room for...
criminals because all our elected officials would be in jail i do want to make one one
a tiera do we hear let me gab can i ask you a question or tier one of you two um you know when it
says about nuclear capabilities i mean in the document i'm reading it doesn't say anything
about u s nuclear capabilities it doesn't say anything about launch course like do we know
specifically what this is or is this people just making assumptions
So, so, so, Solomon, that's actually, there's a reason why it's classified beyond the, the unsealing of the documents, and that's just due to the sensitivity of nuclear secrets, no matter if they're related to a foreign entity or towards the United States itself. However,
I think we can reasonably assume based upon the fact that it's been classified beyond the unsealing,
that it is something serious.
So, like, things to this nature would be where an allied nuclear sub is currently positioned,
ranging towards what does Iranian nuclear enrichment look like at this day.
What we can reasonably assume is that it's very, very serious,
but it's not going to be, like, the nuclear codes themselves,
because those are consistently changed on a regular basis.
Okay.
Tira, and so the same question to you, but just in addition,
because it says nuclear capabilities of foreign nations,
would that still fall under the US Atomic Energy Act?
I have no idea.
No idea whatsoever.
Sorry.
I think you said...
Can I talk a little bit about the law...
Go ahead, Ed.
Yeah, so the law under which President Trump is charged is the 1917 espionage act,
which was passed by Woodrow Wilson pretty much to silence any internal critics within the government
who were trying to criticize the U.S. involvement in World War I.
And the law was...
written in such a way that basically the government could slap a top secret label on just
about any form of communication and then, you know, basically not have to reveal that information
to the American people. So that...
That's the historical context. The law was actually used only twice, first by Wilson and one other time between basically 1917 and the Obama administration.
The only other time it was used, by the way, was to prosecute Daniel Ellesberg, who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers and wanted to go to trial to explain that
While he was releasing information that had been labeled top secret, he believed it was the ethical and right thing to do because it had enormous implications for Americans who were being killed in Vietnam.
For the Vietnam War as a whole, basically the Pentagon papers revealed that people within our own government had been saying from the beginning, within our military establishment had been saying from the beginning.
that this was not a war that we could win.
And he figured if Americans are dying over there,
they ought to know this information
that this is actually what many of the top breasts
in the military actually believe about this war.
And when he attempted to explain to a jury of his peers
why he released the Pentagon Papers,
the judge shut him down immediately
and said more or less that this law
and the liability that someone incurs under this law
is non-circumstantial.
It's, it, it, it, it, there are no circumstances in which, you know, an explanation for,
uh, why you might have breached this law can hold any weight, uh, to a jury of your peers.
And basically that's, that federal decision signaled.
to the government that this law could be weaponized against political enemies.
And starting with Obama, it was.
And I don't think it was, I don't want to present this in partisan terms because it's been weaponized against people on the left.
It's been weaponized against people on the right, from Assange to Snowden to other whistleblowers.
within the government who felt the need to reveal top secret information.
Now, I'm not saying with Trump or with any of the other folks that have been discussed,
whether it's Pence or Hillary or whomever, that, you know,
they're keeping these top secret documents for analogous reasons to some of these whistleblowers.
What I am saying is that we have to think about this 1917 law,
which I would argue from the very beginning was designed to silence dissent,
and to be deployed by those in power and those with the keys to the Justice Department,
to punish those who would challenge what the government was doing.
And that history of weaponization, I think, should make us all skeptical.
And I don't want to weigh in on the guilt or innocence of any of the,
whether Trump or any of the others that have been mentioned in this conversation.
But I think that historical context for the Espionage Act is important.
And if Americans care about civil liberties and if they care about dialing back either the weaponization or the possibility of the weaponization of the federal government, we should think clearly about repealing this law.
And I've just been reading the document as well, by the way, guys.
And Doc, I'll give you the mic, but I've just been reading more information on the,
where is it, by the Atlantic.
Not even the president can declassify nuclear secrets, but that's by the Atlantic.
Fan letters and snapshots are one matter, and launch codes are another.
And here the details of classification might decide just how much trouble Trump is in.
That's by Graham Wood.
We'll try to get Graham Wood onto the space.
Recurter and team, if you can get us Graham Wood, that will be great if you're listening.
Nick just pinging him in the background to get him.
The executive branch is system of declassive or classifications among the weirdest aspects of the American government.
And sometimes it seems that if those best equipped to understand it are people with a background in obscure religious practices,
Okay, this goes on very dear.
I thought it was going to summarize it the first paragraph.
But essentially what it says is that you cannot declassify what they allege Trump has as part of the documents.
And they kind of...
No, no, that's my right, Mario.
And that's the question I asked because in this indictment is talking about foreign nuclear capabilities.
And hence why I asked that those fall into atomic energy.
Oh, okay, okay.
So not U.S. nuclear capabilities, foreign?
Yeah, in the indictment it says foreign.
Okay.
Okay.
That's important because let me see what you have on use.
Has anyone seen the endowment, does it say foreign nuclear capabilities or national?
Yeah, yeah, in the diamond it says foreign.
Okay, so I'm saying.
Let's go, let's go to John and then doc.
John, good to have you. How are you?
What are your thoughts on what you're seeing so far?
You're relatively mild-headed.
I appreciate it.
Look, I'm happy to talk to a few things.
I don't want to go on too long, though.
One thing I do want to touch on before I go into the broader perspective I have on the case is what you just discussed from this Atlantic article.
I think flat out, and we could have somebody who's more of a, you know, a Jonathan Turley type or an Alan Dershowitz type.
Yeah.
maybe corroborate this, but I would say that particular statute is unconstitutional.
The idea that the president within the auspices of the executive branch doesn't have the ability to declassified documents is totally absurd.
If not him, then it's just a, if the president is disempowered as the democratically elected executive by the legislative.
branch, then that's an infringement on the executive branch's powers and unconstitutional.
So that would not hold up in court.
Number one, broadly speaking, and I'll keep this as short as I can, I think that we can all agree,
left, right, center, that it's a dark day for the republic, right?
We nobody wants to see the weaponization of the,
justice system or whether or not you believe that's the case something like this going down in the
lead up to an election cycle it's a pretty dark thing to see john could you and i think this is
really important to see mar yeah sorry i thought i thought you i thought you i thought you finished sorry go ahead
No, no, no, a little bit more.
I don't think justice exists in a vacuum.
So a lot of people can talk about the specifics of the indictment.
I read the 49 pages of the indictment.
But the question is, is this good for the course of justice in the country?
personally speaking, I don't think so.
I think when the presumptive nominee,
and I'll call him the presumptive nominee,
of the opposition party
is arrested by the,
or indicted by the incumbent government
in the name of justice,
that is not something you should be seeing
in a first world country.
I don't think that's right.
I think the,
other thing I'm seeing is this sort of Pontious pilot attempt by Biden to wash his hands of it.
But if you see, I'll give you a Supreme Court precedent here, but Ponzi versus Fessenden,
the president has subordinates, the attorney general, the Department of Justice lawyers,
who exercised prosecutorial discretion on his behalf.
But in this court case, they are described as merely his hand.
So he can try to wash his hands of it, but ultimately this comes at his direction and under his authority.
So what I say is you can beat Trump in the ballot box, but you shouldn't use police powers because that's not how things should operate in a first world country.
I have a question.
I have a question.
I have a question.
John, we asked a question to Eric earlier.
If you have evidence that Trump...
took those documents for personal gain.
Should he be charged and should he be facing the consequences he's facing?
If that's found to be true, again, right now he's innocent until proven guilty.
And there's a reason I'm asking you that question.
I do not think there's a world where Donald Trump, the former president of the United States,
who have said the things that he has said, is going to be giving out secrets like candy
for his personal gain in the context of something against the national interest.
I don't think so either, but my question is tense.
Hold on. Hold on. Yeah, of course. So let me answer it. On your point directly,
I think the issue with the question is that personal gain is very broad.
Right? So like personal electoral gain, personal, you know, there's one context where Mark Millie had said that he was trying to start a Trump was trying to start with China. And you can see the indictment Trump was saying, oh, well, I have the documents so I can prove that's not the case. Well, that could be perceived as personal gain. Is that not right? Well, I would say that's him trying to defend his personal reputation against a pretty heinous accusation by a top military official. In that case, it's kind of questionable, right? So it's a hard question to answer, Mario.
Okay, fair.
So the reason I ask a question, and let me see, I'm getting a message here.
Okay, so I thought.
I got a simple question, is Trump allowed to break the law?
And you think he should be convicted if he breaks the law?
It's a simple, but John, it shouldn't it be a simple answer?
If my questions, for my question, even Trump supporters say, we don't think this is possible.
This is true.
But if it is true, then yes, you should face the consequences.
And then so my next question is, is this, like there's two ways of looking at it.
And it could be both.
It's either the political system or the legal system being weaponized.
And actually, Tira, I want to go to you because I know what your stance is.
And then John, both, John and Tira.
The U.S. judicial system being weaponized is one narrative.
And the other narrative is the judicial system doing its thing.
It's everyone being held responsible.
Now, arguing the second one is very difficult.
And, you know, Suley and you've made a few points that Trump is not being treated the same way.
Other former president...
We're treated.
And my question to you, John...
Everybody...
Just a point on that, Marri.
But just to add to that, remember,
every single person on this panel,
or most people on this panel, agree
that there is some problem with this judiciary.
They just say that...
They're just saying that there's a problem
when it comes to some kind of position
in their own political ideology.
So I'm just consistent on saying there's a problem.
Yeah, so I think we all agree that both...
No, I think we all agree that the judicial system being weaponized in one way or another is most likely true, even people that don't like Trump.
I think most of you do agree that.
And then the second one in the legal system.
I disagree.
Okay.
Who disagrees?
That's me.
Okay.
Austin, you don't think, so the other, so you stand, perfect.
So your position is including the Bragg's indictment from a few weeks, if you're on a few months back?
No, my position is based upon the federal department of justice.
Okay.
Elaborate.
So, yeah, so Alvin Bragg, that's a, that's a New York court.
Oh, okay, okay, okay.
He's talking of a federal perspective.
Okay, so you don't think that, so you don't think this,
so you think this is the legal system doing its thing,
at Trump being held, you know, being held responsible like any other,
any other former president, and there's no politicization whatsoever?
Or do you think it's more somewhere in the middle that where this is being weaponized,
but also it's a legal system doing its thing?
Because John did mention that we shouldn't be seeing this in the first world country.
Well, in the first world country...
no one's above the law.
And in some ways, one could argue,
and Austin will probably argue that Trump is not above the law.
But then on the same side,
many people are arguing and rightly so,
that the legal system is being weaponized.
So I'm just trying to find, Austin,
where do you stand on those two extreme narratives?
Are you in the middle?
So, yeah.
No, so, I mean, I think it leads heavily on to the Department of Justice
doing what its mandate is meant to do.
And I think we've seen the similar narratives
coming out of the opposition regarding sort of like,
We've all heard, you know, we're a banana republic.
We're no longer a first world country, yada, yada, yada.
We heard a lot of these same narratives during the raid on Mara Lago.
And the narrative at that time, and this is why I think context is important
and looking back on what was being said at the time is important,
because the same narratives were being echoed as sort of,
they're not going to find anything in Mara Lago.
This is a gross misappropriation of justice, yada, yada, yada.
Now, today, we are faced with the physical evidence of what was discovered in that rate.
It is right in front of our eyes.
We can read it.
We can look at it.
It's right there.
So, you know, obviously after the subpoena was made and after the raid was conducted when the
subpoena wasn't deemed to be enough, we are looking at the documents or at least descriptions
of the documents that were known, at least, or suspected by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to be located within Marlano, an area where, you know, multiple events are being held
where multiple people who don't have security clearances can wander basically at will through.
And when we're confronted with this, when we're looking at all of this evidence,
we're hearing the same narratives that this is politically motivated.
This is a banana republic, yada, yada, yada.
I don't expect those narratives to subside anytime soon.
I think it's a consistent strategy.
I think we're seeing it playing out.
However, when you look at the way that this investigation has been run,
it has been practically textbook as towards...
prior federal investigations in regards to what is the burden of evidence required to conduct a raid,
what is the burden of evidence required to issue an indictment,
and then the next thing becomes, you know, running that through the courts.
And so in my opinion here, this is how justice should run, especially I don't believe in this
idea, no matter what party you're from, that elected officials should somehow be slapped on the
wrist for, you know, offenses that anyone in this panel would get,
40 to 80 years in prison for, right?
Look, if Mario was running a resort, if Suleiman was running a resort and had these same classified
documents, you'd be looking at lifetimes three in prison with no questions asked whatsoever.
So this idea that somehow just because you win an election, the law doesn't apply,
does not hold water with me.
And in regards to how this investigation has been run, how the evidence has been presented,
I think this seems very textbook to me.
I'd like to add something to what Austin just said.
I agree with everything he said here.
I'd like to point out the argument that, you know, this only happens in Banana Republics.
That does not hold water.
Maybe it doesn't happen in America, but it certainly happens in Europe.
You see that happening in France, happened with a previous prime minister several times,
has resulted in a complete overturning of the government.
It has happened multiple times in Italy, most recently Berlusconi, and that's a first-full country.
It's happening right now with Netanyahu in Israel, and regardless of what you think of whether
that it's politically motivated, it's certainly happening there, it's happened before.
It's happened in the UK, too.
I mean, this stuff happens everywhere in the first world.
It's not just a third world thing.
It's not just something that happens to Philippines or Colombia or Mexico.
It happens everywhere.
Maybe not to the same extent that it happens in Mexico.
I mean, in Mexico, the, but a PRI is pretty damn corrupt, right?
That's just dirty from the ground up.
But...
The idea that there's this precedent that turns America into a banana republic of anything,
you're right, Ian, I just found out Sarkozy, former president of France,
was found guilty in 2021 and sent us to one year in prison.
That's right.
Is he serving that prison?
Hold on.
Is Sarkozy in prison right now?
Am I that ignorant?
I think it's probation, possibly, like just a house arrest type thing.
Obviously, we know Sylvia Biloskiini is one, and Netanyahu is another.
Yep.
And then we got the former president of South Korea.
I was indicted in 2017, our charges of corruption and abuse of power.
That's right.
She ran a sort of cartel, a feminist cartel.
So, John, just on your point, I'm glad you brought that up, Ian.
On your point, politically motivated or not, that's not the point.
The point is people have said, and you're not the only one, John, this only happens in the banana republics and third world countries.
Yet we've given an example of France, Israel, Israel,
South Korea and Italy.
Yeah, so actually, I'm glad that you brought this up
because I'm very knowledgeable about every one of those cases.
So I'm happy to go.
Please do, yes. I'm actually really interested.
Go ahead.
I'm happy to, Mario. But before that, let me just quickly go and say to the textbook point,
is it anything textbook about the fact that this is the first time that a man who is the leading
candidate against an incumbent president has been indicted by the incumbent administration
in order to prevent him in the lead up to an election year from running? That is not textbook.
So we have to treat it differently. Hold on. Hold on, please.
So let me just make sure that I address the other part of your point.
The other part, the comparison that was made was with Mario and Suleiman.
If they were in the same circumstances, they would not be given such a lenient treatment, right?
And a part of it.
And so that was sort of the point that was made.
But neither of those people...
are the leading candidate and the opposition party
running against the incumbent president.
So I don't think that's actually a good comparison.
Now that's the points about Sarkozy,
about I think it was Brilis-Skodi,
about, you could also talk about Bibi Netanyahu, which is ongoing.
I think this might be a little controversial,
the Nanyahu point.
I don't want to start a whole war on this,
but I will say that in that case,
I do think it is a very,
it's a leading contender,
and actually currently the,
I believe the incumbent prime minister,
who's being prosecuted so that he cannot be,
I think,
effectively maintain his grasp on power.
And yeah, there's some questionable things that have happened.
I don't want to get into it.
But I do think that's an example of not a really great example.
And then the Sarkozy, Sarkozy was not a leading candidate to be reelected for the presidency of France.
when he was indicted on the crimes that he was indicted on.
The same thing could be applied to brother-oldish...
I'm interrupting for a reason.
I'm interrupting for a reason.
The argument, John, John, the argument you've made,
and what I'm going to say now is not trying to dismiss
whether this is politically motivated or not.
Unrelated.
You keep saying he's the leading candidate for president.
I don't understand.
What does that have to do with anything to do?
What does that...
That has nothing to do with the law.
If someone's...
No one's above the law.
So if you're the leading candidate or if he's retired in Hawaii, it shouldn't matter, no?
It does because justice does not exist in a vacuum, right?
So prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion.
There is a time and place.
You do not, number one, regardless of this fact, this is not even going to run its course before the election.
So the reality is that this is just going to become a political talking point for Trump that is going to be to his benefit.
And then the question is, is this actually a good thing for the course of justice in the country?
I do not think so.
Because the second that the weaponization, the direction of justice starts becoming a tool of the incumbent government, then it goes both ways.
And the second that Trump gets it back in power, I'd really think this is something that would help them.
in 2024.
He gets elected again.
What is he going to start doing?
Well, they did it to him.
You don't think he's going to do it back
if this is the way that the rules are.
And maybe he won't,
but maybe the next guy will, right?
So I don't think that's good for justice in the country.
And prosecutors need to have a little bit of sense
rather than saying, oh, well, the letter of the law says this.
