Joining us now is Davis Yance, And I was just asking him his website
at his Yance law dot com. That's yo u nts yants law dot com.
And we got so many things that have happened legally that I would like
to talk to him about. He contacted me, said he'd like to talk
about Trump's indictment and the GOP debate. But of course there's been a lot
of things that have happened, mister Johns since we last talked about the military
mandates. What is the current status as far as you know on that.
Have they made anybody hole on this? We just had some whistleblowers talking about
the d MED database and how many conditions have escalated. Even after they went
back and said, oh, well, you know, you're comparing this to
the previous five years. Oh the previous five years are all wrong. Even
if they went back and manipulate the data, is still a huge increase.
What is happening in terms of the military in this vaccine. Yeah, so
unfortunately, not a lot has changed when we look at trying to make military
members whole as well as trying to get really solid military members back into the
service. So you still have more than twelve thousand military members that were kicked
out. They were alleged to have committed misconduct because they had a religious accommodation
that was unlawfully denied. Those individuals are still out there, still struggling with
negative service connotation on their d D two fourteen. And unfortunately, you know
the decimation that happened. Remember at one point there were two hundred and sixty
four thousand members of the military that were not fully vaccinated, many many of
those, and no one has accurate data on it, and there's reasons why
they don't, I'm sure, but many, many thousands simply left the military
that either retired, retired early, didn't reenlist, or otherwise. So those
folks are still out there. So a lot of the work I'm doing now
is going to be based on trying to restore rights to military members who were
persecuted for their religious faith, try to make them whole, as well as
try to get others back into military service they're either kicked out or sidelined in
some other way. And unfortunately, what we're hearing right now, what I've
been hearing over the last couple of days, is that the mandate may be
coming back there's a lot of chatter about a new vaccine for the new COVID
variant that's out there, and the military whistleblowers that I work with, some
of my clients are telling me there's a lot of chatter from commanders from the
Pentagon talking about what it would look like to bring a new mandate back.
Yeah, we just had Biden say, yeah, we're gonna have a new
vaccine and this one's gonna work. That's right. So yeah, this is
gonna try. They're gonna try, and of course they can force the people.
Yeah, and the military they can try to force the people that Jason
Barker is a listener who was in the military at the time, and he
wrote a great letter that we had on a website for quite some time outlining
his religious objections to it. A lot of people use that that we're in
the military, but even people who were nurses and other things who were there
were having that dictated by their employer. He hung in until he got up
to his twenty years. He was getting pretty close to it. He's one
of those people who left as he got to that point, and he's now
a commentator with Knights of the Storm. So he's out there doing still doing
good work telling people about this stuff. But yeah, they've pushed so many
people out. And as you pointed out last time, we were talking people
who managed to remain in now that they've kind of paused this mandate, if
you're still there, they're saying, well, you can't do this and you
can't do that, and that's going to essentially drive them out of their career
if they're blocked from being able to do certain things that they have to do
in order to get a promotion. Right, that's absolutely right. So the
impact is still is still existed, still there, it's still am and again,
nothing Congress has done so far prevents the DoD from issuing a new mandate.
So if we look at the leadership in the wide house, we look
at the mentality of senior or military leadership, we're looking at a real issue
now. I think there's also a possibility of a budget fight, right,
So if Congress does engage in a budget fight and starts talking about funding for
the military and those things, it's possible they will hold off until some sort
of a budget agreement is reached. But I am concerned we're going to see
increasing chatter in September, and then if there's some sort of a budget deal
that happens. I fear if there's going to be a new mandate, it
will follow shortly on the heels of that. And since we've established with warp
Speed that they don't have to test any vaccines or anything I've done anymore in
this quote unquote new vaccine that could appear any day now as well, I
don't have to do any testing whatsoever. We've established that as a president.
That's going to stick with us. It's sorry, sticking with one type of
medication after the other, isn't absolutely right. Remember still to this day,
ay, they're not they're not manufacturing the FDA approved version of these vaccines for
COVID. They're still not manufacturing the FDA approved version, which is still an
unresolved legal issue. When we talk about the military and others, so tons
of issues, and unfortunately they're going to continue for our military members as well
as anyone else, particularly those that work for uh, you know, liberal
state governments or the federal government. And you're talking about the label specifically,
right, the Cormonati issue. Is that correct? That's absolutely right, absolutely
right, which which the FDA said Look, these products are identical, but
they're legally distinct. While if they're legally distinct and you haven't approved the one
that's available in the United States, and how can you legally try to require
people to have this? That's that's the fundamental issue. It's just this kind
of double talk that we see happening all the time with all of these issues.
That's that's what the government has become, isn't it. That's right?
