Speaker 1: Joining us now is James Bovard. You can find him
Speaker 1: at jimbovard dot com. He writes for a variety of
Speaker 1: outlets and has for many many years. He is a libertarian,
Speaker 1: or we could say a classical liberal, because that's something
Speaker 1: that Steven Miller's wife doesn't seem to understand. That's the
Speaker 1: same thing as of course there's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that they don't understand, are there, Jim. But he had
Speaker 1: a very interesting op ed piece on miss dot org.
Speaker 1: The latest federal killing in Minnesota echoes Ruby Ridge, and
Speaker 1: I think he's really right, and in a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways. When we can talk about how it is
Speaker 1: similar to that, you know, if you're around at that
Speaker 1: point in time, that should be etched indelibly into your
Speaker 1: memory what happens Ruby Ridge and Branch, Davidians and things
Speaker 1: like that. But you know, even at that time, a
Speaker 1: lot of people were not really following that very closely.
Speaker 1: And of some of the people who are following it,
Speaker 1: I think they've forgotten the details of it. They certainly
Speaker 1: have forgotten the lessons of it, because there are a
Speaker 1: lot of parallels here in this and we need to
Speaker 1: learn those lessons so we can stop repeating these things
Speaker 1: over and over again. Thank you for joining us, Jim.
Speaker 2: Hey, thanks very much for having me on. Thanks and
Speaker 2: thanks for not forgetting about Ruby Ridge.
Speaker 1: How could I? It's amazing. Gary Spencer did a great
Speaker 1: job in that trial. And again, what an interesting character
Speaker 1: he is in terms of defending Randy Weaver, and while
Speaker 1: not defending him, but in terms of getting some compensation
Speaker 1: for him. But you can never compensate for really for
Speaker 1: what he lost. Let's talk a little bit about the parallels.
Speaker 1: But tell us you put up a tweet that really
Speaker 1: went viral about this, which is the basis of your article.
Speaker 1: I guess that's why you decided to write the article.
Speaker 1: You had a lot of people take exception to you
Speaker 1: drawing parallels.
Speaker 2: Exception Yeah, I mean, you know, with their pitchforks, and yes,
Speaker 2: yeah it was. It was interesting if you go back
Speaker 2: to folks who were politically conscious in the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 2: people who were skeptical about government power, both liberals and
Speaker 2: conservatives and libertarians, Ruby Ridge was a rallying cry for
Speaker 2: what happens when the government is off the leash and
Speaker 2: when federal agents have a license to kill. As a
Speaker 2: federal judge, Alis Kozinski said, the Ruby Ridge case you had,
Speaker 2: the federal FBI snipers were given a basically a double
Speaker 2: O seven license to go out and kill people. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's the basic rules of engagement where if you see
Speaker 2: the adult males outside the cabin, kill them, you know,
Speaker 2: no warning or anything. Even though they had never fired
Speaker 2: upon the Federal they never fired upon the FBI.
Speaker 1: So but when we've seen that over and over again,
Speaker 1: I talked about how apparently with this absolute immunity, these
Speaker 1: people are all double O sevens. I said, I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe that refers to their IQ.
Speaker 3: Well, I had that impression. I was wondering about that.
Speaker 2: With some of the feedback I was getting, it was
Speaker 2: it was interesting to see the absolute instant hatred for
Speaker 2: drawing a parallel between what happened at Ruby Ridge and
Speaker 2: the killing of the Alex Preddy in Minneapolis last Saturday.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it was. It was funny.
Speaker 2: It's been a while since I since I had that
Speaker 2: much visibility on Twitter. And it's interesting how the standard
Speaker 2: insults have changed, because now it just seems like about
Speaker 2: forty percent of the response it was just like you
Speaker 2: were retard, Yeah exactly, or Okay, I'm thinking is this
Speaker 2: the best you can do? Is this the best deprecation
Speaker 2: you have in your arsenal? You were retard man, You
Speaker 2: trying to go back and forth with these people, and
Speaker 2: then they started flinging.
Speaker 3: The airport in every direction. And you know, I like
Speaker 3: George Carlin, there's a time and a place for the airport.
Speaker 3: It could be effective. But when you're just kind of
Speaker 3: when this is all you have, you know.
Speaker 1: Well, they don't even know what is that. I have
Speaker 1: to look that up if they could even start.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, well so yeah, so most so the most
Speaker 2: common retort was retard and the second most common report
Speaker 2: was boomer.
Speaker 3: Yeah that's it, yeah boomer. Yeah. I mean, okay, so
Speaker 3: I know how to read. You know.