Yeah, maybe that's...
And I'm not trying to argue this decision.
Another question to you before going to Gabe.
Hold on. Let me ask one more question.
Hold on, John.
Breaking news.
Oh, breaking news.
Shit.
What's up?
Breaking news.
I don't know if you guys mentioned this, but Trump has posted his response to the indictment.
Have you guys read it?
No, no, we have not.
So if you can read that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So he said, strange, everything about the boxes were so neat, orderly, and clean.
Did the FBI tip over the one box the way they staged the papers on the floor during the raid of Mar-a-Lago only to apologize after getting caught?
Okay.
Okay.
So John, just back to your point.
That was worth interrupting, Corey.
Thank you, so much.
I understand.
It was.
It was.
Look at it.
He's explained it how it's all the stage.
It's a political hit here.
You need to put up to say.
Silly, silly.
Can we, we're having a constructive conversation, please.
So John, you talked about how this is politically motivated, potentially politically motivated.
There's an argument that was made in the previous discussion during the Braggs Endowment discussion.
If this is politically motivated, every time a new indictment comes in,
and Justin Hart was here yesterday telling us about it,
money starts to flow to the Republican candidates,
donations, political donations, including Trump.
So he raises more money,
and we know that these cases will take a long time
and well past the elections.
And it seems to be boosting the public support and the narrative of the establishment finding Trump, whether it's true or not, is gaining traction.
So if this is a political witch hunt, it seems to be benefiting Trump and not the opposite.
So then my question is, how does that argument make sense considering what I just stated?
And then we'll go to Gabe right after.
I mean, are you suggesting that there's some sort of conspiracy that Trump is propagating these things?
No, no, I'm not, no, I'm not so I don't go down conspiracies.
I'm just saying that this, doesn't that, and this is a genuine question,
you kind of took it a step further instead of taking a step back.
You're making the argument that this is politically motivated, which I think is a very valid argument,
just for the, I've said this a million times, but I'll say it again.
It makes sense, especially after the Bragg's case.
So you're saying this is politically motivated.
But if it is politically motivated by Trump's opponents by the Biden administration, but it's helping Trump.
So why would the Biden administration be politically motivated to help Trump,
considering donations go up and support goes up when we look at the polls?
That's the question.
No, that's not right.
Incorrect.
Alright, go ahead, Cahilley.
Go actually.
Even Justin yesterday said money goes up throughout the Republican Party, so even DeSantis gets more money.
Yeah, but Trump benefits the most.
I was chatting to him in the back channel.
If that's your kind of argument, that's it?
I thought, yeah, I'd love to get, John, John, John, I'd love to get, okay, John.
I'll go, Ian, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go to you, I'll go to you, I'll go to Ian, then Gabe, then John, go ahead, Ian, and then, John.
And then Chief.
I want to point out that the Biden administration has no say in any of this.
It's being done by the DOJ and it's independent of the Biden.
Yeah, sure, sure.
All right, so, I guess, sir.
Are you going to sue in all these prosecutors?
I mean, I don't think you have any evidence showing that any of them are politically motivated.
John, John, quickly.
John, John quickly, respond then we'll go to Gabe and Chief and Ben.
Go ahead, John.
respectfully that doesn't really hold any sort of constitutional way there is no such thing as an independent department of justice this is a total farce it is not true exactly the department of justice the rise its authority from the executive branch the executive branch is elected by the people and it is politically accountable exactly
Explain Trump. Why is it that, you know, when he wanted Hillary indicted, they refused to go after her because, again, they are independent of him.
Did Trump not come out in order?
He can point out to like, you know, I'm not serious about the deep state or something, but it doesn't show any evidence.
If anything, it shows the opposite, right? That they are clearly independent of what's going on.
I think the reality is that you exercise your power through people as the executive.
He chose and surrounded himself with the wrong people who did not exercise his orders.
I think that in some cases he was afraid of resignations and political repercussions.
So he didn't go to the full extent.
And that was why some of these things didn't happen.
But I mean, kudos to him for not trying to weaponize the justice system against his political enemies and instead trying to govern.
Right? But the idea, the fact that he could have. The president today can say, I want to prosecute ex-person. So get the evidence together. And that would happen. There may be some resignations, but it would ultimately be constitutional and it would hold water in the court of law. That's the reality. There's no such thing as an independent Department of Justice. It's totally absurd.
Gabe, I'll let you jump in and then we'll go to Benjamin right after Gabe.
Yeah, so the main thing I want to bring up,
well, I guess a little bit ago, a little bit ago,
there was a tweet that was brought up about Andy Biggs, right?
And the full tweet wasn't read in its context,
which was an eye for an eye at the end.
So I don't know, first off, I don't know exactly what Andy Biggs is
is referring to or is, you know, if it's violence or not, I don't know, but the idea that he's one of the main people that are speaking out against this, I think is something he said.
The main thing I also want to bring up, I think it was to John's point. He talked about, you know, whether this was actually some...
could be some larger plan by Biden or the sitting administration to go against, you know, a potential incumbent or a potential candidate that's running for president.
You know, two things to that. One is we have to remember that if you go all the way back to August 8th, 2020, when we found out about this originally.
The only reason that we knew about this happening was because Donald Trump posted about it on truth social.
And he said, they raided Mar-a-Lago and this and that.
That's when the news originally came out.
So we didn't know about this until he mentioned it.
And not only that, but each time there was a new narrative involved, it was Donald Trump.
He said it was a hoax. He said the documents were planted. He said that they were his documents.
Yeah, he took them, but also he declassified them. And then at each point,
As we hear him explain this narrative, more and more is revealed.
Documents contain information that are related to foreign governments or countries related to their weapons or nuclear capabilities or what happened.
Then we find out that.
he there's an audio we find out there's you know there was a maintenance worker who was
was directed to this we found that evan corkin was intentionally told by aids directed by aids
not to go into his office right you have all these things then you find out there's these
audio recording you find out in the indictment there's all of these parts here where it's like
You have specific parts of this attempted narrative by Donald Trump to say he's the victim.
He's the victim.
He's the victim. He's the victim.
Because they were either planted.
Yeah, Gabe, I want to go over real quick for the audience.
I want to remind the audience here.
This is what we're looking at here.
We're looking at a, uh, at, uh,
I'll go over the charges here.
Counts 1 through 31 willful retention
of national defense information,
conspiracy to obstruct justice,
withholding a document or record,
corruptly concealing a document or record,
concealing a document in a federal investigation,
scheme to conceal false statements and representations,
and,
And, you know, so that was, that was from the indictment that was the, that was just on skill today out of Florida.
So what I do want to do is I want to go to.
Well, let me, I'll just quickly, let me just quickly wrap this up and then we can move Benjamin.
Okay.
Is that okay?
All right.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that NARA and other of these agencies knew exactly what documents that were looking for.
In each point in time, Donald Trump tried to change a narrative that he was the victim and that also he didn't have them or that he could have them for some various absurd reason that he made up that has now been debunked several times over.
So I just want to keep that in mind that when we're talking about this, we have to remember where it all started in the narrative, which was it was a hoax and they planted it.
to now him being like, I took the documents, I declassified them.
In the indictment, he knowingly admits that he could not indict, or he could not declassified them,
tried to move them around the property as well as other properties.
And this is like, oh, these boxes are neatly put away in this.
So it's like he has to pick a lie that he wants to stick with, right?
Because each time he's lied about something, it's been debunked and proven actually inaccurate.
Right?
So I just want to...
So let me go to...
So let's go to...
Yeah, just before you go to Ben, Robert,
thanks for joining us.
We are going to come to you.
We just got a few questions for Ben.
Nick, go ahead, ask a question for Ben
because I've got a few follow-up questions for Ben as well.
Yeah, just really quickly, I just want to correct something.
So somebody in here said that this is, I can't emphasize how important this is,
that the nuclear issue revolves solely around the foreign country.
That's not true.
I screenshot it here.
So the classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense
and weapons capabilities of both United States and foreign countries,
United States nuclear programs.
It's right there in the indictment.
So the notion that this simply revolves around nuclear facilities or capabilities of a foreign country,
that's not the allegation.
The allegation is, in addition to that, that these documents did include information regarding the United States' nuclear weapons program.
Not atomic energy, but atomic weapons.
So somebody mentioned that the Atomic Energy Act, I think it was 46 and re-ratified in the 50s and the 60s wouldn't hold up constitutionally.
That may be true.
But it's a ridiculous argument, my God.
Also, this, it's alleging that sources and methods...
were stored in there, right? I don't, I'm not sure that people understand what that means.
What that means is that could be a potential list of friendly cooperatives in foreign governments.
It could be in any country, people who are on the U.S. payroll, how they're paid,
how they're spoke, you know, how they communicate with their U.S. counterparts.
Do you have a spy in another country?
Is there somebody in Russia, Ukraine, China, within the government that is in, you know,
constant communication with the U.S., clandestinely?
Yeah.
That is the potential of the type of information that is contained within these documents, right?
That it, I'm still going through it.
It is astounding, it is astounding that we're even having this discussion, right?
So people can make the argument about, well, it wouldn't hold up constitutionally because the Atomic Energy Act,
the President has unilateral declassification powers.
Put that aside for a minute, there is absolutely no reason.
This does not belong in the library. That argument doesn't hold any water.
You are talking about the United States most highly guarded secrets, period,
not only with nuclear weapons, but also with the list names, potential bank accounts, methods,
how these people, of spies, of operatives.
So just for an example, I'll finish with this.
Let's just say that there is a friendly person in the orbit of Vladimir Putin, right?
And this is somebody who's been passing information to the U.S.
via whatever means, and it's clandestine, it's quiet, it's covert.
This potentially, we don't know,
that's a type of information that would be contained within these sources and methods, right?
It is, it is astounding.
There's no other word for it.
I'm sorry, it's just, Doc is laughing, but I'd love to hear his retort to this.
Well,
Sure, but Benjamin, I want to ask you one more thing.
I think former federal prosecutor, you know, we are looking at this 49-page indictment now.
So are you saying this is, you know, if you're Trump's legal team, you are pretty, you know, you're, you're, you have an uphill battle here.
Did you say that this is-
Trump's legal team might quit.
Oh, well, that's what his legal team.
That's basically what his legal team has done, right?
But no, listen, he's afforded the right to a vigorous and the best defense that he can get.
No question about it.
Um...
But, look, I'm still reading through it, but I mean, these are very serious allegations.
Ben, Ben, Ben.
I mean, the way you framed it, you made it sound extremely serious.
But I'm just looking at the indictment.
And you're right.
I missed that.
But in number 19, it says secret, formally restricted data.
So, again, it's not top secret.
When it comes to the undated document concerning nuclear weaponry,
unless there's another one you're referring to.
Undated document concern and nuclear weaponry of the United States.
So whatever this undated document is.
Those are two separate allegations, right?
They're in two separate paragraphs within the indictment.
So that's two separate circumstances.
What's the other one?
Yeah, it's number three, right?
So classified documents.
Number three is for foreign nations, isn't it?
No, it's not.
One second.
I'm screened, so I don't have it open in front of me, but this is the allegation.
The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information.
One second, one second.
Number three says, an undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States with handwritten annotation black marker.
All right, so I don't have it open in front of me.
I just screenshot it, right?
I can post it in the Jumbotron.
I can go back.
Yeah, yeah, I'll do that right now.
But this is the wording of it, right?
The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes include information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both United States and foreign countries,
United States nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack,
The allegation is that, you know, these documents also include areas within the United States,
the military and defensive capabilities that could be penetrated, that are vulnerable,
United States and its allies to military and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
The unauthorized disclosure of these documents could put the risk of national security of the United States,
foreign relations, the safety of the United States military and human sources,
and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.
Here, I'll put it right up there right now.
It's in the Jumbotron.
So, Duley, Moni, he's correct.
Paragraph 2 says United States nuclear programs.
Yeah, it's the third subject from the paragraph to paragraph 2.
I just don't have it open in front of my screen-shadow.
I just have a question.
What is Trump doing with all this stuff?
Clearly, it's not even something you want to put in the presidential library.
I mean, this is of no interest of anyone other than, you know.
I don't know, man.
Like, this stuff is bad.
Let me go to Doc, and then we'll jump back in Doc.
Go ahead.
So the question I have for the group is, he's been charged with espionage, right,
and obstruction related to the espionage.
The espionage is the big felony charge.
Everything else just trails along with it.
Feds and state authorities always overcharge on indictments.
That's the way they can wheedle down some charges, lean on the accused.
So, but it's really the espionage part of this that, that we have to tackle, I think.
So I'm just would ask the group, who is Trump spying for?
Right?
Here's what I think is going on here.
I think these documents are not related to the crossfire hurricane.
I don't think that they're related to that sphere at all.
So I would agree with some of my liberal friends that that's sort of a distraction at this
point.
What I think this has to do with is Iran's nuclear program and the fact that Obama Biden preferred
and supported Iran's position in the Middle East.
And Trump supported and preferred the position of Israel and later Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.
That's what I think this is about.
And that's why I think the Obama and the Bidens are willing to go this far, this much lawfare, right, to tackle this issue, to keep those documents secret.
And that's just a guesstimate.
But it's not a bad guesstimate.
And I'll support that later on today in a space that I'm having starting at 3 o'clock.
Thanks.
Brilliant. So, Robert, thanks to joining us back again. You did cut out before, but I guess the first question is, what's your thoughts on this? And then I have got a few more questions.
Yeah. I mean, listen, I think this is insane. I think that when you look at this type of situation, you start with intent. Then you look at deceit.
Then you look at some of the other things that have come up that we haven't really seen before, i.e., a judge has approved waiver of legal counsel dissemination, right?
The attorney-client privilege because of criminal intent.
They have on videotape, moving boxes.
And then one of the biggest things that I don't know if anyone's brought up or not, I know I've been in and out, is when you leave the office of the presidency, you have the privilege of asking for a waiver to continue to receive classified information, of which almost all presidents do, whether it's to write memoirs down the road or whether at some point their advice is being sought.
Trump didn't.
And his lawyers have been very clear that he knew that he wasn't getting classified information because he waived it.
He didn't ask for the waiver.
So, and Maralaga was a gathering center.
I don't think the Biden House was a gathering center.
The Pence House was a gathering center.
But you're not looking at intent and you're not looking at deceit.
And if you reread these 49 pages...
Take Trump out of the equation. No matter who it was, you would feel awful that this stuff was going on. There's no other way to cut it.
Robert, can I ask you a question? There are four types of criminal intent. Purposeful knowing, which I think we're saying...
does not apply, but there's also reckless and negligent.
For a president to take, well, a former president to take documents that potentially put the security of the United States at risk,
would you not say that reckless and negligent intent comes into play?
It feels that way to me, but one more thing, you know, I know everyone's mentioning the 30 documents.
There may be hundreds more documents that we don't know and we'll never see because they're so top secret they can't put in front of a jury.
They're only mentioning the 30 ones that they can likely put in front of a jury that went through CIA and FBI and national security clearance so they can show it to a jury.
It might be partially redacted or some words may be substituted.
But the ones they're talking about are the ones that they can show and have been shown.
Ones that they're not showing, they're not talking about.
So when we think about...
whether things to do with weaponization or putting our allies at risk, those could be things that are not part of the 30.
And you and I won't see them.
I would just tell you that this is, listen, a lot of the things being said today is smart and thoughtful,
and this is everything today's polarizing, but these 49 pages, they're not polarizing.
They're factual.
People should read it.
For the most part, it is Trump people who work for Trump, the one speaking.
I agree.
And I want to know how Trump is going to defend any of this.
Like what can you possibly say?
By the way, he just lost his two best lawyers supposedly in the last hour.
Which were the lawyers that were running?
That's not true.
The two lawyers that were handling this are out of Washington, D.C.
Who were they?
Who were they?
Well, I don't know their...
I posted about their name.
One is James Trustee, Ben.
Jim Trustee resigned?
That was...
Oh, my God.
Jim Trustee resigned about five, four hours.
He's not a criminal lawyer, Ben.
Excuse me.
Hold on just, please, Sam.
Just so I can identify the lawyers, right?
The lawyer who's now handling it is now this case in Florida is the same lawyer that's handling the criminal case in New York.
These are both criminal cases.
What trustee was working on was not a...
You broke up, Doc.
I didn't hear anything.
Yeah, yeah, he broke up.
By the way...
Ben, I've got a question for you.
Um...
I'm just reading the document what you're referring to now.
I can see what you're referring to.
You're referring to paragraph three of the general document and not the specific points.
So even though that's a general explanation from the person who's indicted in.
But when you look at the exact specific, because then if you go to lower down into the document list,
Yes.
And the document list explains what those documents are.
And when it refers to nuclear capability,
and please correct me if I'm wrong or guide me somewhere else,
but when it goes to talking about nuclear capabilities within the United States,
it does not say it's top secrets or whatever document that is.
it wasn't top secret unless you can identify.
Yeah, it doesn't need to say top secret.
So the reason why it doesn't need...
The other documents do though.
But it doesn't matter.
Right, no, you're correct, right?
But the reason why it doesn't need to say top secret is because of a pre-existing atomic act, right?
By nature, anything related to atomic weapons and or energy is top secret.
You don't need to classify it as top secret.
It's just, it, that's a legal fact, right?