Yeah, a lot more. Yeah, or become more about political will than
the rule of law. Unfortunately, that's right. That's right. Well,
when we talk about political will versus the rule of law, you wanted to
talk about the indictments happening in Georgia. That is truly amazing. I think
that they many people have talked about how this is criminalized free speech and the
practice of law. What's your opinion of that. Yeah, I think that's
the biggest concern I have as we try to look at this indictment. Right,
So, Georgia's using sort of a very robust RICO statute, the Racketeer
Influence Corrupt Organizations Act. This is something used to go after the mafia.
And why the reason that it's attractive to prosecutors is you can essentially group people
together, say twenty people, nineteen people are part of a conspiracy, and
then try to hold each individual member responsible for all of the actions of everyone
else in the conspiracy. Right, So this is this is what we use
to take down to the mob. It's important to understand that you don't have
to get someone for murder. You just have to say that a murder happened
and it was part of the organization. Well, now it's interesting about what's
happening in Georgia is they're bringing all of these other individuals in and they're arguing
that things that were done after the election that dealt with trying to investigate and
try to understand whether or not there was election fraud, where election interference,
and that's being charged as a conspiracy. Yeah, so imagine, I mean
things like phone calls, things like phone calls to individuals, individuals responsible for
ensuring a free and fair election and saying, hey, we're hearing concerns,
we're hearing problems with drop boxes. We're hearing things like people are coming in
the middle of the night and putting hundreds of ballots in a drop box.
Can we look into that are you seeing these same concerns. Is there anything
we can do to try to understand what happened? Right? So, I
haven't seen anything yet. And I'm a former federal prosecutor, I'm a former
defense counsel. I still practice criminal law. I haven't seen anything that goes
to this idea. What we are going to do is change the outcome of
the election. Our intent is to change the outcome of the election. You
don't see that. What you see is we don't agree with the outcome.
We have concerns about the outcome. We think there may have been fraud.
But the narrative that you hear in all of the media continues to be there
was no fraud, it was a fair election, right. But I mean,
look at twenty sixteen, the same media was saying there was Russian interference.
It wasn't a federal election. You can see multiple times where former presidential
candidates like Hillary Clinton said, hey, the election was stolen, right,
unproven interference there. So, again, my big concern about what's happening in
Georgia is you are using a county that is very, very leans, heavily
Democrat, right, seventy seventy five percent of the voters in that county are
registered Democrats. You're using elected official a DA to bring a conspiracy charge against
individuals who were at worst trying to determine whether or not there was fraud,
and based on their belief that there was fraud in the election, figure out
legal means, legal means with which to challenge the election and the outcome of
the election. Very very dangerous precedent. Now there may be things that we're
done that we're illegal, but it's very very dangerous precedent to do that because
now you're creating a scenario where, I mean, frankly, if we take
if we take morality out of it, we take ethics out of it,
or anything else, you're creating more and more incentive for politicians to cheat in
elections because if you lose, you're going to be criminally prosecuted. I mean,
is that really what we want going forward? Again, those are some
of the things that I have concerns about when we look at these cases.
Yeah. I covered an op ed pieces on Brownstone from a lawyer and he
was essentially saying the same thing. He said, you know when I've been
amazed, he said, to see how mainstream media would just let Julian Ossane
twist in the wind for doing investigative journalism and wouldn't do anything about that.
Do they realize that that's not going to come back to them? And goes
and now when I look at what is happening here, he says, you
don't have to agree with what they were saying. He says, I've looked
at the legal briefs and I thought they were garbage. But he says they
were still investigating this thing. If you're going to criminalize the practice of law,
and he says, most lawyers are being silent about this, just like
most of the journalists are being silent about Julian Assand if you're going to criminalize
the practice of law and investigation around these cases and stuff like that, he
says that that's an amazing precedent that's being set. And you know, the
mainstream media and the mainstream of the legal profession are not worried about these types
of things. This really is the ground shifting under our feet, isn't it.
It is in One of the concerns I have is, you know what
attorney is going to want to go and work for President Trump in a future
White House, or is going to want to work with him when most of
the attorneys that worked with him, it seems more and more are getting criminally
charged. Yeah. Right, So, I mean that's a very that's a
very scary thing. When we think about the practice of law. We want
attorneys. We want a society where attorneys will represent individuals and advocate for a
fair trial for anyone regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of what they're alleged
with doing or their background. Everyone deserves a fair trial. But if we
continue a process where we've decided we don't like President Trump, we're going to
go after him by any means, and included in that is going to be
coming after these attorneys. And here's me just imagine this. These attorneys,
these attorneys that we're just involved in exploring and trying to figure out can we
file litigation, Is there's something we can do within the legal process to challenge
this election. Those attorneys are now being criminally charged. They're facing half a
million dollars in legal fees just to defend themselves in a case like this.