The argument about top secret, right?
Isn't it nuclear stuff above top secret?
Anything related to top secret is beyond restrict, or nuclear is beyond restricted data, right?
And that is the Atomic Act of 46.
People can argue about the constitutionality.
I take that argument, I hear it.
But at the end of the day, thus far, because it has not been litigated,
it does stand.
So it doesn't need to say top secret.
By nature, by definition,
atomic, anything related to atomic weaponry and or energy.
If you look at the documents, then,
it does refer to top secret when it's talking about certain documents.
So if you look on most of them,
they're actually chronologically.
Yeah, it doesn't matter because it's atomic energy.
So it's just a given.
So your argument is that even though it's top secret,
they never write it.
And even in this document, they don't have to write it now.
They don't need.
Well, they don't have to write it, right?
That would not make sense to me at all.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's just the fact.
Well, it's a fact that you don't write,
when it's a top secret document related to nuclear capabilities,
you never write top.
You don't have to. It's a given.
That's a fact.
Please provide me the evidence that that's a fact.
Yeah, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.
You can go read it.
By nature, it is classified and cannot be declassified.
No, no, that's not the argument.
You're not answering my...
Well, it is.
Well, I am.
No, no, my specific question is, because this is your argument.
So your argument is that when anything got to do with nuclear capability is not deemed top secret.
What did you say, sorry?
That anything related to nuclear capability...
on nuclear weapons is not classified as top secret.
But it is classified as top secret.
So here, I'll read something from, this is an article from the Atlantic in August of 2022.
And it says the Atomic Energy's Act of 1946 and 1954 produced an even stranger category of classified knowledge.
Anything related to the production or use of nuclear weapons and nuclear power is inherently classified, and Trump could utter whatever words he pleased yet still be in possession of classified material.
So it's automatically classified just because it's.
in regards to the production, if it's in regard to the production of nuclear weapons or nuclear power.
Yeah, he can't even technically declassified because it just automatically classifies its own specific thing, right?
It's not like something, some other document where it could just be a phone call that's top secret,
then the president can come in and see, yeah, it's not top secret anymore because I decided it's not.
With energy documents like this, he cannot do that, right? It's impossible.
Right, but guys, guys, he waived his rights when he left.
for any classified document.
Just to be clear, he waived his rights.
And he admitted it as well.
He said that he knew he couldn't declassified.
I mean, it was already waived.
This is in regards to the claim that Trump could declassify anything by thinking about it,
and he thought about declassifying them when he took him to the more or a lot of them.
And he is, if you read today's classification, if you read today's documentation,
he admits he knew they were classified.
You guys should read.
Yep, exactly.
Okay, read it.
I would recommend that this is thoughtful.
It's more thoughtful as the people who spoke, at least read it.
Yeah, yeah, so not only did he admit that he couldn't declassify, but he did so while apparently waving the documents in front of people who didn't have privy to seeing classified documents.
Correct. I would recommend you all read it.
So, Ben, again, and I'm not trying to be like pedantic, but...
If you look at point number five, because now you're, because your argument is this, that you don't, when it comes to nuclear capabilities, you do not run need to write the word top secret just through the energy act.
You automatically know it is.
The problem with what you're arguing is, if you look at point number five,
It does say top secret for nuclear capabilities of a foreign country,
but then for the other one, it doesn't say top secret.
It says...
Right. So the reason for that is because the atomic energy act of the US does not apply to foreign countries, right?
So of course they're going to word it such that top secret nuclear capabilities and or functions of other countries, right?
When you were talking about anything related to United States, atomic weaponry and or energy,
it is inherently top secret.
I mean, that's just the bottom line, right?
I don't know how else to argue that.
It is not...
What are you at that?
Yeah, just because it does not say top secret, right?
You don't need to say top secret.
There is an existing act, the atomic energy act.
Think of it this way, right?
Think of it this way.
You got water and you got metal.
Metal can be in a liquid form.
So you're going to say liquid metal,
if you want to specify that it's liquid metal.
But if you're talking about water...
It's water, it's liquid, it's a given, right?
So that's how it is with, you know, nuclear documents relating to the United States.
It's a given that it's top secret.
But if it's foreign, then you have to specify, is it top secret or not, right?
I don't understand why it really matters.
Like, Solomon, I don't understand what the point you're trying to make.
Well, yeah, the semantics.
No, no, it's not semantics. It's because if it's the, so what I was thinking was, and again, I'm just reading it just like you guys, I've read the 49 pages.
It's more that if it, in my mind, if it's so much top secret, then you understand that the dimensions of it are going to be significant.
But let's say it wasn't top secret. It could be something very minor and they've tried to make it look.
And it is linked to nucleicability.
I think it's a fair question.
I think it's a fair question and it's something that does need clarification.
And hopefully we're able to do that, right?
Because a lot of people would be wondering, why is he in trouble for this?
It doesn't appear to be top secret.
Well, now you know why, right?
Because it is top secret.
Yeah, absolutely.
I would assume that if there are government documents that the government's trying to get about
U.S. nuclear capabilities, then, I mean, it doesn't matter of its top secret because it's
information about U.S. nuclear capabilities that the government says doesn't belong to you
anymore and we want them back. So either way, I think it's just as damning.
Yeah, so just for the audience, because I'm going to go to Tom now.
But just for the audience, what it says here is secret, formally restricted data, formally restricted data.
Tom, thanks for joining us.
Before we go to Tom, Silleman, I just want to remind everybody, I'm going to sit here why Silleman kind of runs the show.
I'm going to go through your questions down in the bottom right hand corner.
I know you've got plenty of them.
So place them there.
I'm going through.
I'm going to listen to out.
We're going to read them here shortly.
So jump in, Tom.
Okay.
Hey, thank you. Good to be with you all. This is an indictment about nothing. It's political.
The president has absolute authority to take documents with them as president.
They become automatically declassified.
Whether he knew it at the time is irrelevant.
That's how the law had treated it.
That's how the Constitution treats it.
That's how the Presidential Records Act treated it.
That's how the Justice Department and Archives previously treated it under the Clinton-Sachroar case.
And what they did was they entrapped him.
They lied to him in suggesting that he had records he didn't have a right to have.
He turned them over.
bitched and moaned about turning war over, but did it anyway,
and they concocted obstruction charges based on that false premise
that he had records he wasn't entitled to.
All those records they took from him are his and should be returned.
It's that simple. It's that simple.
Can I ask you, Tom, the indictment says that Trump removed the boxes
after he ceased to be president.
So how does that tie in with that narrative?
He removed the boxes from where?
He had them in his home.
Or on his property, they were his.
Let me ask Tom a quick question.
So was there or was there not a court ordered subpoena that basically said you are no longer the custodian of these records you're required to return them.
If he didn't like that, right after he sent them back, he will be.
Well, there's no evidence he obstructed that subpoena.
So what's the argument?
I mean, I don't just do that.
Well, the argument.
Okay, thank you.
So the argument is this.
He was required to return all the documents as ordered by a federal judge.
Did he return all the documents as ordered by a federal judge?
Or did he remove some documents and put them in his desk?
Is that not obstruction of justice in this pure as form?
I don't believe that happened.
The question is, was the search performed in a good faith way that resulted in documents being produced?
The answer is yes.
And his joking about holding documents, you know, that's what lawyer, that's what clients do with their lawyers.
So, you know, do I have to get these? Can't we just hold them? And we're saying, no, we got to turn them over. And that's what happened.
But this is a, this is, and the basis for the warrant and the, and the basis for the warrant.
is specious. He had a right to those records. So he didn't have classified records under the law.
So there was no classified records. You don't want me to answer your question, I guess.
Let me just ask you. Okay. So you want to make your points using me as a way to do with that's fine.
Hey, Tom, can I just ask you a question?
No, I don't want a question from you.
I'm just going to say it then.
So Trump basically said on a recording that he had these documents, he couldn't declassify them.
Did he not say that?
That's not what he said.
That's what the transcript said.
He was concerned about the classified nature of the documents he had.
And it doesn't mean that legally they were declassed.
His concern doesn't mean legally they were classified.
Tom, can I just ask one more time?
The indictment, can I jump back to a point that was skipped over?
All those records are unclassified.
That list of records they're all unclassified.
Can I just very directly say this from the indictment, from point two in the indictment?
It said that those boxes were kept in the White House and were moved from the White House to Marilago when he ceased to be president.
So how does that tie in with the narrative?
These do...
These boxes were not at his home.
According to the indictment, they were in the White House, and he moved them after he ceased to be present.
That is the whole basis of the case.
I'm not quite sure with that, how that's relevant.
It's the first page.
It's relevant because you just said they were already in his private house.
How is that relevant to the analysis that?
How are they?
Under the Presidential Records Act, he has the discretion.
to keep records as presidential or use them and keep them as personal.
He doesn't have to fill out of form.
He doesn't have to do anything other than collect them in a way that makes it clear they're personal.
That's what happened during his presidency.
Why is that you're interrupting me?
You don't like...
Guys, let Tom finish real quick.
I mean you guys can respond.
You get to respond.
I let Tom finish.
Go ahead, Tom jump in.
Bottom left and side.
I'll mute.
I'll try to mute everybody.
Tom?
I think the question here is that these documents were in the White House and they were removed from the White House after Trump ceased to be president.
They were not his property.
A lot of them were very sensitive documents.
That was the question I was asking Tom because Tom believed that these documents were in Trump's house.
According to the indictment, they were not in his house.
That was the point I was trying to push.
I think this is critical to the entire case.
So I don't think it's worth dismissing this point.
If those documents were in the White House...
Trump removed them when he was no longer president.
He didn't have a right to those documents.
They weren't his personal documents.
They were classified documents.
He clearly admitted that.
He clearly admitted that he couldn't declassify that document about Iran.
What Trump said?
The thing is, what Trump said doesn't impact whether it's actually legal or not.
What Tom is saying, like he had every right.
But he can't claim.
He classified them, right?
He claimed, he said that people say that he declassified all the documents, right?
But he even admitted that he didn't.
So how can you claim that as declassified?
So can I ask a question for people who understand this more?
If he declassified documents, does that still give him a right to remove them from the White House after he's president?
So the issue is potentially, right?
However, I don't, we can't gloss over this, right?
There was a court order.
That court order said, you are no longer the custodian of these records we were required to return them back,
we return them to National Archives.
That order allegedly was obstructed.
So that's where the obstruction of justice comes from.
But again, a question to Tom, okay, let's just say that your argument is accurate and factual
and okay, he took them, he had the right to take them.
How can he take a document that cannot be declassified?
How could he sign out in form and say, I want this for my library, right?
Anything, and people can go read the Atomic Act, right?
That is just a fact.
you're still going to come back up against that problem, right?
So whether it's top secret or not, at the end of the day,
anything related to atomic weaponry or energy of the United States
is inherently top secret and classified and cannot be declassified by presidential powers.
The fact that he was allegedly in possession of those documents, it sinks that defense.
It's just, I don't know.
Tira, what do you think?
Sorry, I don't want to hijack your space, but Tiro.
All classification authority flows from the president in his role.
No, not with not.
Okay, you don't want me to answer the question.
You just gave me a 15-minute question, and I can't respond.
Go ahead.
You want me to respond or not?
Because I don't have time to do this if you don't want me to communicate with you.
Tom, Tom, Tom, go ahead and respond.
Okay.
Okay.
All classification authority flows from the president's role as commander-in-chief.
There's no statute that can take away his authority to handle classified information and declassify it no matter its nature.
The Presidential Records Act governs the use of records in the White House.
Under the Presidential Records Act, all documents...
classified national defense, whatever, are governed by that system.
And that system gives him discretion that's unreviewable to keep records as he sees fit.
That's the reality of the law.
The indictment refuses to deal with that.
And in that sense, the indictment is corrupt.
So Tom, can I ask again, because the point in the indictment, which you're refuting, is that he took these documents whether classified or declassified from the White House after he ceased to be president.
Is that okay or not under the law?
I don't think it makes that.
That doesn't make the allegation the way you suggest it does.
If he had records that the White House was storing where he was keeping on his way out,
I mean, that's, you know, it's like having something in storage or his records.
And GSA moved them.
So, Tom, can I ask you a question?
The debate is going to be is, and again, this has been taken as fucked when it's basically
the other side's argument.
So their argument is as classified.
Trump's arguments are going to be that they're not classified.
So to assume that they're classified and that they're definitely classified is just
My question is, can a former president remove...
Can I ask you a question?
Your question is, can a president remove documents?
No, can a former president?
He was not an acting president at the point he removed these.
So, Salaman, can a former president remove documents from the White House
that were either classified or unclassified?
These are sensitive documents about nuclear programs, defences.
He was not president at the time he removed these documents from the White House.
I think everyone needs to read the first page of the indictment.
No, no, no.
I mean, I've read the whole indictment.
But the point is, so your argument is, can't, the president isn't able to remove pocket.
A former president, Salaman.
How many times do you have to twist what I'm saying?
A former president.
Right.
It doesn't matter if he's not the president and he's taking documents from the White House about the nuclear programs.
You can say it a million times.
That's a misreading of the indictment and the law.
It makes no sense.
He was leaving the White House.
There were documents he was taking with him under his prerogative as president.
And it makes no sense he doesn't take documents.
And that's not what the indictment suggests.
As president, as president, as president, can I just ask this question real fast, please?
As president, I could have declassified, but now I can't.
That's what Trump told the writer and the...
But they were all...
He didn't understand, assuming that is an accurate recitation,
he didn't understand that the records were already declassified in virtue of that.
Because of why?
Anything he took home just automatically becomes declassified.
Yes.
Yes, that was the production of process.
They have to be read towards...
That's not true.
There's a process.
No, you don't want to do with the reality of the law.
The Justice Department and Archives have changed their legal position as that a status of records a former president has.
We sued for record.
You know you're making this up.
Don't say things like that.
This is why spaces, this is why gentlemen who are hosting this, when people accuse me of misconduct on spaces.
because they're confused and upset that their argument is losing based on facts and law.
Tom, you said his doctor is found.
You didn't even know where the doctor is.
Guys, you guys keep interrupting.
Let Tom finish.
I mean, he's kind of destroying your guy's argument, isn't he?
So go ahead, Tom.
That's ridiculous, Elaineman. Tom said these records were at Trump's house.
He didn't even know they're in the White House. They don't say he's destroying a record.
Sam, Sam, you know, the point you're making is so weak. I think you either misunderstood.
The point I'm making is the difference between a president and a former president is quite critical.
You don't know what you're talking about. You're making things up as you're going along.
It's an analysis that is based on good faith, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Hold on.
Tom, would you agree that, although it has not been litigated?
No, I don't agree to anything.
What I agree is that the Justice Department is corrupted.
I'm a witness to it.
They tried to intimidate me.
They sent the FBI knocking on my house because I was making comments like I'm making today.
And they try to jail anyone that opposes this Biden administration.
And you're all suckers.
If you think this is a serious indictment and anything other than a Democratic National Committee document that Jack Smith was brought in to rubber stamp to try to jail Biden's political opponent.
Don't get confused, dear listeners. This is garbage.
Trump had every right to have these records, and they gamed him to create a fake obstruction charge based on jokes he was making to his lawyers in private.
This is an abuse of justice we've never seen before in American history, and our hope our Republicans can survive it.
It's people like you that are dividing our country by spewing.
Oh, people like me. I'm not trying to jail my political opponents based on fake accusations and false statements of law.
You guys are taking an indictment that's black and white and changing the words even.
You don't even trust the indictment as written.
Let me go to, sorry, go ahead.
I hope a court sees through this sham and shuts it down.
And if Trump, and if Biden had any ethics and patriotism, he wouldn't pardon Trump.
He'd go to the Justice Department and say, you know, we're not doing this.
I'm not going to be like Aragon and Putin.
I'm not jailing my political opponent on a pretext.
But the Democratic Party has decided that's politics, jailing your political opponents, that's politics.
When I start talking, you talk over me. Let me talk now, please, okay?
So the argument that Tom is making here is that any president, when they leave the White House, they can take whatever they want with them without declassifying it or not.
They can take whatever they want, even if they had the intention to declassify it or not.
That's the argument that Tom's making it.
And the precedent that that would set would be horrendous for America.
And the idea that that could actually be allowed is just ridiculous.
Not only that, but why not give it back?
That's not an legal argument.
I mean, you may think it's unpleasant, the consequences, but that's the reality of the law.
The president decides what are presidential records or not, and no one else can make the judgment for him.
That's the law.
But if he did a top secret records.
And if he did nothing wrong, why he just covered top secret records.
All the records they're talking about the indictment.
and they dishonestly leave this out, or subcategory of presidential records.
So he could have designated it, and by his operation, he did make them personal by taking
him with them.
Now, he could have chosen to give them back and say, well, these on second thought look sensitive.
I want the archives to have them.
And, you know, but they're personal to me.
And that's what I think he should have done.
Instead, he bought into, and his lawyer seemingly bought into initially this idea is that he wasn't allowed to have them at all.
And that was his big mistake.
And that was his lawyer's big mistake.
And that's why people are so angry with me because I'm highlighting the dishonesty.
and the 183, 180 degree change in heart of the Justice Department and Archives when it came to the handling of records in the post-presidency.
Let me go to Ben. Ben, you had a question? Ben?
Ben?
Yeah, very, very briefly.