And quite frankly, I'm also hearing there are attorneys that are afraid to represent
them. Yeah, there are attorneys that are saying, I'm risking my license,
my entire legal career in order to defend you. So it's going to
be you know, a half a million dollars or a million dollars bill because
I'm risking everything. I'm risking my ability to make a living by doing this,
you know, And and that bothers me, much like it bothered me
doctors that are losing their license because they recommended alternative treatments for COVID, or
they they approved religious accommodations or recommended medical exemptions. So I just again,
I think those are the big picture concerns we have to recognize and deal with
ortion like you know, journalism for example, you know how I get kicked
off all these ti I've had PayPal banned me and so forth because they don't
like what I talk about. And so you know, this is happening everywhere
in our society. You know, this is this is taking it to a
new level in terms of coming after the lawyers, and we should all be
very concerned about that. But this is just in general, the new totalitarian
rules that they're imposing on everybody. Everybody feels the lash when it comes to
social media to one degree the other, don't they No, they absolutely do.
And I think, you know, we have to we have to be
wise, we have to be careful in how we evaluate this. And the
last thing I'll say about these criminal cases is this, you know, there
there's a subtle shift that's happened over I would say over the last hundred years
and our legal system. Most people outside the legal system wouldn't reck iognize that
it happened, but it's really important because there's a concept called jury nullification.
So the concept called jury nullification was part of our system. It was part
of our system when our nation was found that it was understood as critical.
And jury nullification is this idea that when we take a criminal case and we
put it in the hands of a jury, those twelve citizens can make a
decision that say, we know that the law was violated technically here, but
the right outcome is to find this individual not guilty and move on the government's
wrong to persecute this person for this violation of the law. This concept of
jury nullification that has fallen completely out of favor. Many states have laws on
the books that you can't even argue for jury nullification as an attorney that you
can't stand up and say this is not the right thing to do in this
case. I believe there's only one New England state that even has jury nullification
as a possibility on it. Now. Now, why I bring that up
is just something to pay attention to and think about. Ultimately, the jury
is supposed to be supposed to be something critical on our system. Thomas Jefferson
said the jury was the only anchor yet imagined by the mind of man through
which a government could be held to the principles of its constitution. That's right,
I mean think about that. So you know, I pray, especially
given what I do, but even for any case. I pray for juries
for citizens who are are wise, who are discerning, who are clear minded,
and are willing to push back against totalitarianism and tyranny from the government.
But I do think that concept of jury nullification is something we need to figure
out how to bring back, whether it's through legislation or otherwise. It needs
to be a part of our system because in some cases, and I have
tried cases were we have won my clients have been acquitted because of jury nullification
and we weren't allowed to argue it. As you have the authority to do
this under the law. But we were allowed to argue the right thing,
the fair thing, the just thing is to acquit in this case. So
that's just an important principle we've lost sight of in the law. It needs
to come back. Yeah, So that's how I got hired at info WARS.
I was during reports about Fully Informed Jury Association and some people who are
standing up for it, and they if you just hand out general literature about
jury nullification downtown in front of the courthouse, not about any particular case or
anything, they would come after them and try to get them in jail for
jury tampering. That's how serious it was in terms of challenge. But it
has always been a very important part your Trial by Jury had Gilbert and Sullivan
writing an opera about trial by jury because it was understood to be such a
bedrock of a society that was going to have a rule of law and individual
liberty. And it goes back to William Penn's trial. I'm talked about that
many times, establishing jury nullification as well as habeas corpus, and so this
is something that's always been there. But the way that they get around this
is in many cases you have the judge just lie to the jury and say
you're not here to judge the law or the punishment. You're here to just
judge the facts of the case. And nothing could be further from the truth.
I had one person that I interviewed out of New Jersey and he called
himself New Jersey weedman. He had Rastafarian dreadlocks and stuff, and he smoked
pot a lot, and he got they arrested him. He had quite a
bit of marijuana for his own personal use, and if you talk to him,
you'd realize that it really was for his own personal use. But he
actually lit up when I was doing an interview with him over zoom. But
he looked at it and he said, I couldn't get a lawyer to argue
this case. But I knew it was in the New Jersey Constitution, so
I printed up that part of the constitution, and when I was representing myself,
he said, I knew that the majority of people did not support criminalization
of marijuana in New Jersey, so I thought I could get off with jury
nullification. So he puts up the sign and the judge immediately says, take
that down. I'm gonna hold you in contempt, throw you in jail,
he said. But the problem is that the jury had already seen it that
it was in the New Jersey Constitution, and so they voted seven to five
to acquit him, but with a hung jury, so that the DA came
back after him again. And the next trial he had a different judge and
he did the same thing, and that judge allowed him to put that up,
you know, that showed the New Jersey Constitution, and that time they
acquitted him twelve to nothing. But we don't usually have jury trials anymore because
they play this game. And this is another thing we've seen in these charges
against Trump. They come in with so many trumped up charges that they try
to get you to plea bargain out of it. That's the other issue.