So, look, this needs to be litigated, right?
But my question is this.
How, to Tom, to fit in there, and this is not an attack whatsoever, I assure you, how would
you overcome the fact that, and I'll come back to this, right?
As it stands right now, the only thing that a president cannot declassify by thought, by
word, by order is...
is anything related to pertaining to nuclear weaponry or atomic energy.
So that being said, if it is factual, right, that he was in possession of documents pertaining to any United States nuclear atomic weaponry,
how would you overcome that? Because it hasn't been litigated, right?
I think someone made the point that, you know, it might be unconstitutional. That's fine. That has to be litigated.
But as it stands right now until it is litigated,
He does not have the ability to declassify anything related to anything nuclear within the United States.
So how would you overcome that?
Well, I don't think the law is that.
I mean, you know, that is the law.
The indictment is based on, I mean, I'd be happy, and obviously the president would be happy because it's just to focus on that specifically.
It pushed him to shove.
But we're not even there.
I mean, they're suggesting he had no right to any of the records he had.
But just that's a specific part of it.
There's a legal issue they're willing to pursue on the classified records.
The Justice Department's position based on this document is that all records Trump had from his presidency were illegally gone.
I understand.
That's just up as the Presidential Records Act in a way that's even more dramatic than I'm suggesting with the focus on their refusal to acknowledge his right, the classified records.
Okay, so, but just under that assumption, let's say everything else in the indictment is moot, except for that one document and or documents that are pertaining to atomic weaponry.
So let's just carve that out temporarily. How would you overcome that?
I don't agree that you're, I don't agree to your analysis. So, you know, it doesn't have to be overcome. He's the president. He'd be classified anything.
But the presidential records act is the governing law.
All those other laws are subsumed to it.
Except where it pertains to atomic weaponry or energy.
But there's no exception for the Presidential Records Act.
But Ben, didn't you say...
The Presidential Records Act governs documents the President has and uses.
Okay.
And if there are records that are classified...
They're necessarily subject to the Presidential Records Act and can be declassified under that, under the abilities the president has as the chief executive of the United States as recognized in the Presidential Records Act.
Could a president walk out of the White House with spy names, not tell anyone, and then just publish in places on the Internet?
Would that be illegal?
And what's the check on that? The check on that is impeachment.
No, no, after you leave office, I'm saying. Could let's say Biden leave the white, let me finish. Let me finish and then you can answer.
I mean, you know, that's why you got to be careful about the president.
Please let me finish. Please let me finish.
Yeah. I'm responding to your question. Could Biden leave the white, could Biden leave the white, could Biden leave the white house when his terms up with nuclear secrets, with spy names, not tell anyone? And the next day,
Post them on Reddit.
Yeah, that's one of the risks of the, you know, we rely on the president to keep secrets every day.
That's a danger every day for a president, and it would be a secret, a danger post-presidency.
He could have names that he has in writing or names he's read.
That's always the danger.
And that's why you want the president to be someone who's ethical and honest and moral.
So you're saying that's perfectly legal.
Right.
Yes, it would be perfectly legal if he was president and perfectly legal if he was not president.
Could he publish a list of names that were presidential records that he designated as personal?
Yes.
No, so last day of the White House before he leaves, he just decides to take...
Okay.
Look, I'm not doing these hypotheticals.
No, what I'm saying is that's a ridiculous claim.
It's a ridiculous claim.
It's a ridiculous claim.
I'm not doing the hypotheticals.
They make no sense and they distract from the core point.
Can I ask you one fun of action?
I'm not going to do it.
So if he's convicted, let's say Trump is convicted,
are you going to blame the judge in the jury?
If Trump's convicted, will you blame the judge in the jury?
I'm not, okay.
I'm not playing this game.
I tell you what should happen under law.
If it doesn't happen, it's a failure of the system.
And we could talk about how the apportioned blame then.
It's always a failure of this system when you're dealing with Trump.
That's right.
He's never wrong.
Right now we have a president.
Their strong evidence is on the tape from foreign nationals.
And it's been years and years of investigation.
Nothing's been done.
And instead, they hound Trump on these protectional document hoax that they made up at a whole claw.
a novel application of the law to target a former president.
And, you know, that's the reality of what we're dealing with as opposed to...
There's no, Tom, there's no evidence of Biden on the take.
Accusations from people that have their own political agendas.
There's no evidence of that.
What do you mean there's no evidence of that?
If you look at the hundred laptop...
I'm the one that was dealing with the Hunter laptop.
Yes, Tom, I dealt with that.
Yeah, but, well, I mean, there's no evidence that Joe Biden was on the take?
Absolutely not.
If he was, it would have been already indicted for that.
There's a lot of accusations.
I think you've been through the machine.
You know it's completely political.
No, I agree with you.
A lot of things are going on that's political,
but I could tell you one simple fact that I've dealt with a lot of,
I dealt with the Hunter Biden stuff,
and there was a lot of accusations,
and the accusations were coming from people,
but they never gave any actual proof.
We had, Tony Babaluski didn't have any proof.
I mean, that's testimony.
That's evidence, right?
These testimony, he's come out publicly about it.
You know, we have texts and emails that complain
where Hunter is paying all of Joe's bills.
Complaining, right, but there's no, but where's...
From these nefarious types abroad, we're going to the benefit of Joe.
I would think the one reason...
But where was that?
We never saw the money trail.
Where was the money trail?
If there was a proof of that, he would have been clear.
I was following that.
I was trying to get the money trail.
I was the one out there trying to find it.
You know, the Colmer got some of the money trail from the LLCs he uncovered a few weeks ago.
I just wish I could trust the FBI and Justice Department to pursue the money trail as opposed to burying it.
Gentlemen, have a good day.
I want to jump off.
Suleiman, Mario, thank, Nick.
Thanks for the opportunity.
I guess to watch too, guys.
I'm not running because I'm mad, but I have other things to do.
Good luck to you all.
Thank you.
I just want to jump in.
I want to jump in on the Presidential Records Act that Tom Ket referred to.
Before you jump in on the Presidential Records Act, I do want to let everybody know, first of all, obviously,
Comments and questions down their bottom right hand corner.
Also, we do have former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani coming on here shortly.
Mayor Giuliani was actually the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York,
one of the most powerful U.S. attorneys in the country.
So that's pretty significant.
Really looking forward to his take on that.
But Sam, go ahead.
Yes.
I mean, the presidential records actually requires the president to submit
all his documents to the National Archive when he leaves office.
So this seems to be a real misunderstanding of some of the things that Tom was saying.
I mean, anyone can go now and read the presidential records at themselves,
and it states very clearly that...
all papers should be submitted to the archive or the archivist as it's referred to in the act.
So this idea that Trump can unilaterally grab whatever the hell he wants when he ceases being present
and walk out of the White House with those documents is just a total misconception.
I can't understand how we just had a half an hour conversation where that wasn't bought up.
Hey, hey, can you confirm that top secret documents could be presidential records?
Because I don't think that's true.
I mean, this isn't even referring to top secret documents.
This is referring to every presidential document is owned by,
is the property of the American people when a president leaves the office
and it should go to the National Archives.
A president can't walk out, you know, on their last day and take dozens of boxes.
And it doesn't claim that top secret documents.
It's in a document called the Presidential Records Act.
No, no, no, I'll get that.
What's the actual wording on it as opposed to your paraphrasing of it?
I mean, I'll find it while you, I'll find it why you, I'll find it while you continue.
The presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the archivist as soon as the president leaves office, which I think I'd pretty accurately described.
So, Salaman, what's your thought on that?
I need to read it.
I just read it to you.
I just read it to it.
It's a single paragraph.
No, no, you've read his snippet.
So based on that specific...
Okay, I'll drop it into our WhatsApp.
You can read it for yourself.
Yeah, yeah, brilliant.
But based on that specific snippet,
then, yeah, it does seem like you should have went there.
But again, I want to read all of it because I know a snippet.
I mean, like I said, you know,
we're talking about a guy who stole furniture from the White House.
He's going to take all this stuff.
He thinks it belongs to him.
I think you're right, Ian. I think this is about arrogance and negligence and this is why there, you know, this is why there is criminal intent because criminal intent can include recklessness and negligence.
And I believe this is about recklessness and negligence.
I don't believe Trump had a purpose to use these documents, but I believe his overriding arrogance was like, I can do what the hell I want.
So Sam, based on what you're saying, though, and again, I'll wait for you to send me the document.
Exactly based on what you're saying, that means Pence also broke the law because he was negligent.
He had documents that weren't in the archive and they were classified because he didn't have the ability to unclassify them.
So that's probably, that's true.
Quite possibly Biden did, but that's not what we're discussing right now.
We're discussing Trump.
No, but the problem is.
We're discussing Trump right now, quite possibly Hillary did as well, but we're discussing Trump right now.
You can't excuse someone's behavior because somebody else also did something wrong, which seems to be...
That's not the point. It's not about excusing the behavior.
It's about showing that either the law isn't the way you're saying it, because essentially how can it be exactly the same time?
Because Pence has got out.
So, I believe the espionage act requires intent.
So you'd have to prove that...
Pence did that with intention and that Biden did that knowingly and with intention.
No, no, that's fine.
That's a separate argument.
But Sam's argument is that no document should leave the White House and end up at the premises of the president.
And they should all be in the National Archives.
So that specific aspect of the argument I'm saying is flawed.
Either it is that they are, again, it proves political attack because why are they going after one person for that and not the other.
Or, yeah, so that's what it shows.
Or the other point is that essentially that isn't a law and that's not the application of it.
So, I think the problem is that everybody else returns the documents when they're asked for it.
And the problem here is Trump decided not only not to return it, lie about it,
try to hide it and keep it till this day.
And so, you know, there's still documents.
I don't think that they have all the documents.
Can I ask just because it's a valid question from Salaman.
It's a valid question.
Did Mike Pence remove the documents during or after?
And this is a genuine question.
During his reign as vice president or after he left?
Because Trump did it after he left.
Yeah, but he's vice president.
He can't even disclassify it.
Sam, I have to correct you.
Can I correct Sam?
That separate to Sam's point.
I mean, that's separate to Sam's point.
Because your argument isn't that it shouldn't have been taken,
but your argument is that once it was taken and they asked for it,
he should have given it.
So he shouldn't obstructed.
that's a separate argument and again it's not about what about is them is consistency so consistency
showing that this is a target attack because presidents have been doing this and it's become a culture
within the US presidency to do this so we know for example Hillary Clinton had and destroyed
hard drives to ensure that they didn't get it they was not they but they were her personal emails
and there's no one's excusing that but they weren't classified documents that she took from the White House
you know, after her term.
So you don't know, but she destroyed them.
They did.
They were classified documents.
That was the argument.
A third party destroyed them and there's no evidence pointing to Hillary being the one
who asked them to do that.
Yeah, but getting back to Trump.
Salimond, but getting back to Trump for a second.
It was that she was storing them inappropriately on a private personal server,
when in fact it should be stored on a government server mandated by a U.S.
government and overseeing.
essentially the same argument so one is an electronic storage and one is a physical storage no not quite
no but the but so you're using emails you're using a private email server which is not yeah
And it's also the law was actually amended at the end of 2014.
It wasn't actually illegal to use personal emails before the law was amended.
So we have to be careful we've got the facts here.
So, you know, I'm not defending Hillary Clinton here,
but I'm saying that the law was actually amended to require personal emails to be transferred to government servers within 20 days.
It wasn't against the law to have, you know, emails outside of the White House.
even in your personal emails if they're related to White House business.
But that law has been updated since Hillary Clinton.
let me go to chief trumpster chief trust and then we'll go to just and go ahead chief well i think
the big one of the biggest issues for me right now it's that there there is as prosecutors
have a lot of discretion with what they choose to do what they not or they can't do and this again
seems like it's going after trump again and from you know trump is the presumed nominee for
republican party he's one of the lean people he's up in most the polls not all the polls
So we have Biden's DOJ and, you know, they're going after Trump in this way.
I think this isn't going to look to public at least as something where Biden's the OJ is going after a opponent of his.
And it's going to be something that...
even though he gets more money from it, he gets more money from people after this whole thing drops.
It's going to put him in a lot of hot water, takes a lot of his tile up, energy up, resources up, all this.
So I think because there's a point Merrim made before about how it benefits Trump a little bit, which it does a little bit with support and with some money from supporters.
However...
in the grand scheme of things,
this is definitely not something
that is beneficial
towards Trump getting these indictments
and anything like that.
It takes a lot more time away from him
and from his messaging on the campaign trail.
So I think the more so I just want to call out that
You know, there is a lot of prosecution that has discretion and it is law fair, I think, against Trump.
And I told me the point before that under the Presidential Records Act, he should be able to keep personal records.
And again, this is very very selective, in my opinion, of how they prosecute Trump and not really any other people like Biden or Hillary or a Pence.
Well, let me ask you then, how come Trump's DOJ didn't then prosecute Biden for if supposedly he was illegal?
It was Trump's DOJ if you're saying that this is Biden's DOJ.
The GOJ is not working for Trump or for Biden.
Bill Barr had all the evidence that me and Rudy Giuliani gave to him.
And how come Bill Barr chose not to prosecute Biden?
Well, it's more so about Trump's picks.
And I think that Bill Barr wasn't really the best pick in that sense.
And...
We can talk about Trump's picks and whether Barr is the correct one.
But I just don't think the bar is the person to do it against, against, I guess Biden, you said, or Hillary.
I, uh,
I mean, he tried to stop the investigation.
He put pressure on Berman and a lot of the investigation
that were going to the Southern districts.
Why would he stop there?
The bottom line, there was no proof.
It was a lot of accusations,
and this is just a lot of conspiracy theories there going around,
and it has nothing to do with what Trump did.
We could talk about every other president and everybody,
all the other FBI is corrupt,
and that could be true.
There could be a lot of corruption,
and they should be all prosecuted, whoever is corrupt.
But the bottom line is Trump took these records,
And if what Tom was saying is right and he had the right to take him, why not give him back when he was asked to give him back?
Why hide them? Why lie about them?
Till this day he lies and says that, you know, gives all different excuses.
That just shows intent that he had other intent for those documents than just taking them.
Because if it was a simple mistake like every other president takes these documents and they're found in these boxes, what happens?
Precedence is that they give him back to the archives.
what Trump did was illegal.
He decided to fight it and keep him and lie and hide and put our country in jeopardy.
So, Chief, I'm going to give you, yeah, I'll give you 30 seconds to respond to that.
Then I'm going to jump over to Justin.
Yeah, I'll simply.
I disagree on characterization of that.
I don't think it's intentionally putting the country of danger.
I don't think there is an intent to.
use it for personal gain.
I'd say to wait until they litigated out and put in the court and we'll hear the evidence
more so from the prosecution.
And I'm withholding my jumping onto the bandwagon of, you know, guilty.
I'm waiting for, again, everything to be in court and for there to be a longer process
in this before I jump to any conclusions.
Yeah.
All right. So, Justin, I want to ask you a question here, man. And then you can jump in with whatever you want to, really. But what kind of implications are we looking at for the GOP primary? I mean, if you're in the DeSantis camp, does this worry you? Do you believe that Trump is just, he's gaining more power and more support? Because people are outraged by this. What are your thoughts?
Yeah, look, it's obviously this is political, right? The timing of it, the ferocity of it,
the speed of it, right? This could have waited another year or two, at least I think it could.
But it's just another example of the carelessness, the ineptitude. It's an unforced error,
again, on President Trump's parts. I'll tell you from the perspective of the ground and
and fundraising when they came and raided Mara Lago last August,
it was an entire week of a of a fundraising frenzy.
People were like, sign me up, I'll do whatever I can.
Left, rights, you know, so they're just like,
on the conservative side, it was an excitement.
When the indictment came down in New York City,
people were like, oh, this is just tiring.
This one is obviously stupid.
And the fundraising lasted maybe for a day or two.
I can tell you the fundraising is already waning from what I can see.
But at the same time, I think it's obviously a very politically charged moment,
and people will latch on to that.
So I think a lot of Republicans will rally against it, rally for him,
and say, look, this is another example of a very politically charged environment.
Yeah, it's completely unfair that we on the right have to have our stuff buttoned up 100% of the time.
Right. Like the BLM riots can level an entire town in the summer of 2020, but a handful of people, you know, make some fuss for two hours at the Capitol. And all of a sudden, you know, it's the worst thing since 9-11, right? And when I saw that, I knew that's what was going to happen because we don't do that stuff. We're not supposed to do that stuff. We have to have our stuff buttoned up 100%.
We don't get the sort of fly-by-night thing that people say,
oh, we'll just overlook that, right?
And so, you know, imagine Don Jr. has a laptop that's out there
that shows emails back and forth about potential monies being passed,
even just the hint of it.
It would be all over the place.
Yes, it's a double standard.
But we have to have our stuff buttoned up.
And that's why I'm sorely disappointed.
Yeah.
in President Trump and the people around him.
It's just another example of carelessness and ineptitude.
So what's the impact?
I think a lot of Republicans will initially rally around Trump,
but a lot of people are fatigued over this whole thing,
and this isn't the end of it.
It just keeps coming and coming.
And this one is a lot more serious than New York City.
Guys, it seems like a lot of...
Sorry, Nick, I'll go to you there.
I'm going to go to the comments.
I'm going to go to the comments.