It seems to me like that's the really big issue, Davis. How do
we break this cycle of people who a don't believe that they're fellow citizens,
are really going to take a stand and are really going to judge the law
or whatever, and the fact that they're so overcharged with the stuff because the
game is they add all these additional charges and then say, well, we'll
drop the additional charges if you plead guilty to what we really wanted to get
you for in the first place. They don't present it that way. But
that's essentially what's happening. How do we break that cycle? You know,
it's it's a really it's a hard challenge to break that cycle. But the
reality is, just look at federal courts. Ninety eight percent of federal cases
results in a plea agreement. Ninety eight percent. Right, And you know,
there's this joke. We hear it all the time. It's become a
trope. But it's scary to me how much of a trope it has become
that we all violate. We all commit violations of federal law unknowingly every day,
right, each citizen does that. There's something too that. So what
happens is, especially with the way the federal guidelines work, and sentencing is
all in the hands of the judge, not in the hands of the jury.
So the federal judges appointed federal judges are in charge sentencing, and the
issue is the way the guidelines work. You know, many individuals face you
know, dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of years in prison over the allegations.
So they're sitting there going, Okay, I'm looking at, you know,
twenty five thirty fifty two hundred thousand dollars worth of legal fees number one
and number two. I'm looking at the possibility if this goes poorly, of
doing decades in prison, or I can take a deal. I can do
two years of probation, I can save a lot of money on attorney's fees,
and I can try and move past this. But there's no thought to
the coercive nature of these charging decisions. So you know, one answer is
to take a hard look at how we pick, how we select, and
how we use United States attorneys. That's on the federal level. On the
state level, I would encourage people to be very very cautious if you,
if you have the ability to vote in an election for a district attorney in
your county at the state local level, take that very very seriously, look
hard at those p people and try to find other people that are willing to
run for that office at that local level that have some control and discretion and
can do the right things. Because these these das and these US attorneys do
have a great deal of discretion and charging and that would be a great step.
So there are political solutions to it. Unfortunately, we've just we've created
a system where there are so many people going through the process they can't properly,
they can't properly give everyone a jury trial. The system breaks down.
Yeah, and so this system is built on on plea bargain. And you
know it was I remember in the transition period before Trump, but after he
got elected in twenty sixteen, before he sworn in twenty seventeen, Obama and
Eric holder are talked about how they were going to focus on district attorney races
and on state attorneys in general, and they had a lot of money from
sorrows, as we've seen. And so we've seen that type of thing being
done in all these different places. With Trump, we see it being put
into practice. And I'm I don't support Trump since he did what he did
in twenty twenty with lockdowns and the vaccines, but I think it's an outrage
what is happening. This weaponization, as you're pointing out, is setting up
some very very dangerous precedents for so many different things. And people can see
what the strategy of district attorneys and state attorneys generals. They can see how
dangerous that is, and why that was so important to radical leftists like Obama,
Eric Holder and George Soros to spend lavishly on these races to put people
on I mean, it's spending millions of dollars on local district attorney races.
So that tells you how important it is to them and that they're going to
use this for something. So what you said is absolutely true. We have
to look at the shaff very carefully. We have to look at the local
district attorney, We have to look at the state attorney general. Those are
races that I think, in many ways are far more important than even the
president, because the president is so insular from all these different concerns, and
it really is the people who are closest to you that are going to have
the biggest effect on you. They can make things better or they can make
things much more. First, then whoever's in Washington, can't they That's absolutely
right, And whether or not you support, you know, President Trump running
again, you have to look at the reality of the plan that was put
in place with these prosecutors, with these das, with these elections, the
importance of these US attorneys, you know, and now you have situations where
you know, the federal judge that the DDC case, that judge has set
the trial date for March fourth, that's the day before Super Tuesday. The
DA in Georgia wants to set the trial for the same date, the day
before Super Tuesday. So so again, you know, we should all just
take pause, whether whether we are a Trump apologist or not. And I'm
with you. I have grave concerns about how COVID was handled and what happened
there. But the reality is this is partiality. This is using using the
criminal justice system to political advantage. And when you start looking at trial dates,
you just have to roll your eyes and goes, wow, this this
feels a lot like election interference, doesn't it. They're doing that in our
face, and they're doing it deliberately, and they're trying to escalate things into
a civil war. And the thing that concerns me, I didn't get to
the clips today to play them, but you know, we've got people now
openly talking about civil war and assassination Trump. Tucker are talking about the assassination
of Trump. You got John Voight, the actor, is saying this is
a civil war, and everybody Trump is becoming the Mason Dixon line. He
pushes this stuff, and because he makes money from this stuff, and so
you know, he's taking the indictments to the bank and his poll numbers are
going up. But the other people are doing the types of things like you
talked about the fact they're going to put the trial date the day before Super
Tuesday and all the rest of this stuff, and it really is polarizing the
country into a civil war. I think that is a very very dangerous thing,
and it looks like both sides want that to happen. It seems like
to me, I mean again, we have to go there. We have
to be wise, we have to be discerning him, we have to have
those concerns, and then we have to look at things like what will Congress
do. Congress, the Republicans in Congress can vote to defund the DOJ,
right, they can restrict the powers of the first So there are political things
that can be done. But if they're not done and we're not seeking political
solutions, then then the divide gets greater, the differences get greater, and
we reach into some very very dangerous times. I pray that's not the direction
this goes. But but if political solutions aren't being sought. I agree with
you. I have the same kind of concerns. Yeah, you know when
we look at this too. As soon as I saw the Rico Statutes,
and I saw Rudy there and he actually talked about this and his statements,
the fact that he had used Rico so extensively as a prosecutor before he became
mayor in New York. And you know, when you look at the Rico
statutes themselves, I've always had a big problem with the way they were organized.
And it really was kind of an evolutionary path and a civil asset forfeiture,
because the whole point of big part of the Rico Statute, besides making
the prosecutor's job easier to come after organized crime, it was also to take
away the money so they wouldn't have the money to hire the best lawyers and
defend themselves and get off on technicalities and things like that. And so that
gradually evolved over a period of time with people like Rudy and ironically with people
like Joe Biden, and to civilized set forfiture where they come and they confiscate
property from people and ever even charge you with a crime, let alone find
you guilty, and so I thought it was kind of ironic that Rudy is
getting charged with Rico statutes. What do you think about the Rico statutes in
general? Yeah, I have grave concerns with them. You know, I'm
a big believer in looking to the Bible as a foundation for how we approach
our legal system, and one of the concerns I have with Rico statutes is
just fundamentally it was designed to make get prosecutions and getting convictions easier. That
troubles me, just notionally, whether it's my time as a prosecutor or as
a defense attorney, anytime we're changing the law to try to get more convictions
or make prosecution easier, I'm troubled by that because that's not supposed to be
the point of our legal system. Our legal system is supposed to be designed
to punish the evil and protect the innocent. It's not about numbers prosecutions or
anything else. So Rico statutes have a troubled history. You know, they
were used with some effect against the mob, and you could see how you
could bring down an organization by doing that. At the same time, whenever
you have a conspiracy like that, whenever you have a Rico statute. The
problem is, you know, I represent individuals sometimes I do court appointed work
in the federal system. So you'll have a very low level drug dealer,
right, So not the greatest human being in the world, I understand that,
but very very low level, minimally involved. But because they're charged under
a conspiracy or under a Rico type statute, all of a sudden, they're
responsible for millions of dollars worth of drug trafficking over an entire region, when
all they were was a bagman or something else on a very low level,
right, a user that sold a little bit, and they're responsible for anything
else. So one of the things that bothers me about it is it does
lead off into what I would consider unfair outcomes and really escalates the criminal liability
for individuals who are just bit players and something or even just didn't fully understand
the scope of what they were getting involved with when they did. Yeah,
yeah, this whole civil asset forfeiture thing. And I talked about a case
that's getting some publicity now. It's several years old, about six years old
up in Muskogee, Oklahoma, and just you know, pulling a guy over
going through his car, you know, he's got a tail light out or
something like that, and just finding cash and taking all the cash, and
it was cash that they've been doing as a Christian band, concerts they were
doing for people, and so it was their pay as well as donations that
they had picked up cash, donations for an orphanage and all the rest of
stuff. But this has become kind of standard operating procedure and the police have
been corrupted by this heavily because they get to participate in the booty. But
it's you know, just taking the stuff, never even charging the person,
but charging the object, the inanimate object. You know, they make a
it's like, you know, the government versus this car, serial number this,
or a jet or a house or a stack of cash or whatever.
They don't even bother to charge a person, let alone find them guilty.