I'm going to do.
So, guys, it does seem like a lot of, obviously, Democrats...
believe that Trump is guilty.
You've got DeSantis' people.
A lot of them have conceded and they're against Trump.
But are you, if you support DeSantis,
are you also believing that
your basically Trump is in the wrong here?
Or have you got different thoughts?
I'd love to hear your comments as well as Trump people.
Were you expecting this from the,
we were expecting from the Democrats,
but were you expecting DeSantis people to also join in
and say that Trump has got problems?
So I love to hear your comments.
Go ahead, Nick.
So, Tierra, let me ask you this.
This is an audience question here.
Didn't the DOJ and the FBI let Biden's own lawyers go through the documents that were in his garage next to the Corvette, as he said, and take their word for whatever or whether they were classified or not?
Did anybody search through these documents that weren't Biden's own people?
Because, I mean, they were also in what, the University of Pennsylvania at the Biden Center.
It was another university they were at.
They were spread all around.
I believe that.
Go on, go on, Ed.
No, no, Terry, you go.
I believe the FBI searched his house, didn't they?
I thought they did, too, after the initial set was discovered.
Nick, do you have knowledge that they didn't?
Well, what I'm asking here is I'm talking about all the places that these documents were discovered.
I did hear that the FBI went through his house, okay?
But I'm not sure.
I've heard nothing about them going through the other two locations.
Well, I'm looking at an article that says FBI searches Biden's vacation home, no classified
I think what happened was that once the initial set was discovered,
then they said they found another.
Then the FBI went and looked at every place.
because then they weren't sure that the not that they were nefarious but just they weren't sure the searches had been thorough enough and nick again he complied Biden complied and gave up whatever they found and allowed them to search and didn't try to hide it and didn't try to pretend that he that he has control over them and that he could do whatever he wants with him yeah but but
Yes, sir, too.
And they're going to ask you.
Can I?
Okay.
I want to go back to what Tom said, and this is not on Tom.
I just want to discuss this a little because I want you to understand the extraordinary nature of what Tom said.
What he's saying is a president, a sitting president, can take all the documents he wants to and say, quote, they were all personal and I have the right to keep them.
them. Any document that exists at any level of bureaucracy, regardless of whether it was created by him,
during his administration, etc., that is Tom's theory.
I reject that. I think that is an extraordinary reading, but the reason he's saying that is because in the case that he was involved with, the FOIA case, Judicial Watch, basically it was about Clinton keeping audio tapes that he had done for a biography.
And the court said, you know, we're accepting the fact that these are...
personal records because Clinton said so. Now, I'm going to make two points. Number one,
that is not a binding case. It was a district court case. And it was basically the government
taking the position that the former president had the right to make this decision.
Okay, the government is taking a different position now, right?
The government is saying, in this case, the president, we don't agree with what the president might be saying.
But number two, when Judge Cannon did her initial, remember all those orders she issued that were sort of shut down by the...
by the 11th Circuit.
Here's what they said.
Plaintiff argues that the Presidential Records Act gives him a possessory interest in the seized documents.
This argument is unresponsive.
Even if plaintiff's statutory interpretation were correct, a proposition that we neither consider nor endorse,
personal interest or ownership of a seized document is not synonymous with the need for its return.
In most search warrants, the government sees his property that unambiguously belongs to the subject of a search.
So what they're saying is, regardless, if you're asked for documents legitimately by the government via a search warrant that has been properly executed, you can't then say, oh, no, they're mine.
That's why I don't think Tom is correct in what I believe to be his overly excessive and wrong interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.
Thank you.
And I agree with you fully.
And there's also the question of what it actually takes to declassify a document.
The president can't just say this is declassified.
But I'm not, Sam, I'm not talking about declassified.
No, I agree with you.
I'm agree with you here.
I also want to say, Sam, then I think you were wrong in one of the things you said in the affidavit,
it does not say that Trump took the documents after he was president.
Apparently...
According to the affidavit, he was on the plane with them, he landed, and then the inauguration took place, or at least a chunk of them, that is what is said.
So presumably he was still president.
It actually says, it does actually say in point four, it says at 12 p.m. on January 2021, Trump ceased to be president.
As he departed the White House, Trump caused scores of boxes.
many of which contain classified documents to be transported to Mar-a-Lago Club.
So when I say things on these bases, I do them based off the source information.
The plane landed at 11. Okay, he was still president.
You're saying...
I'm talking about the indictment here.
If the indictment is wrong, the indictment is wrong.
The indictment is not wrong.
You're just saying the two sentences go together and they don't necessarily go together.
Okay?
I'm saying you're misreading it.
Thank you.
It does say as he departed, but I appreciate that, you know, the timing is not detailed on this part of the indictment.
Perhaps it's detailed somewhere else you could share that with me via a DM.
Okay, so, Ed, let me ask you a question here, another audience, question reminder.
Put it down in the right hand corner because, you know, I do actually go through them, actually.
Ed, Biden said, you know, within the past, you know, couple of weeks here that he was retaining documents since 1974 in his home.
His argument was, well, they were from 1974.
But what that says is retaining them.
that time. So why now? I mean, because there was a Moralago raid and then all of a sudden right after that is when the Biden team, his lawyers or whatever, said, oh, well, we have documents in the garage now. Is that not, you know, pretty damning as well? I mean, should Biden not be charged with mishandling classified records?
Well, so, I mean...
From his point of view, he could say that, you know, he saw that Trump was being indicted or likely going to be indicted for this.
So he double-checked his home and double-checked his office.
I think unless you have hard evidence that shows that he knew he had these and didn't turn them in
or that the government asked for them and he refused to turn them in, I don't think you really have a case because you do need intent for violating the espionage act.
As far as the Presidential Records Act,
I think, you know, I think it doesn't become a violation until after you realize you have them and after Nara asks for them.
When Nara says these are presidential records, we want them back, you can either, you know, fight that legally or you can give them back.
So I think what Biden did was highly irresponsible.
I think the fact that he had these records.
And that is, you know, if they are in fact still classified.
I would say that because we still don't know 100% that they were not declassified at some point.
But, I mean, I guess we'll find out once the special counsel looking into that finishes his investigation.
Yeah, I mean, that's the problem, isn't it? If nothing happens to Biden or we don't get the information about the content, that's why people are saying this seems like a very targeted attack against Trump.
Just before we go to some speakers, guys, if you go to Mario's page and click on the subscribe button, it's only $1, which goes to charity.
But essentially, we do do subscriber-only spaces. They're unrecorded.
uncensored.
We have a lot of fun
and it's a way of just decompressing
after this as an afterpart
and we can talk about a lot of the issues
why we said certain things,
why certain things are done,
why we took things in a certain direction.
So yeah, if you want to subscribe
this bot top right inside
of Mario's page
and then you can become a subscriber.
Sam, to you, I mean...
It seems like, because you, I mean, you're quite analytical.
If you look at the arguments that everybody's making,
no one's even talking about the fact that, you know,
the documents were classified and he took them,
or they were declassified, all that he was in his possession.
The main argument that people are making is even though they use that verbiage
to make it sound worse, is that essentially he refused to give them back
when the time came and that's where the problem lies.
But you don't seem to completely agree with that.
So I'd like to hear your thoughts.
No, I think that the indictment lays out a number of problems, the first being that he didn't follow the correct procedures with the actual documents for the Presidential Records Act. And I know Tom had a different opinion. Let me read you what the Presidential Records Act says.
Upon the conclusion of a president's term of office, or if a president serves consecutive terms,
upon the conclusion of the last term,
the archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control,
and preservation of, and access to the presidential records of that president.
So there were question marks about, you know, I appreciate...
Tyra's point, perhaps the records were already on a plane at 11 o'clock when he left at 12.
I genuinely don't know. I will look into that myself, so I may have been wrong on that.
But obviously...
I just DM you the article about that.
Okay, I'll take a look. I appreciate that. I'll take a look quickly after this.
So, look, for me, you know, we have...
We have a, there's so many issues here.
There's the fact that these documents weren't necessarily securely scored and that they had potentially sensitive information about US defense in them and nuclear programs and things like that.
That is what the indictment is suggesting.
I think we have to take that seriously that.
a president could have put the national security of the US at risk by storing, you know, sensitive
documents that outlined defense strategies, nuclear plans, etc., in a public place.
So whether or not, you know, he should have taken them, there should certainly be some responsibility
and not negligence around the storage of them.
Sam, I want to add to this to that, like you just said there, I want to add that we don't know
who else saw these documents after he removed them from the White House, right? Because
they were stored...
unsecured.
Anyone could have seen them.
We don't know.
Right? So, I mean, for all we know, an Iranian agent could have gone to Marlago and had a glimpse
of them. We have no idea. That's the issue, right? That's what we're talking about.
I agree. And that's why the standard, that's why the standard has to be so high.
None of that. That's the same argument about Biden. He had in his garage, went to Biden, who's
basically a corkhead essentially had access to that. He's basically compromised. He's not in his own
fact. He doesn't even have his own faculties, control of his own faculty. So that's the same
problem you have for all of these guys. It's not just.
Yeah, I don't think we're arguing that.
Yeah, I agree too.
I don't think we're arguing that today.
I think there's a lot more to come out of this.
And I'm sure that the Bidens will be hopefully investigated too.
I think this is about the security of the US at the end of the day.
And it surprises me that people who, I understand people support Trump,
but if the security of your country, if the security of your military and your defence...
is put at risk by a guy acting so ridiculously negligently for that not to bother you.
That is gross negligence that I can't even imagine the fact that defense records, defense plans,
potentially nuclear information was just left lying around by a president or a former president.
That alone should make people stop in their tracks and take this seriously.
Yeah, I mean, imagine if Boris Johnson, you know, left a nuclear briefing about, you know, the storm shadow missiles on a park bench.
I mean, I think that actually happened something like that, right?
It wasn't Boris Johnson, but it was a member of the British government who did leave a classified, top secret military document on a park bench by accident.
And you got in trouble for that.
Serious trouble, right?
Because you just can't do that.
You can't be negligent.
It sounds good.
Well, again, again, this is double standards like Petit Patel basically had, was using, again, similar to Hillary Clinton, was using classified important information and using her normal email, not once but many a times, even after she's been reprimanded.
She lost a job for like a week and then she was brought back in and there was no criminal charges whatsoever.
So again, the issue is this.
This is the problem you see, Sam.
Your argument makes sense on the face of it.
That's not the issue.
The issue is that this argument has been created in 2023 because we've seen it consistently in the United States.
And even you mentioned UK, so I add that as well, but you've seen it in the United States.
President after president after president acting in the same manner even vice presidents even I don't think that's a fair thing to say so I mean did anyone else leave leave dozens of boxes of defense and nuclear information in a public place but God knows how long did any did anyone else do that
Biden did in the garage.
But I think it's more than that.
I think we're talking about technical stuff there.
Could he take it and could he not take it?
We're putting all of that aside.
What happened after it was found out that he took it?
He decided to lie.
He decided to hide.
He decided to not give it back.
And that's the problem.
Why would he do that?
No other president did that ever in the history.
Presidents, yes, have taken documents, they've found documents,
but the end result would be when they were requested to give it back.
They complied and gave it back, and that was the end of it.
it but the problem here and the reason why we're here today is not because they found documents
and president because when they found him if trump would have just complied with the subpoenas and
gave him back the documents and said oh you know if i'm not supposed to have them i'm not or i'm
supposed to but here they are we wouldn't be here today the reason we're here today is because
trump decided to try to hide the documents try to not give back the documents
And that's intense, in my opinion.
We're here today, Lev, because Biden's a traitor and he's using the Justice Department to persecute his opponent.
That's why we're here.
So you don't believe Trump should have given those documents back when they were requested, despite the fact that they were the legal property of the archive and not of Donald Trump at that point?
No, they disagree with your second point.
But no, if you read the complaint and I have, I've redlined it, I'll be talking about it later, over and over and over again.
It details the efforts that Trump, his attorneys, associates, and neutral made in trying to be responsive to the subpoena.
So, I mean, Preston, thanks to joining us.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this before we go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, I think that it's, you know, once again, they're showing that they can't, they do not want him in this race at all.
They want to make it to where he's unable to even be in the race.
And they're showing how much contempt they have for the guy.
Over and over, no other president has been persecuted in this way.
And I think many people can say that even on the DeSantis side with how much, you know,
bickering's been going on with them.
I think hopefully they're able to even objectively say that no one has been gone after like this guy.
You said we heard it earlier.
Hillary's done it.
Biden's done it.
They don't want him to be in this race, and they're going to do everything that they can to throw the book at him.
But we don't think he's going to falter.
We think there's still going to be a tremendous comeback.
And I think this is just going to reinforce everyone behind him that much more and bring over more people because...
They're just showing how much vile contempt they have for the guy.
And we're going to see through that as the American populace, and we're going to vote him in again because he's the only guy that's going to bring MAGA America First Values, which we need so badly right now.
I think no other president of the history of the United States has been so outrageous and showed such disrespect for the law
And the Trump has shown and that's why he's being prosecuted
What are you talking about? What are you talking about? Then why has he never convicted of anything? Why have the
He's just he's well, he's just got on that
Have you read the term report?
Have you? Well, the Dern. Yeah, I've read the Dron by the way, but let me ask you
impeachment. Impeachments all failed. But let me ask you.
Everything.
But let me ask you this question about the Durham report.
Everybody has been waiting so much on the right for this Durham report.
And were there any indictments?
If there was so much wrong in so many criminal activities, I don't have them.
No, duh.
But the special prosecutor was dirt.
Love, you're just a thug.
No, no, no.
Be quiet.
You're on the DeSantis team.
We know clearly what you're rooting for here.
You want your guy to win.
You want to wipe your competition out because you know you're not going to win fairly.
You're not winning in the polls.
Even your folks are not, yeah, I mean, DeSantis said today that he wanted to, you know, get in there and change what's going on.
He thought this was an unfair person.
Preston, Lepp doesn't like DeSantis.
He had, he dysplexed.
Yeah, Preston.
I'm not on the side.
I think DeSantis is worse than Trump, for your opinion, Preston.
I think the sentence is more authoritarian or worse.
The whole is the case for you in.
I'm not on any camp. I'm on the side of the truth. And I want to make sure that whoever is responsible or does illegal things should be prosecuted for it.
And if like I said, if Biden did something wrong, he should be prosecuted for it. But I was involved in a lot of the stuff that Trump did to try to go after Biden when there was no proof to it just because he was scared that Biden was going to beat him in the election, which he did.
Like the Ukraine? Because that was a big one. And that was one of the many things that had happened where people,
Yes, Ukraine.
I was there on behalf of Trump.
Don't forget that, John.
But my question to you is this, Lev, if you were there and you say he went after Biden because he was scared, everything that happened in that call was 100% accurate, no?
Nothing would know.
That wasn't accurate because Trump basically tried to force Zelensky.
And prior to Zelensky, I had a three-hour conversation when Trump sent me to Ukraine to speak to Poroshenko
and have told me to tell him that he would support Paroshenko in his race if he would come out and put out an investigation into the Bidens.
And none of them did that because they didn't have the proof of any Biden doing anything wrong.
Who do you work for? Yes.
But what about now?
What about now?
With all of the links that have come out with that locktop, with everything we're watching, we're still going to act like nothing happened in the Ukraine?
What happened in the Ukraine?
Just because Hunter Biden is a drug addict and a crackhead and did a lot of stuff and it looks bad.
And I agree that a lot of stuff shouldn't have happened.
They gave a $5 million bribe to Biden according to the documents.
The documents were released.
The documents were released.
The documents were provided to them through.
They were released.
They were released.
They were released.
Yeah.
And D.
These documents.
It was in there.
Five million dollars.
There was no proof there.
There was the documents was from an informant saying that.
No, there was somebody.
Are you saying that Biden is investigated for this?
Doc, Doc, how can you say it's an accusation?
Trump came out himself and said there's 20.
Marjorie Taylor Green, a member of Congress made it on video yesterday.
Well, let's call off spade a spade.
Marjorie Taylor Green should not be a member of Congress to start off.
Because she's off the law.
I'm not a member of Congress.
I'm not a member of Congress.
A Ukrainian chill, you're probably connected to the Ukrainian mob, quite honestly, the way you're chilling.
Yeah, yeah.
So we're not going to go there.
I'm going to shift.
Yeah, I'm going to shift a little bit there.
David, yeah, we're not going to do.
Yeah, we're not going to do any of that.
David, I wanted to bring you up on stage real quick and ask you, because you are an attorney.
And this is an audience question that I've gotten here.
Did Hillary Clinton not delete 33,000 emails after getting a subpoena?
I know this has been an argument for years and years,
but it seems like nothing was ever done with that information.
Because keep in mind, these 33,000 emails were on a personal email server
while she was Secretary of State, and that alone should be illegal, no?
Hey, Nick, can I just answer? Can I answer this?
I let Ed answer them and David, you respond.
So Hillary's emails, I think it was, you know, I think what she did was wrong.
I think that what she did was highly irresponsible.
And the fact that those emails were deleted after the subpoena was issued was wrong as well.
But the problem with prosecuting her for that is that,
She requested the emails be deleted before she has a peanut for them, over a year before, before she even knew that this was going to happen.
And the third party who was in control of those servers...
But you're still saying that they were deleted afterward?
Yeah, yeah, let me finish. Let me finish.
Okay.
So...
She in 2014, I believe, she requested them be deleted by this third party who had the servers.
They had the servers in their possession.
And they said, okay, we'll delete them.
But they never did.
They forgot about it.
So in 2015, when she asked people, hey, guys, how do I delete the servers?
Hey, let me finish.
In 2015, when she has subpoenaed for them, that company deleted them.
Like, oh, crap.
I didn't do what I was supposed to do. I'm deleting them.
Now, did Hillary contact them and say, oh, crap, you better delete these?
There's absolutely no evidence of that.
And the person who deleted them had an immunity deal, which required them to tell the truth,
and there would be no reason to lie about it.
If you have an immunity deal, and your freedom depends on it, said, no, I did it by myself
because I was like, oh, shit, I forgot to do this.
So they didn't have any evidence to say Hillary requested these emails to be deleted.
Sure, you can assume she did.
You can say, oh...
she probably did if you want.
But there is no hard evidence, so there's no way to prosecute her for it.
Because there's no, you can't prosecute somebody if you don't have the evidence that they committed that crime.
But if they were, if she had made that request, though, she made it before earlier and then received a subpoena.
Okay, even if even if that is true, she was ordered to retain those documents.
They would have known that they asked the servers to be wiped, you know, even a year ago.
Well, the problem is she went to retain the documents.
And the issue is that the idiot who did all the deletions, he went on Reddit to ask for help because he thought he was in trouble.
It's literally there.
The guy is asking for help and how do, hey guys, how do I delete emails from the server?
I don't know how.
He's literally on there on record saying that because he thought he was in trouble and that he needed to delete them before, you know, like a year before when she asked him to and he didn't do it.
It's so stupid.
Like, I don't know if Hillary's guilty.
I think she is.
I think that she put pressure on him to do it.
But a lot of this is also, you know, not, it's all speculative, right?
It has to be proven beyond a...
Yeah, so you can't prosecute unless you...
Like, you can't prosecute based on speculation.
Exactly, yeah, that's the issue.
Yeah.
So it's very likely that she asked him to delete it because why else he'd be panicking, right?
But at the same time, you can't prove it.
So there's that.
Yeah, David, jump in.
Well, yeah, I mean, it's convenient that, oh, no, I guess documents don't exist anymore, so you can't prove anything, which is exactly what obstruction of justice is.
The interesting thing about this is, and Ed, I love talking to you, we're overlooking the fact that the classified documents were removed and placed.
in a place that they shouldn't have been to begin with.
So everybody wants to give Donald Trump,
who, by the way, had the authorization to take those records
while they go through them until they figure out
which is presidential and which one's classified
or needs to go back to the records.
But that being said, but with Hillary Clinton, those records shouldn't have been there.
The classified documents shouldn't have been on that server.
And then they weren't deleted when they were requested.
And then automatically, so, oh, I guess we figured out how to delete them.
That is 100% what obstructed justice is.
But you know what?
The evidence is gone now.
They didn't investigate it.
And if without evidence, you know, what are you going to do?
And but to your point real quick, and then I want to answer your question, Nick,
but to Ed's point about you get immunity, why wouldn't he testify to that?
Yeah.
Epstein is the perfect example.
Just because you have immunity, you can testify.
It doesn't mean there's no consequences for that.
And a lot of people are more worried about.
I mean, anyone who goes against...
It's the truth.
There's things you worry about more than jail.
Oh, yeah, 100%.
I mean, this is what you do not cross this woman.
I mean, anyone who's ever spoken out against her who has whistleblown on her family
just mysteriously disappears or dies or, you know,
they find them hanging in a fucking garden or in a shed...
You know, with their...
And it's like,
strange.
Yeah.
Or robbed in a park,
going for a walk.
I mean,
or whatever.
But to,
but,
I want to get to Nick's question, though.
But David, to your point, I mean, what Hillary did was wrong, and I agree with you.
And I think she should have been prosecuted.
And I think there's a lot of misjustice going on in our country.
But that doesn't allow Trump to do what he did.
And that's why I think a lot of deflection is going on is because of, you know,
just because there was other things that were wrong and other people that were corrupt
and other people that got away with it, it's like a lot of people today are in jail for tax evasion.
And a lot of people aren't who are doing tax evasion.
It just doesn't happen.
So it doesn't give you the right to say just because, oh, they didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton.
I'm going to go ahead and do this and get away with it.
No, you're right.
But the issue is, yes, go ahead, Nick.
Sorry.
No, no, no. I was just handing me like, go ahead.
Oh, okay, cool. Yeah, the issue is this.
When Hillary Clinton does what Hillary Clinton did, whether or not you can prove it, the suspicion was there.
When Joe Biden and Hunter Biden do the things that we think they did, you know, whether or not there's evidence of that, I guess we'll see.
But people think they did. And then Trump does the things he did or what didn't do.
And there might be evidence there.
People think or doesn't.
The issue is we can't be rooting for justice to apply to our enemies.
Like we can't be like, oh, great, because I hear these, I'm on a lot of these spaces talking about this indictment.
And a lot of people, Democrats especially, and not just Democrats, people who dislike Trump for obvious reasons.
are like, woohoo.
You know, I'm glad this finally happened, and he deserves it.
And then the people who like Trump are like, this is a miscarriage of justice.
And yet the same arguments being made about Joe Biden.
Oh, there's no evidence.
And other people are like, there is evidence.
And same thing with Hillary Clinton.
So the thing is, this is the issue with the Justice Department being utilized in this way.
When you have these investigations, it's unprecedented that a president is charged not only in state, but now in a federal indictment, this has never happened before.
And the reason why it's never happened, the reason why Hillary Clinton wasn't charged, the reason why Biden hasn't been charged yet or Hunter is because when you start to prosecute people like this, it changes everything.
The consequences are much higher.
And I know on another call we were talking about perception, but the thing is,
the perception is that our justice system is doesn't apply to everybody equally there's two to two
forms of justice and now people are losing faith in the justice system people are losing
face in the supreme court people are arguing that the supreme court is illegitimate when we're
constantly minimizing and devaluing our sacred institutions this is the result and so i don't care
what trump is being charged with or not what he did or didn't do the fact that he has been charged or will be
charged next tuesday
this is not going to be good for the country.
And the fact that Hillary Clinton wasn't charged,
it just gives more fuel to the fire of the people who think this is a political prosecution.
And so, yeah, I don't think this is outside the realm of law,
Nick, to your question, outside the realm of justice, this is political.
And even if the prosecution is legitimate, it's going to be political no matter what.
All right, so I'm going to, I'm going to guys, let me just read out a couple of things, just
important just for the audience to know.
I've got some news but also some updates.
So the first one, we did have a scheduled space in 20 minutes on the crackdown, the
SEC going against finance and Coinbase, which is pretty massive for anyone in the crypto
space.
So we were going to cover that in 20 minutes, but that space because of Trump's indictment, that
space was cancelled.
So out of respect for the four projects that we're going to pitch on that space, I'm going to give them a shout out now.
It's four projects that were there, and it's out of respect for these projects.
I'll give them a shout out now, and then I've got some news to mention as well for the audience.
And then the third thing, a quick update as well, and then we'll continue the discussion.
Number one, ozone metaverse.
So they're a platform for immersive 3D experiences.
They're called ozone metaverse.
And considering Apple's announcement, I think the narrative of metaverse is getting excited again, getting excited and exciting for many.
So they're introducing a new kind of cloud platform for the spatial computing era.
So they're combining the Web 2, Web 3, and AI.
Everyone's putting AI now.
Ozone's creating a unique and immersive experience.
So that's one of the projects.
Yeah.
The other three, one of them is our Fox Vault.
There, if you want more information, just DM me and the team will connect you there.
Premier VR Metaverse platform for creators, builders, and those seeking immersive experiences in the Web3 space.
That's the first Metaverse to have a full AI voice prompted customization and is available in VR on Android and iOS.
I already got their platform out already.
There's two more. Again, these are for the crypto show that has been canceled.
So all these four projects will be on the crypto show that will probably be on Sunday instead.
The third one is Ethereum Towers.
That's a community-centric vertical megastructure.
They're the flagship project of the Ethereum World's Metaverse.
It's the third Metaverse project.
And they're serving as the first virtual destination and central hub.
of a robust digital ecosystem.
So this is the third project.
And the fourth one has nothing to do with the meta versus
Chirply.
They're cutting edge influencer marketing platform
for small influences.
It creates a decentralized organization
enabling small influences and marketers and performed.
and performs virtual mapping using AI, machine learning, and big data technologies.
So four great projects that will be on the crypto show that was canceled, that was meant to be in 20 minutes.
I do have a piece of news that is coming in as well.
Kevin McCarthy tweeted a minute ago, I'm going to read out his tweet.
And guys, if you can pin it above for the audience to check it out,
he said many officials from Secretary Hillary Clinton to then Senator Joe Biden handled classified info after their time in office,
and were never charged.
Now Biden's leading political opponent is indicted, a double standard that must be investigated.
And by the way, guys, I'm not sure if you've covered it already.
I've just tweeted it out.
And I'm not sure how deep you've gone into this.
Let me pin it again for the audience above.
I'm just going to pin it now.
I think this is, for me, this is more significant than most charges.
because it's going to be difficult to refute.
It's silly, maybe you can give me an update on whether it was discussed or not.
And before we do so, we will have a subscriber-only space after today as well
because this Trump thing is pretty polarizing.
So if any subscribers, we'll do a small space where audience members could come up and shoot the shits.
We'll do that in a bit.
But the question to you, Suli, have you covered what I just pinned above
about the documents that Trump took?
regarding the US nuclear program and that of a foreign power,
that he may not have had the ability,
have not had the power to be able to declassify.
So according to the federal indictment unsealed today,
Trump took multiple classified files with him tomorrow ago after leaving office.
Among those files were documents on America's nuclear program
and the nuclear capabilities of a foreign country.
As a former photo of prosecutor, so as Benjamin said earlier, and as we read on, I think
the Hill was talking about it, documents related to nuclear weapons are arguably extremely
difficult, maybe impossible, to declassify.
And that's referring to the Atomic Energy Act of 1964 and 1954, sorry, 1946 and
1954, which dictated.
that anything related to the production or use of nuclear weapons and nuclear power is inherently
classified. This means that regardless of the directives given by the president, by then President
Trump or any president, he would still, it was still any, if he's still in possession of this
material, it's still considered classified material. Sully, have you guys gone through this?
Have you guys covered it? Because I've been in. Yeah, we covered it in detail.
What's the conclusion on that?
Well, the conclusion is Tom made the argument that the president can still declassify anything.
And even when it comes to the act that you're referring to, it hasn't been, he hasn't been tested in the court.
Yeah, he hasn't been tested in court.
But the other argument is what you.
But to clarify, Tom also said he can decly anything he takes with him, any president, anything they take leave with the White House is automatically his.
Whether he believes he declassified them, whether he thinks he declassified, whether he said he declassified them, anything any president-
because it doesn't belong to him. It belongs to the public.
Tom's argument should be held at the archive.
Former president or president's purview to determine what is personal and what is presidential record.
And if the president determines that everything is personal, that's the end of the discussion.
I don't agree with that, but that's his argument.
Thank you.
There's also a thing we haven't touched on so much about the actual declassification system.
Sam, Sam, right before you have a lovely habit of jumping in.
I just want to tell the audience right now that Trump just posted three minutes ago on true social,
saying this case has nothing to do with the espionage act.
It only has to do with the Presidential Records Act, and also the Clinton Sox case.
It is a scam. But Biden didn't report anything to the government.
He got caught.
Just keep that in mind.
So, in terms of...
So Trump basically believed that if he strolled upstairs with a document and said it was declassified, it was declassified.
That is not how the archive establishes something that's been declassified.
There is a directive that sets forth the process required to declassify, including notifying the department relevant to that document.
So, again, this puts...
more of what Trump is claiming into question
because Trump kind of, you know, can just say,
hey, I can just say something's declassified and it's declassified.
That's not actually how the archive operates.
I don't think, I'm not sure if you're right about this
and look, I'm not an expert on this, but we've had a number of...
You know me, man.
You know me.
I'm reading this from the National Archives and Records Administration.
Every time you do this, I'm reading this from the Federal Registry Records.
Is it a 28-page document?
I'm going to save it.
I'm going to drop it into the WhatsApp, just like I did last time for you.
Bro, I'm just...
Let me finish.
I know, but you've got a lovely habit.
Every time I'm reading from an official record, you say,
well, I'm not sure that exists, so we'll put it into question.
You do it every time.
It's a bit of fun, but you're doing every time.
No, no, it's all right, because I...
because you're normally wrong,
but anyway, that's a separate point.
I've been right on everything tonight,
but we let you carry on.
We let you carry on.
We let you carry on.
Yeah.
But anyway, so there is a process, there is a process by which the document becomes declassified.
It has to be marked, declassified, relevant departments have to be noticed.
I don't think you're right.
Because let, one second, Ed, one second, Ed, because look, I actually go ahead,
because the point I was going to make was, and we'll come to that,
and we've discussed this number of times on these spaces, including material.
And what everyone agreed was that from a legal perspective,
there isn't a specific method to declassify.
So even if a president wants to declassify in his,
for example,
he thinks it,
that could also be possible because there's not a specific need of.
Yeah, but there's that incident.
No, no, no.
So did we not agree that there's not a specific, not in terms
the mind there is an executive order on declassification it's order one three five two six
not bind subsequent presidents okay in my judgment so what it is is yes Obama put into place
process by which declassification occurs Trump this was this was in 2000 and this is the federal
register national archives and records of administration Trump did not have to comply with that however
And this is a big, however, he had to do something because he had to make it known that the document was declassified in some way, whether he told someone, whether he went on TV and said it, whether he wrote down something saying, I am here by declassified, he had to do something.
Doing it in your mind makes no sense from an evidentiary and legal standpoint. It's as if you say, I bought that car in my head. Give it to me.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
There's no way.
You're not, if Suzman, you have to use some common sense on this.
You really have to.
The idea.
Well, and there's an incident in his office where he specifically said, I didn't
declassify this document.
That's his word.
That's his words.
Doesn't mean if it's legally true or not.
Yeah, but you can't, he can't claim that he declassified it in his head if he later says
it's not declassified, right?
Yeah.
That doesn't pertain again to the legal portion of it.
You can say things and then in the past, you know, it's just something different.
I mean, he's basically admitting that he didn't declassified, that he's specifically saying that.
Go ahead, John, Chief.
Go ahead.
What's your point, Chief?
Go ahead.
that
what Trump says
Trump can say
this guy is purple
you know or whatever
but if illegally
if it's not the case
then it's different
hold on sorry
but you're saying
okay but what you're saying
is that Trump
so if Trump said
hey I did not
declassify these
said no no it doesn't matter
we have to prove legally
he didn't
It's like, yeah, true, you have to prove, but to dismiss it is not there either.
No, we're missing that there are formal procedures required to declassify.
I know, I know, we're moving off.
We're moving off the point.
The point is, Chief, you're dismissing.
So I just want to put Chief on the spot like I do with Sully.
So, Chief, what you're doing is dismissing what Trump said.
It doesn't make him guilty, that we agree, but we shouldn't dismiss it either.
Would you agree?
Is that a good midway between you and Ed?
I'm not saying, I mean, if that is what the transcript says, then that's what it says.
But my point still stands, though, that Trump can say something, but in reality, you know, legally speaking, it's different.
So that's my intention.
Yeah, but he also said he declassified them.
So which one do you take?
If he's going to argue that when he said he declassified them, they became declassified, but then he's saying they're not declassified.
How can you argue in court that they were declassified?
That's their prosecution to prove that when Trump was saying that it was legally correct.
If Trump were ready to classify those and then, you know, he said, I didn't classify them.
We can go back and say, okay, then he did before, but he misspoke there.
So he could have misspoke.
And it's about the prosecution to be able to prove this in a court of law, right?
So there happened, there was a federal appeals court case about this specific subject because the issue is,
The formal procedure must be followed because it's essential that government agencies know what is classified and what is declassified.
Now, if a president doesn't follow the procedures, how are the governmental agencies supposed to know whether a document has been declassified if Trump just says it is in his head?
We can't get away from this.
And there's a bit more β I've got a bit more meat on the Atomic Energy Act thing as well, which basically says the president alone β
is required by law to extensively consult with executive branches of agencies before declassifying anything related to nuclear weapons.
And this is under the atomic energy.
So those two points really do take a lot of Trump's arguments away here.
Well, the issue of Trump is that the first point is your second argument goes against what these guys were saying.
They were saying the president can't even declassify nuclear.
Anything got to do with nuclear.
Well, it's kind of not a president doing it on his own if he has to extensively consult.
I see what you mean.
I see what you mean, Slamy.
It's a fair point.
Yeah, and you know in terms of your first point?
I respect it.
Sam, Sam, I respect how you just concede the points to Lema.
He never does that in return.
But I respect you, Sam, for actually conceding a point.
Because I'm never wrong, bro.
I'm never wrong.
Exactly.
Anyone that says I'm never wrong is someone, guys, you should never.
Ever.
Let me phrase that.
Let me phrase that.
I'm rarely wrong.
I'm, I'm, I'm.
I'm.
That's Donald Trump.
He's never wrong.