That's the thing that I see just so amazing to me. And you know,
it's kind of another one, you know, with Trump when he said
about the red flag laws, you just take the gun and do the due
process later, due process later. I said, well, that's not due
process if you don't do it when it's due. Right, it's got to
be done beforehand. And but this is a really dangerous thing that's happening,
and it's been happening to ordinary people for a very long time. I was
talking about civil asset forfeiture back in the nineties, and yet now you know
that it is getting gotten to the point where they're coming after their political opponents
using this type of tactic rico and civil asset forfeiture. That's still really being
talked about by either the left or the right press. They're still not talking
about these injustices. It's still strictly about Trump versus Biden. They're not looking
at the overarching issues and the precedents that are being set here. I'm afraid.
Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's a grave concern,
and that's why we have to we have to stay engaged, we have to
stay alert. That's why I appreciate the work that you do in trying to
help people understand and educate people, because we have to pay attention to these
things, and we need to remember the law should be the law. It
shouldn't matter. There shouldn't be partiality, there shouldn't be concerns. Justice is
supposed to be blind for a reason. That's what we should fight for we
should live in a society, in a system where it doesn't matter who is
on trial or where in the nation there are. We should be able to
count on our fellow citizens to do the right thing. We should be able
to count on district attorneys. Now we live in a fallen world. That's
never going to happen. But if we go back to and we understand why
we had things like jury nullification, yeah, that's that's a critically important thing.
Why we why we gave Congress, Why the founders gave Congress the power
of the purse. They don't exercise it anymore because everybody feeds into the system.
But there is so much power that comes from the ability of Congress to
work on funding. I mean, look at look at simple things like what
Senator Tubberville is doing in Alabama. I know very little about Senator Tuberville.
I wasn't necessarily optimistic about him as a senator, but he has done so
much to protect the military from woke ideology as well as to push back against
the abortion policy. By simply saying I'm going to object to unanimous consent to
these military nominees. We can either go and have a full hearing and have
a floor vote, or I'm gonna I'm gonna keep my block in pit place
and I'm going to object to this unless you change your illegal policy on funding
abortions, and unless you give us an opportunity to understand who it is are
these communists are not that you're appointing to senior senior military positions. That's a
really good existence just over country and mind or not, that's right. It's
a really good example of what one person can do. If they're committed to
this. You can really be a fly in the ointment and there's things that
you can do to stop that instead of just rubber stamping everything that's going along,
and that's typically what we have seen with Congress. You know. The
other part of it is let's just kick it over to the bureaucracy and let
them have the hot potato, and then if they get really wrong, we
can come in like where the saviors and you know, on a white horse,
and we can fix this thing and blame it all on the bureaucracy which
never has to answer to the public at all. So we have this system
of taxation without representation, now regulation without representations. Well from these people,
I'm so glad that you talked about fully informed jury association and that is not
the association, but an informed jury. That is a key thing, I
think, and it is something that is so vital that we have lost and
just to stay again, everybody needs to understand that if you're a juror,
you're there to judge not just the facts of the case, but you're there
to judge the law and the penalties that will be applied. And if you
think that the law is unjust or the penalties are going to be excessive,
it is your right and your duty as a juror to oppose that. But
you're told exactly the opposite by almost all these judges. And I guess you
know what I've heard is that if you start talking about it to your fellow
jurors, they'll kick you out of there and put in an alternate right.
Is that typically what happens. That has happened. There's been documented cases of
that happening. Absolutely, it's really amazing. Well, you know, when
you look at these other cases, it's just real quickly, not just the
one in Georgia that's particularly egregious in terms of its politics. And before we
leave it, let me just ask you your opinion about this. As I've
looked at this and other people have looked at it, it looks like another
part of this strategy is to have so many people that are there that they
can get the lawyers to turn on Trump. And by charging the lawyers,
she can break the attorney client privilege, just another important precedent that they're trying
to get rid of. So by charging the lawyers, then that breaks that
makes them co defendants and then hoping that they will turn on Trump, and
then Trump is not paying for anybody's big legal fees, and that's kind of
a dangerous thing for him as well. Even one guy who had to set
in jail for over a week because he couldn't make bail and couldn't afford a
lawyer who's now got online fundraising gifts in go or something like that. But
it is what do you think about that strategy? You think that's going to
backfire on Trump and that some of these lawyers are going to flip. Is
that what her ultimate strategy is? You think? Yeah, I you know
the reason, in my opinion, the reason that you charge people under a
Rico statute, the reason you bring in multiple defendants in these cases, is
because you are going to try to flip someone. You know, I heard
yesterday. I don't know how much of it is true, but I heard
yesterday that in the Marlago case, the classified documents case in Florida, that
someone is already flipping. Someone's already cooperating, at least with regard to like
the obstruction, the destruction of video charges, things like that. So you
know, it's a very common practice for prosecutors to use that. You know,
as far as what Trump does and how he approaches it, I do
think there's a feeling among many that they can't possibly afford many people associated with
and they can't possibly afford the legal fees that this requires to fight this.
And he is raising unprecedented amounts of money for his campaign or through his campaign,
and you know, his legal defense fund money isn't hurting. So you
know, there probably are some concerns about whether or not he can provide money
to co defendants and what that does if that looks like obstruction because they're not
cooperating. But he could certainly go out and say, these people are patriots.
You need to support them and help them, just like you're supporting and
helping me. I do think there are things he could do to do that.
It's dangerous, it's unprecedented legal issues we're dealing with. This idea of
trying to appierce Pierce attorney client privilege, very very dangerous. But I do
think he should be doing, at least to the extent he possibly can,
everything he can for these other codefendants because they're just caught up in issues that
many of them have no control over. They're just trying to do the job,
do a job the best of their ability, that's right. Yeah,
And it's not good optics, even for the politics to let these other guys
go to jail because they can't afford a lawyer or bail. That's something that's
not very wise. You know, when you talk about the Documents case,
I don't know what is your general take on this. I'll tell you I
look at the Documents case. To me, that seems like the only one
where they have a clear violation. And yet again you know why, it
is selective prosecution. They don't appear to be interested in anybody else violating these
laws. I mean, technically he appears to have violated. I haven't seen
any lawyers that came up with a plausible defense for it. Derschwitz, as
hard as he tried, said, well, maybe the documents were already declassified
and maybe he didn't know it. That's the best ticket come up with.
But you know, what everybody sees is the fact that no, they haven't
come after Biden or Hillary or any anybody else about these things and said they
still see it as a law fair against him, you know, weaponized legal
attack against him, even if he technically did violated. But what is it
from from your position? Because you've been involved with military trials and things like
that. I'm sure that you know classified security and things like that have come
up in the past. What what is your opinion about that particular case.
You know, I think my frustration with that case is it is an example
I think of, you know, politically targeted and selected prosecution. Because here's
the issue. You're really dealing with two different laws. You're dealing with the
Espionage Act that goes all the way back to World War One Woodrow Wilson,
which is really what they're charging him under. But it was never designed,
it was never intended to go after the president of the United States. There's
another law called the Presidential Records Act, right, the Presidential Records Act,
which really is what's supposed to apply to presidential documents and the requirement to archive
these documents for historical purposes. But there are no criminal penalties in the Presidential
Records Act. So in the past with other presidents, everything's been handled.
They've had to turnover documents under the Presidential Records Act, but they were allowed
to keep things again under that Act for personal historical reasons. So it really
is a selective prosecution issue. So yes, technically if things that President Trump
believed were covered under the Presidential Record Act or believed that he was allowed to
take, even maybe his attorneys advising him thought it was okay for him to
take, but they weren't technically declassified yet. Yeah, there could be some
technical violations the law, but that's again goes back to one of those issues
of what was the intent of the law when Congress pass it and is it
acuter twisting the intent of the law and using essentially a technicality to try to
come after a political opponent. And I think the answer to that is yes,
yes, And you go back to that Espionage Act that you talk about,
you know, Woodrow Wilson anything in nineteen seventeen Espionajact. I remember very
clearly talking about how the Obama cohorts, which are essentially you know, what's
around Biden at this point in time running his administration. But during the Obama
administration they came. They charged more people in his eight years, They charge
more people with the nineteen seventeen Espionage Act than all of the previous administrations combined.
And so it is a favorite tactic of THEIRS to use in nineteen seventeen
Espionajact. So it's got his fingerprints and that whole group all over that thing.
But yeah, it is it truly is amazing that it's gotten to this
point. But my big concern with it again, as you point out,
there's some very dangerous precedents that are being established, and it is also being
used to intensify this tribalization and this polarization, and everybody's getting ready to fight
over this stuff, and it is coming up to I don't know if you
pay attention to the fourth Turning or not, but it's something Strauss and how
talked about in early nineties. The guys who came up with the name's millennial
and everything they looked at the cycle of about every eighty years, about every
fourth generation, they via turning in society where there would be a major restructuring
of all the different institutions, usually accompanied by a financial crisis and or war,
you know. And the previous ones were World War Two and the Great
Depression, prior to that, Civil War, prior to that, the American
Revolutionary War. They went back five hundred years in American and British history.