So we have a mini Donald Trump here as my co-host, just for the record.
And we have a Biden, which is Nick represents, Nick represents, Nick is our Biden and Soleiman's our Trump.
It's a great balance.
Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, okay, you're going to get a letter for my search.
It's true.
It's true.
this is true
who's not Hillary
wrong
Tira Tira Tira's Hillary
Tira Tira Tira Tira
because you better watch it
because I'm going to obviously
kill anyone who gets in my way
Sheet
Tira she escalated
It's very good Tira
Jesus.
Oh, no, no, no.
Hold on.
I'm joking.
I'm sorry.
Do you remember, Tira, hold on.
Do you remember last time when someone said that and then said they were joking when they said that to you, Tira?
Oh, hell broke loose.
Like I had to.
Yeah, no, let's not go there.
I am truly sorry.
I tried to make a very stupid joke.
So let's, I'll go, go to it.
So just going back to the discussion.
Sariah, this is become in common now.
Suli, Suli, just back to the point.
What's your stance on the leak?
I never heard your thoughts on the leak that came out of CNN earlier today.
What league is?
The transcript of Trump saying that these documents are not declassified and he's not able to declassified.
And he's not able to declassify them anymore.
Yeah, I've read that.
I've read that.
I do think that's, that's.
I think that is one of the more...
That's one of his more weaker points.
So he needs to...
I'm not sure what his legal argument is,
but just on the face of it,
and remember, it could be edited.
It could be like...
It's only a snippet.
But let's assume it's legitimate
and it's really framing it.
I do think that's more of his weaker point, actually.
I think, I think, you know, me and you kind of agree, because we both, and correctly,
let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth, but me and you seem to both think that this is both,
has legal grounds and is politically motivated.
Both.
I just think that where me, yeah, it just seems that most of us agree on that.
It just, the debate is how much of it is politically motivated and how much legal standing does I have.
Yeah, I mean, the problem with Donald Trump is that it's his hubris, right?
It's come to bite him in the ass again.
I don't think he meant any ill intent with what he did, you know, taking the documents.
I think it was just a fuck you to the FBI.
He didn't like being told that he needed to do something.
I mean, he's former president.
You know, he thinks he can do anything.
So it's just a big fuck you to all of them.
And now, you know, he's getting bitten the ass.
This is the problem of the guy.
He always shoots himself in the foot,
whether it's with his hires or something he says,
a promise he makes,
right?
But just, you know, an act of negligence.
I mean, this is the problem with Donald Trump.
I mean, and then the worst part is he never cops to it.
He never admits, okay, I messed up.
He never does that.
He always blame somebody else and then place the victim.
And then he loses anyone's sympathy.
Because, you know, people look at it and you see this guy lying.
He's saying one thing to a certain group of people.
And then, you know, beyond closed stories, he's like, yeah, I never declassify anything.
You know, can you do something about it?
It's like...
Guy, just stick to a story, you know, stick to a single story, stick to the truth.
You know, it's not hard to just not lie, but he's capable of that.
Ian, you flipped so hard against Trump, bro, used to be so opposed to Trump.
I still like him.
But they shouldn't, but shouldn't, why?
By the way, by the way, Ian, let me do it if you have, do your favor.
Sully, like, there's multiple cases where Ian was speaking positively Trump
and pushing back against others.
So I think if Ian and obviously Ian is supporting.
I know, I'm joking.
I just, I was trying to grill at Ian.
Yeah.
My issue with Trump is I like him, okay?
I like him, I want him to win, but he needs to stop fucking up.
That's what pisses me up.
It's always an own goal.
He always does the own goal and does like, dude, like, if...
Oh no, you want, but you want DeSantis.
You want DeSantis.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mostly I want DeSantis, right?
But in general, I'm fine with Trump.
I like the guy, but, you know, it's always the same thing.
Imagine if Ronaldo, best soccer player in the world, a football player,
imagine if you fucking scored an own goal, one in every five games.
I'd be irritated.
Be like, okay, this guy's amazing.
He's the goat, but then he can't stop fucking up.
Your uncle, Ian, is that Messi is the goat.
No, he's not.
Messy is.
But that's the point.
If you to use that analogy, Ian, you can see the same scenario where Ronaldo feels like there
is a media attack against him.
And sometimes he says things, like he went on the Pace Morgan show.
And what happens is when you're basically proliferated, and the analogy is great,
when you're proliferated with attacks,
attack after attack after attack,
you end up going a more defensive mode.
So what happened was he's getting all these attacks.
He goes under defensive mode,
hence why he wasn't willing to give his accounts.
And...
And so similarly, in this one, he was just speaking to his lawyers, which is fair.
It's unbelievable that people think it's a big thing where he speaks to his lawyer and says,
do I need to give them? Is there any way we can not give them?
Like, this makes sense that you would speak to your legal counsel about that.
I don't see that as a major issue.
And Ronaldo is a good example of that.
So Ronaldo made the monumental mistake of going to piss Morgan,
ended his career because he was attacked so much.
So when people that attack so much, they end up...
retreating and trying to be in a more defensive position.
They make mistakes a lot, yeah, and that's what Trump is doing.
He's letting his enemies get the better of him.
I wish he would just stop doing that.
He should stop taking a bait, and you should stop putting out bait.
You know, that's another issue with him.
He goes into attack on people who don't even criticize them.
Like, he went after Haley McEnany, right?
Why?
Yeah.
Why? Why? Because you didn't praise him enough? That's silly. It's like, here's a woman totally loyal to you.
Because that's true.
Yeah, that's Trump, right?
Because that's Trump. It's Trump. He can't handle it. He can't handle. He can't refrain. He can't hold himself back. And that's who he is.
And that's why I think sometimes, you know, we try to, and I try to do the same thing when I used to support him.
And a lot of people I see he's doing the same thing saying, I like Trump just like you did. And I understand. You want him to be somebody else.
Right.
But you have to realize that that's not him.
And that's why he's no good for this country.
And that's why he can't stop being that.
And he's only getting worse and worse.
The bigger question here is...
He's trying to make it sound like Trump just took these documents to give an FU to the government.
I'm sure you know Lev.
I know anyone who's ever done business with Trump or any of his associates,
they use leverage in almost every negotiation and information.
Sorry, I've been a call.
Information power, and I'm sure that's used for leverage.
I agree.
And yesterday I said nuclear secrets, and everyone jumped on my ass because I said it, and look at what we're talking about today.
Look at what's happening to him now, right?
It's coming back.
It's bit him in the ass.
So I don't know if that's really working out for him.
I mean, if this is leverage against, I don't know,
France or Iran or North Korea or Russia,
it doesn't seem like it's working out for him.
If anything, it's gotten him into a lot of trouble.
Or bringing the world's biggest golf tournament to his golf field
for $2 billion, maybe?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, you need to provide evidence with that, right?
I mean, that requires export.
And that brings us into which area of criminal intent are we talking about?
Because I still think this is more about recklessness and negligence.
I don't believe it was purposeful, but there is still criminal intent if it's reckless or negligent.
That is within the definition of criminal intent.
So do we think that this was purposeful in terms of criminal intent?
Or do we believe this was reckless or negligence?
Sam, Sam, I want to go back.
Reckless.
I'll go back to this one quick, Sam.
So I did say earlier about the Hillary Clinton emails,
30,000 of them being wiped from the server after...
after they were subpoenaed.
Is that not reckless?
Even if she, you know, didn't know?
Nick, I'm not defending Hillary whatsoever.
I'm talking about Donald Trump today
and the fact that he had potentially,
you know, he had classified documents
that potentially put the national security
of the US at risk.
Now, whether it was purposeful
or knowing that, you know,
and then the allegation has he refused to return them.
But that is reckless and negligent,
and that falls under criminal intent
if you do something recklessly.
because there is intention when you do something recklessly.
Sam, I'll just push back a little bit.
So do you believe that it made, that it would make sense for Hillary Clinton to have been prosecuted under the Trump DOJ?
I think, Nick, I actually think that if they had managed to get more evidence on Hillary, then yes.
I think perhaps Hillary just got away with it.
You know, I'm not defending her for one second.
I'm no fan of Hillary.
I'm no fan of Biden, to be honest.
People think I am because I'm happy to speak out on this sort of subject.
So I agree.
Ivanka should have as well because she was caught doing the same exact thing.
So both of them sure got prosecuted, by the way.
Ivanka was an informal advisor to the president.
She was not the secretary of state.
Yes, but she had secret documents on her own computer at home and used a separate phone.
And she was called doing the same thing.
We can't have two different rules depending on what party you're from.
yeah i i i don't know i don't know anything about that maybe you can you know pin something to the
top on that but i could just say and i would just say something to sam like if this was just
just recklessness and he
made a mistake and for whatever reason
recklessly took this document
I don't believe he should be prosecuted
and I don't think he would be prosecuted
I think by him not returning it and trying to hide it
he had a lot more intent and I agree
with Joa that I think there's more to this
than meets the eye and I think I look
forward to when this case goes to trial
and I think when all the evidence is produced
I think you'll be realized that Trump had a lot
more motivation to do some
stuff with this documents
than just take him and say fuck you to the FBI
right.
He was a fair point.
He went through a great effort to not give these back.
Why do you go through great effort?
That's not just reckless.
But perhaps Ian's right on that.
It's just hubris.
But I agree that there may be more to it.
But what I'm trying to say is that when you have classified documents relating to national security, it's enough that you're just reckless with the safety of the nation.
No, I agree with you, but I don't think he should be prosecuted for it.
I think if he gave it back in timely manner and said, oh, shit, I fucked up, I made a mistake.
I don't think he, and he got prosecuted ever, I would be the first one saying, I think that's a political witch hunt.
But I don't think that's what transpired.
I think he knew what he was taking.
There was a reason why he was taking it.
That's why he was hiding it.
That's why he was making other people hide it.
That's why he refused to give it back.
And that's why right now he's deflecting and going into all these different excuses of why they're going after him,
but not actually making a case for his own defense.
And again, I don't have any proof of it.
I know the beast.
I dealt with them for many years.
And I know to what extent he goes to when he wants something and when he wants something done.
So I look forward to the case, you know, proceeding and seeing what transpired.
And there's a huge elephant in the room, which is one of the documents that is missing that we know is missing.
is information on Iran.
Everyone was shocked by this peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Like there's just like it just doesn't like there's too many jigsaw pieces that just fit together.
I don't know what the link is.
Maybe it's just coincidence, but it is a huge elephant.
Joe, were any of these allegations put in that indictment today?
Because if there was any allegation about selling secrets to Saudi Arabia on behalf of Iran or something, would that not be included in a criminal indictment?
It probably wouldn't be included here or no.
Well, there also can be superseding indictments also.
Well, there could be superseding indictments.
We don't know.
This is just the beginning of the process.
So I think, you know, there's a lot to still to be seen.
I think we should let the process play out.
I think there's still more people.
They're going to get indicted that we're involved in this.
And I think once we get more evidence and see exactly what's going on, I think this conversation is going to have a different tune to it.
But, Lev, you said yourself in another space that you thought, knowing Trump as you do, that he would not have just accidentally taken these, that he would have taken them for financial gain or...
political gain absolutely sarah and i say it again right now i believe that he there's a he knew
knowingly and willingly took this documents and he had a reason to take him and that's why he's
fighting so hard he fought so hard not to give him back i think uh that he had a reason for it either
personally financially uh to take these documents and i think it's going to play out in court
So my question is to the people that are supporting Donald Trump and his, that he could declassify this with his mind.
If that was his intent, would you still support him?
Is that provided?
It was the question?
I don't support.
Would you still support him if that was his intent?
The question was to take them.
Yes.
Yeah, I'm saying any of the question, that's all I was saying.
You cut out for me.
But so it's about like intent.
If Trump had intent to,
if Trump declassified it in his head, would I suppose support him?
No, she would know.
Go ahead.
He can't hear me.
Go ahead.
Yeah, Chief.
What Sarah was saying is if it comes out to be proven that he
no only willingly and took this for personal gains
and had intent to use this information for whatever reason
there wasn't a mistake, would you still support him?
No, but I don't think that's the case here.
Come on, Chief, you know that's not true because we have him on tape saying, yeah, I can't declassify these now.
And you're making a defense for him, although his own word said, I can't declassify these now.
So no matter what happens, you're going to fight for him.
You made a decision four years ago, and you're sticking to it.
no I listened to the same thing you did on CNN and they said we have a copy of this or a tape of the phone call and then they proceeded to read a transcript.
I want to hear it in his words. I want to hear the context and in his words.
Okay.
I'm reading it right now.
Like someone said me.
And the problem is it's CNN.
That's the problem.
Yeah, exactly.
I agree.
But also as well, even when you're reading this,
like he does use the word declassify,
but we don't know if these are documents
that he had in his possession.
We don't know what specific documents he's talking about.
We don't know the context of his conversation.
It's a very, very bad snippet where reading it,
I still can't figure out what the context is.
And we can't figure out.
who he's talking to.
It looks like he's talking to a room full of people,
but again,
that's a snippet.
And we can't tell if it's one person
or if he's talking to an entire group.
Right.
Right.
And this got a point, too, like, we have a transcript.
We don't have, and we don't know the context of the transcript.
We don't know what the background that even was.
So I think, again, we should, just as I say for all the things, we should be holding off
and waiting until we have more information and wait before we jump to these conclusions
about Trump having some financial, you know, whatever, my attribute that to him.
And my point more so is that this level of, uh,
you know, if we're going to really go out to presidents and stuff, I want to see the exact same standard with all presidents then.
Either all presidents or none.
I think the...
I guess with this whole thing, it's very preliminary.
He hasn't, he hasn't, he's been supposedly, he's been indicted for Tuesday, right?
So it's not even that time yet.
So I'd rather just not jump and make conclusions and make assumptions, but we all know how assumptions really go, especially in court cases as of modern times.
Yeah, so Grant Cardone, welcome to the stage.
What are your thoughts here?
Is this a witch hunt?
Are you less likely to vote for Donald Trump now?
Jump in.
Yeah.
No, actually, this is what heroes have to go through.
And I know a lot of people have a hard time thinking about him being a hero, but...
This is a guy that became president probably didn't even, you know, I don't think he thought for sure he would win.
I can't imagine anybody going in with the kind of odds he had against him thinking he was going to win.
He wins.
He got in and decided, hey, I'm going to make a difference.
I'm going to make a real difference.
I got a chance to really do something for this country.
And I think he went for it and then found out how difficult that is to go against the establishment.
And each one of these attempts to crack this guy is showing you the kind of threat.
In my mind, I know there's different opinions in this room, of the kind of threat he is to establishment politics.
And they're throwing everything at this guy, including, you know, whatever.
This is how you break an opponent, right?
You cut off his resources.
This is just, it's war.
You cut off his resources.
Or you overload him with different battles that...
He's got a share a limited number of resources with, cut off the confidence that his donors might have in him.
You cut off anybody that doesn't want to be associated because of what he's got going on.
And you deplete his resources and his energy and his talking points.
But here we are three or four weeks after the other thing that went down with the civil case.
Nobody's talking about that.
And most of the rooms, you know, online right now are talking about Donald Trump again.
The guy's got tremendous power to get people to hate him.
And every great politician or every person has ever done any grain on this plant
had the capacity to generate tremendous amounts of opposition,
which I think will end up making people very loyal to him.
I did a poll that's up in the nest.
And right now people are saying they're more likely to vote for it because of this.
But thank you for asking.
Thanks for bringing me out.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I have one more question for you.
I want to go to an audience question here.
What people are wondering, we've gotten this several times now,
any reason to believe that the Biden administration
is doing this because they want Trump to be the nominee,
because the poll numbers are more in Biden's favor for Donald Trump
than they are for somebody like Rhonda Santos and a head-to-head matchup.
Because Trump's funding is going through the roof.
You know, people are, they are seeing him as a hero now,
and his poll numbers are only going up from here.
So is that an assessment that makes any sense, Grant?
Well, I think it's, you know, those of us who want to see somebody stand up and fight despite, you know, most of these politicians in the past, you just go back 10 or 50.
We've made a loss great thing.
Yeah, go ahead, Chief.
I'm sorry.
I forget the guy that got caught with the chick, and there was another guy that caught with something.
I mean, these guys were up in the polls.
They had some bad press come out about them, something about a sex case, and they just folded immediately.
They didn't want to be dragged.
They didn't want to go out to their family.
Trump?
Trump don't care.
He's like, bring it all at me.
He just gets stronger as it goes.
And if any of you in these rooms think that we're ever going to have,
the perfect good guy politician changed this country.
It's not, it's not, the good guys can't run anymore.
Almost everybody that runs has been compromised.
Yeah.
And, Nick, I just wanted to push back a little bit on what you said as far as, yeah, he's raising money, but the money he's raising are from the people that are supporting him and his polls are rising in his own support, not from the national.
I don't think majority of the country, I don't think he's getting more votes or more people on the side.
I think it's just more support coming from his mega base that are infiltrated with what's going on.
Well, I can clarify this too.
So before these indictments, Trump was the frontrunner, right?
He was the guy who was the, you know, the guy who was in front of everybody else.
So regardless of if, if did it help him, I guess, in terms of viewability with him in the GOP base, I think it did it to a small extent.
But he was no matter what, still the frontrunner with him and GOP before the indictments came about, right?
So...
I think that it did slightly help him, but it's not the reason why he was a nominee or why he's a person in the GOP.
It's more than just the indictments as other issues.
The GOP base wanted to see from their nominee.
Ian, just a quick question to you.
I believe, and do correct me if I'm wrong,
that as soon as this happened,
Desantis came out and basically said that this was a political windshield.
So first question, first question is,
obviously I know you already agree with him.
Sure.
But the second point is,
the second point is, did he do the right thing to come out immediately?
Because last time he took a bit longer.
Is that something against him?
I think, yeah.
improving on he's improving for sure i mean this is good it shows that he's proactive he's not just
going to ignore it like the last time he uh i think he took too long it took like what a whole day or
two days uh maybe a weekend to make a statement but here he is you know showing leadership so
i'm glad that he uh he came out and said what he said you know some people obviously take issue with it
they're like oh it's a political ploy but if he didn't say anything they'd say he's a coward so you know
it's like the way it's
Yeah, but what's wrong with,
what's,
everyone knows I'm not a supporter of DeSantis,
but so what if it's a political toilet?
Exactly.
But my question to you,
do you think this is going to,
number one,
do you think this will india him to the magabas?
Maybe some of them,
I don't know.
I mean,
if they're diehard Trump supporters,
he probably hate him,
you know,
so it doesn't really matter.
And number two,
is he hedging his bets that
if in the possibility that
Trump is taken out.
He'll get the mugger base on his side.
I think so.
And also he, you know, he is the best man to pardon Donald Trump.
Right.
If, let's say Trump gets taken out and he drops out a race, you know,
Trump is going to want to have a pardon.
So he's going to have to ingratiate himself with Ron DeSantis.
So Ron DeSantis, I think, is offering him a sort of off ramp here.
It's like, hey, you know, we're not enemies.
They're on the same side here.
We're both fighting Biden, which is true.
They are, you know, like...
forget the primaries i mean you're both conservatives and you want to
fight for the same things right you both want to make america great again not
you know this whole weirdness that's going on to bide administration so i think
yeah it's a good thing it's showing that uh...
you know uh... he's showing leadership right now is what he's showing you're
showing that okay it's beyond
the primary race, and there's something bigger that is happening right now,
and that's the weaponization or apparent reprimization of the Justice Department.
And that is something that I'm fully confident that if, you know,
Desanthas were in charge, you'd be able to deal with it, right?
And Biden's not going to do anything about it.
Biden, you know, Biden benefits from this, right?
Biden doesn't want to have any competitors for sure.
Hey, Ian.
Ian, can I ask a question on that?
Sorry, and then I'll go to you, Sarah.
And then I know Nick wants to go to her Joe as well.
So I left, I mean, do you agree with Ian?
If you were in Trump's position,
would you be trusted dissenters for a possible pardon?
Pardon?
absolutely not i think uh... knowing desantis i mean he'll say what needs to be said but
he will never pardon trump i mean there's a level of going behind door back doors that a hatred
between the two of them that is beyond that i mean de santis is playing the political game and
he obviously came out with that because he's trying to get more of the mega supporters on his
side has he hedging his position if trump does uh get knocked out of the race but uh
If DeSantis were ever to become president, he would backstep Trump just like he did by running in 2024.
Yeah.
I mean, in order for him to be president, he has to beat Trump in the primary.
And from what we're seeing in the polls, objectively speaking here, it's not really looking that good for DeSantis, especially if DeSantis is losing in some polls and at best.
it's tied to one of the polls from, I think,
is packedly released.
So I just haven't really seen a lot of events that the Sanchez is,
Descancad even have a shot at this primary at all.
So you can talk about if,
in under his administration,
he'd go and pardon Trump or whatever.
But, I mean,
he asked when the primary first.
And from what I've seen in the numbers,
they're pretty clear Trump is the presumptive nominee for the GOP.
and I have not seen anything real clear
for the average or for any of these big polls
about anything and any sort of hope about a
post-announce-and-bump is not there.
So, you know, we can see what happens
in a couple months, but I'm not seeing it as of right now.
Yeah, yeah, he's dominating the polls,
but it is quite early on.
Sarah, you had a question for Ian,
and then I think Nick's got one for Joe.
I think I wanted to respond to Ian
because I don't think that Trump
if DeSantis got the nomination,
I don't think Trump is a big enough man
to step aside gracefully.
I think he would continue attacking him
from the sidelines.
And I think that that would make
DeSantis a little...
a little less willing to pardon somebody that is continually attacking him from the sidelines.
I mean, that's really contingent on Trump, right?
It's completely 100% contingent than Trump.
What I'm seeing here is that DeSantis is offering him an offer.
And it's up to Trump to want to take it.
Trump can very gracefully bow out or, you know, he can participate in a more fair manner.
And then if you lose this, you know, you can just be a...
cordial about it, right?
Now I'd be a jerk and say,
oh, it was stolen, right?
But do you honestly believe,
Ian, that Donald Trump could step aside?
No, of course not.
For anybody?
No, never.
Never.
Trump is never going to do that.
He's going to shoot himself in a foot like he always does.
And that's what's going to happen.
So I think that,
but Trump's not a big man.
And he'll be doing that.
From a prison cell.
He will shoot himself all the way.
He would, yeah.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got convicted that he would blame DeSantis
because it was in Florida that he had something to do.
I would 100% blame DeSantis for it, so he didn't fight hard enough for me.
You backstab me, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And the way I look at it, normal person's going to look at it
and they're going to evaluate the situation and see that DeSantis offered him every single
opportunity to be the bigger person and he just chose not to, right?
So DeSantis comes up looking at the winner here.
Well, the whole thing, though...
I think it would be smart for him to step aside, throw all the support behind DeSantis
because somebody could beat Biden.
That's right.
And it won't be Trump.
I don't agree, though.
I disagree, though.
I disagree.
I disagree with that.
What?
Go ahead, Chief.
I know you do.
Explain your sublime comments for a few these guys.
I disagree, though, so I'm on your side of that.
Well, the whole thing is it's like, you're trying, Trump, Trump should, you know, putting
something foot or whatever.
I mean, he's the person right now, logically speaking, who is up in the polls and he is on track
to become the GOP nominee.
Yeah, but he's not going to win against Biden, is he?
He's up in the national polls.
That's the issue.
He's up.
He's up by two points in some of the polls.
I'm not sure what poll you're referring to because I look at some of he's been up in
them.
I think that this talk about him losing the Biden.
I don't think it's really founded based on the polls.
And what I've seen,
he actually was beating Biden in the national average
from when I looked at last time.
So maybe there's new polls.
For me, Chief, for me, the major thing is what Lev said in the previous space.
I think it was a few spaces ago.
And that is that DeSantis goes where the money is.
He is subservient to his donors.
No, he's not.
And that is basically first-hand experience.
Well, Levs experienced experience.
I just agree with that.
You know, like, so DeSantis gets money from Disney,
gets money from a lot of these companies that he's just giving the middle figure to.
It doesn't really matter.
He's taking money from them.
They can give as much money as they want to him.
He doesn't mean that he has to abide by them.
That's the difference between him and Donald Trump.
Donald Trump will take money from Pfizer, and what does he do?
He invites them onto the stage with him to go talk and do a bunch of fucking shows.
And, you know, he ends up, like, promoting the vaccine.
He's like the vaccine's biggest salesperson.
Is DeSantis the vaccine's biggest salesperson?
Hell no.
He may take money from them.
He doesn't care what do you think?
That's the difference.
Well,
Hold on.
Well, I got...
Except when he's injected a hundred year old.
But let me go to Lev.
Lev, what's your...
I mean, I did...
I'm putting your words in from previous spaces if you want to...
Salomon, you're 100% right.
I disagree with him.
And DeSantis goes where the money is,
where the big money will support it,
and that's what he'll go after.
He's not...
Trump, on the other hand,
will go where...
Not where the money is, but what he believes in.
And again, I'm not for Trump or DeSantis.
They're just two different people.
Desantis is more of a snake in the woods.
he's more authoritarian and he also is a lot more sneakier
whereas he will play this game
I fucking love that he's more authoritarian you know that's what makes him
effective well you know
effective maybe if you want authoritarian country
but I don't believe that that's what we want here in the United States
the woke mind virus and Trump isn't it you know Trump is the same guy
who's like platforming transgender people
desantis is like hell no
You know, this is, like, you need a strong man like DeSantis.
That's why he scares the Democrats so much because his policies are scary.
And he has a good chance of appealing to moderate Americans, people who, you know, are just tired of this woke bullshit.
That's why he's playing up the culture war because it's important.
I understand that.
Wait, wait, hold on.
If I understand this point, so what I said made time on space is that Trump was wrong.
on the whole this COVID vaccine.
If the stands where it's such a strong person,
why didn't he categorically say,
no jab in my state?
If I,
if there was a person or governor that said,
there's no jabs at all in my state,
you know,
and I'm going to defy everything from Fauci
and from the top on that.
I would say props,
but I see people,
the fact,
No, no, no, what I'm saying is if the same is were a person who could have said no to the vaccines at all, and I would not authorize this for, well, at least one case is five-year-olds or whatever.
He actually did reject the thing on children, so he has rejected.
No, but he back flipped or he back turned after he got national pressure over that.
Oh, yeah, but.
I saw there.
No, no, no, go look at what his, you know, Dr. Lodopo.
I mean, his policies are very anti-COVID vaccine.
He does not prescribe this stuff to children, even though it's, you know, suggested by the CDC that they do that.
They do not allow that in Florida.
So I don't think that's correct.
Let me go to the source for that specifically.
But I think the point more so for me, it's like you can go and create a size trump for operation of the warp seat and on all that, which I lost.
Again, I had an issue where I, you know, I had employment and he recommended me get the jab when I didn't do that.
And because of that I lost my position there.
So I have everybody here, I probably know a lot about.
you know, about the jab and the employment or anything else like that.
So, you know, if the same is a person who said no jabs at all, and I'm going to stand
with this and go against the whole message, that's one thing.
But he did at some point do that.
There was, there were COVID quarantines in a state.
There were things that he, you know, not collude, but he, he went with the national
guidelines on things.
So I think both were bad.
you know, on this.
So I can't really, you know, make,
I only say an argument where he was perfect on this or he was,
you know, did this really good thing when there were a lot of bad things I view
as a GOP voter from the Santhus.
So I think it's like you can't,
you can have to have both ways for no way.
He has admitted to his mistakes, right?
He listened to Trump.
on the vaccine. That was...
But if he admits mistakes, though, he can't undo what his past actions were.
He admits it, and he is also, like, for instance, there was a priest who was jailed in one of his counties.
It wasn't as his orders, even though Laura Lumer likes to say that it was his fault.
It wasn't. He actually pardoned the guy, let him out of jail, and, you know, the prosecutor no longer works for the state anymore, so...
you know like he is doing his best you know it's not everything
here's here's my so I got there
this was talking about with my
I was talking about the
like chief chief chief like I'm I agree with you
and he comes with COVID argument
like both sides have got an argument against each other
and with DeSantis even though as you said I've got issues
with him and being a rhino or whatever
but he did do better in his state compared to more
states though didn't he? Yep
Even I'm in the UK and I was like at least like for a lot of for again from a
perspective but I was at least Florida seems a bit more normal compared to other
States like New York was just yeah keep in mind it's a very big state's got a lot of people
there so you know have a lot of I have my response is this so my response to this you know so
I think I have all of all the states out there that was he better than than like a
California or a New York
I'd say, yeah, was he better than in South Dakota?
I would say, no, I hate the characterization of better than, because in reality, I view it
more of like bad.
Like, everything was, I think all the states were bad and some were worse than others.
I don't view COVID as something that anybody did really good on.
Like, I think of it as just a bad thing.
You know, an interesting point about South Dakota is like,
Christine Nol likes to take credit for, you know, not having any lockdowns or any
COVID anything, right?
But the fact is she wanted to have those things.
Her legislature simply didn't allow her to.
They had a veto-proof majority that prevented her from doing a lot of the things that she wanted to do, right?
She was, you know, on board for the whole Trump thing.
Like when he was, like, being pro-vaccine, she was actually on board with it.
And then she had to backtrack all of that.
Now she pretends that she had the best state ever.
Also keep in mind that South Dakota is very not a populous state, right?
So, you know, if you're looking at deaf numbers or whatever, you know,
like it's just not a fair comparison with Florida.
So for, for real quick, for Congress,
I put what was talking about in the, on the, on the, the JumboTron,
what was talking about the backtracking thing.
Like, I think the COVID issue for Republicans at least, like for a GOP,
I don't think the base really,
value not not not that way but i don't think they prioritize covid over uh economy or other sorts
of immigration we want to say like i think there are other issues than gop that are a bit higher
on their uh list even for democrats too i think that covid is not the highest priority as it was in
2020 and i even if it depends as well so i think that this this covid issue i understand that you know
there's a whole argument about it in the in this gop base um
But we're not seeing any of that from the Democrats.
And I think because they understand that this issue is not a high priority for voters in the 2024.
I honestly agree with you.
I mean, like what's going on right now in schools and, you know, the transgenderism and all that.
Like California just today made it so that they could literally arrest parents for not affirming their child's gender.
Like stuff like that actually matters to voter.
So more so than COVID, which was like, what, two, three years ago.
So I think you're correct on that.
I think that people.
people are definitely playing up the COVID thing way too much.
So what's the what's the conclusion guys?
Sully what what Nick what's from the entire space?
The conclusion is it's a political attack
Sully can you can you be serious?
Nick Nick what I'm the scientist that is what the Santis or Trump
or Biden or RFK or that the other candidates say
By the way, we have a candidate that's one of the candidates, one of the top five candidates that will be joining us next week for the audience.
Who is? Who's joining us?
We can't disclose yet.
But just to go back to the point, with every single thing that these candidates say has to be taken with a grain of salt.
And that's with every president.
And that's for every election cycle.
Are you saying don't trust DeSantis' words?
DeSantis, Trump, Biden, RFK, or anyone else.
And that's basically where their incentive is to get votes.
And while they might say things that, you know, that back their beliefs,
they're going to say it in a way or position it in a way that gets them votes.
I saw this one really viral tweet.
I thought it was really fucking stupid.
And people were trying to like tag Elon into it, which I was like, ugh.
It was a tweet from some random person saying that wouldn't it be great if they did it like one of those reality shows where he had a bunch of people who were basically wearing clown masks or something, had the voices digitally altered.
And all they had to do was speak on stage and explain to the public what they wanted to do in order to win.
And the vote would basically be a blind vote.
So you basically have to pick people based on their policies.
I saw that, it's like, that's fucking retarded.
You know, that's just stupid, because everybody on stage,
it doesn't matter who they are,
are going to say that the nicest things that you want to hear,
and you're not going to know anything about them, what their records are.
So it's like, you know, you're going to get Biden on stage.
Trump would win.
I'm going to give anybody money, and they wouldn't get help.
Yeah, so, yeah.
And we're going to move this conversation over to the subscriber-only space.
Yeah, we're going to Swayman and Ian scream at each other.
Go subscribe to Mario.
Just quit.
No, keep chilling me.
Keep showing me, please.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, gotcha.
Yeah, yeah.
He's good at that.
He's good at that.
He's good at fucking, he's good at cooking total.
You're going to, the next rumor is going to be that Mario and I have a thing.
And I'm not going there.
I'm not going there.
Jesus, bro.
That's not how you prevent rumors, bro.
It's not how you prevent rumors.
Have you not seen the Nick Parity account?
send it to me,
send it to me.
But yeah,
yeah,
so guys,
we're going to do
subscribe on this space.
But like my conclusion
from all this
just for the,
for the audience,
it's very simple.
I know we try to,
to know,
you hear a lot of opinions,
a lot of speculations
in those spaces
based on the limited facts
that we have
As we've said before, and as we say every time, it's just boring because we just need to wait for all the evidence.
It just looks, this one definitely looks more serious than the last one than the Alvin Bragg's indictment.
But does it, is it politically made it, politically motivated?
I think it's very likely.
And does it have legal substance?
I think we all agree that it does.
It's just a matter of how much legal substance does it really have.
Well, hold on, Chief, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Everyone don't want to talk.
Chief, do you think it has zero legal substance?
Let's be objective here.
No, no, I'm not saying that at all.
I saw the shock face.
I'm like, what did I say to shock?
I thought I was being in the middle.
And yeah, we'll have to see whether Suleiman in three months will be like,
The establishment did this again, the establishment.
I'm a man of the people.
The deep state again did it, the same way they did it to Trump,
the same way they did it to the Telatabees.
Why don't we have the Telatabees show anymore?
It's the Deep State.
Yeah.
And then all the other argument comes in where we see evidence and Suleiman suddenly pretends to be intelligent.
No, honestly, based on this evidence, I don't know how to explain it.
It seems a lot worse than we expected.
So we'll see what happens in a few months.
I mean, they have a 97% prosecution rate.
You can pay a...
pay $8 for a fucking blue check mark,
you can pay a dollar to come, you know,
listen to Mario make a fool out of himself
in the subscriber's face.
All right, guys.
We'll do that.
We'll see you.
We'll see you guys there for a quick 15, 20 minute.
They're unrecorded, uncensored.
We'll kick it off now in two minutes.
Bye, Ron.
Speaker
πΉπππ
from
BUZZ