And so we're at a time where the people are really kind of primed for
this, and this seems to be the flashpoint in my opinion, what they're
doing here with Trump, It truly is amazing. But I don't know,
it's great to talk to you, and is there anything else in your mind
You're like, talk about homeschooling, anything like that that's happening, And well,
you know, I think one of the things that I think you would
be interested in being aware of, and I think something we need to keep
an eye on is a trend we're seeing with regard to it affects all parental
rights, but particular can affect homeschoolers. It's this There was a story that
came out this week where Pennsylvania that's where I live, where I practice local
law. They engaged in a training program. So the state of Pennsylvania created
a training program in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh. And what they did
is they put out training materials that say, essentially, if the parents are
homophobic, if the parents are opposed to their child transitioning, that could be
a danger. They could be a threat, and you should consider whether or
not it's appropriate to remove a child from the home in Pennsylvania. Wow,
Okay, so it's big news that I want people to see because there was
a lot of attention that was paid to you know, states on the West
coast like Washington who came out with laws that specifically had legislation on the books
that says that's a reason you know, not allowing a child to get an
abortion or you know, posing an abortion, or opposing you know, medical
treatment so called medical transgender treatment, child mutilation, puberty brockers, those things
that that could be a threat to the child. Well, other states now
and we're seeing this in Pennsylvania. We've the training materials have now been released,
they're publicly available. Just no one was paying attention. You have your
local county social workers being trained to look for people who have religious beliefs that
talks about traditional religious beliefs that oppose this and the danger and threat that may
make to a child. So when we talk big picture about homeschooling, the
biggest you know, continued drum that I will beat is homeschool your children or
get them into a really good, small Christian private school. Do everything you
can to do that because the cases we have seen in Pennsylvania, the cases
will continue to see in Pennsylvania, will usually involve some sort of an interaction
with a public school counselor teacher otherwise that starts a child down the path of
confusion that these individuals will play into their mental illness. They will drum that
up and then you will see this and then all of a sudden, you
know, the county is knocking at your door and removing your children. So
I'm not trying to be alarmist on that. Oh, I don't think that
we have to pay attention to. Yeah, And as a matter of fact,
that's another level up. I just talked about this week about Massachusetts where
they had I think it was just right I talked about it. They had
a couple who wanted to adopt, and so they were gonna get into the
foster care program and adoption program, and it's part of that. They realized
that they were Christians and that they were not going to go along with the
LGBT agenda and that type of thing, so they kicked them out of the
program. So there's a lawsuit happening there. But what you're talking about there
and Pennsylvania is even worse. That's coming after people who are parents and taking
the kids away from them simply because they don't go along with the LGBT agenda.
And as you point out, it's going to be the schools that are
going to kind of act like the Stasi informants, you know, saying out,
well this is what we see, you know, sending a chop protective
services so called, and to attack the parents, isn't it. Wow?
Yeah, absolutely absolutely so. So homeschool your kids. Get them in a
good private school, a good Christian school, a small one that you know
what's being taught, that you understand what's happening. The other thing I tell
parents all the time, particularly homeschool parents, is a very careful attention to
who your doctor is. Yes, your primary care physician. People people miss
this completely. But your primary care physician, your doctor, has a critical
role in all of this because you have progressive doctors. You have clinics that
won't take you as a patient if your kids don't get every single vaccine as
soon as you know, as soon as they're born or otherwise. But you
also have, you know, these clinics that will push this medical mutilation of
children and feed into these things. And so you need a really good primary
care physician that at least understands and is sympathetic to your religious beliefs and basic
parental rights. And that's a that's a good buffer against the county, against
the state, or otherwise when it comes to protecting your children and protecting your
family. So that's the other note of encouragement I would have for folks that
are out there is pay attention to who your doctor is very careful about that.
That's real important advice, Yeah, because they can become the informant to
get you into trouble if you don't do the vaccines on that type of thing.
And that is something a lot of people don't think about. And it's
getting harder and hard to find doctors like that because they're setting up the you
know, they've taken over the institutions and they're the gatekeepers and they're looking for
people who are going to, you know, go into their political side of
things, and then they heavily push this as part of the medical curriculum as
well. It has always been about parental rights. I don't know if you
saw the article about Michael Ferris. Homeschool Legal Defense Association that Washington posted a
detailed article about him, and they focus on parental rights. And because he's
understood that parental rights is at the essence of all this stuff, homeschooling and
everything else, and so that is really going to be where the fight is
going to be. It's gonna be about parental rights. Well, it's always
great talking to you again, David Shaunce and his website is Yaunce law dot
com. And it's great to have somebody we talk about, not just doctors,
but to talk about lawyers who look at things from a Christian world perspective
and therefore they're going to try to uphold the law as it is written.
It is great to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on.
Hey, Thank you brother, God bless you, Thank you, God,
bless you We're tight. Quick break and we'll be right back. Folks
using free speech to free minds. It's the David night Show The common Man.
They created common Core and dumbed down our children. They created common Past
to track and control us, their Commons project to make sure the commoners own
nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated
ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of
God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want
to take away. Their most powerful weapons or isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please
share the information and links you'll find at the David Knightshow dot com. Thank
you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially,
please keep us in your prayers. The Davidknightshow dot Com