Speaker 2: There was yeah, there was there was some guy was
Speaker 2: who kept attacking me and he was making such in
Speaker 2: your comments. I finally said, you know, maybe what we
Speaker 2: need is go fundb drive to get you hooked on phonics.
Speaker 2: You go to get the software program. And it didn't
Speaker 2: seem to make him happy.
Speaker 3: So you know, I tried. I tried. There were there.
Speaker 2: Were other folks I said, you know, good luck with
Speaker 2: your grammar, you know, because they were just if you're
Speaker 2: gonna call someone a retard. You should be able to
Speaker 2: spell your entire sentence correctly, you know, otherwise it.
Speaker 3: Kind of boomerangs. You know, it's not a good look.
Speaker 3: You reply to them.
Speaker 1: Okay, boomerang, there you go. So what was the tweet?
Speaker 1: What exactly did you say in the tweet?
Speaker 3: Oh, that's a good question. Let me pull it up here.
Speaker 3: I've got this reopened.
Speaker 2: It was It was interesting, there was I'd first first
Speaker 2: commented on the on the Ruby Ridge thing, uh.
Speaker 3: First parallel on.
Speaker 2: Late Saturday, and then I was getting so much hostile feedback.
Speaker 2: Uh so so what I did? Uh, this is an
Speaker 2: article in the parallels. In both cases, the Fed's suppress
Speaker 2: evidence raisingly lied about what happened, exaggerated the threat to
Speaker 2: federal agents, and offered bizarre justifications for their killings.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that is let's see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we start out, we get add to the
Speaker 1: on my list. I made a similar list like that
Speaker 1: the needlessly aggressive use of force, which seems to be
Speaker 1: a hallmark government anymore.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that was that was a point.
Speaker 2: You know that I made an Macy's article on how
Speaker 2: the latest killing at go Ruby Ridge. But it's interesting
Speaker 2: because you have so many people who are conservatives who
Speaker 2: understood after January sixth, twenty twenty one, after the Biden
Speaker 2: posts came in and vilified everyone, every Trump's supporter who'd
Speaker 2: been in the same zip code as the US capital
Speaker 2: and tried to ruin your lives. And you had the
Speaker 2: FBI formally classifying all these January sixth cases, eight hundred
Speaker 2: or more of them as terrorism cases because someone walk
Speaker 2: into a government building.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I talked about that. In one particular. I think one
Speaker 1: of the most egregious ones I saw was you had
Speaker 1: a couple of elderly guys that were there and they
Speaker 1: had their middle aged one of them middle aged son,
Speaker 1: and they walk up. The doors are open going into
Speaker 1: the Capitol building and they got a couple of cops.
Speaker 1: They said, is there a restroom'r in here somewhere? Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: go right here. I go in and use the restroom.
Speaker 1: And that's all they did. They come back out, and
Speaker 1: as they're getting ready to go back out the same
Speaker 1: way they came in, there was a female cop and
Speaker 1: she says, no, no, no, go this way. She's pointing
Speaker 1: trying to get them to go onto the floor of
Speaker 1: the Capitol building, trying to trap them and they did
Speaker 1: charge them, because that's why that came out, was because
Speaker 1: they actually wound up charging them with that. You would
Speaker 1: think that they would have a memory of that and
Speaker 1: a perspective of it that they've got like the memory
Speaker 1: of a fruit fly. It's absolutely amazing they don't. They can't.
Speaker 1: They can't understand these different principles and the similarities that
Speaker 1: are there. And that's a big part of it. It's
Speaker 1: a big part of the of the group think that's there,
Speaker 1: The tribalism that is there, is that they're going to
Speaker 1: go through with a fine tooth comb and they're going
Speaker 1: to identify how this person over here was a bad person.
Speaker 1: We've got to add hominem attack and they're not part
Speaker 1: of our tribe, so it was justified. That's basically when
Speaker 1: you peel back all the layers of this onion. That's
Speaker 1: what it really gets down to. When you see this
Speaker 1: this rabid response that I've seen from a lot of
Speaker 1: people on social media.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it goes.
Speaker 2: Back to what historian Henry Adams said one hundred years ago.
Speaker 2: Politics has always been a systematic organization of hatreds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it was.
Speaker 2: It was It was intriguing to see the push button.
Speaker 3: Hatred after the.
Speaker 2: After the protester got killed, and to see and it
Speaker 2: was funny because I was posting stuff on Facebook and
Speaker 2: then on they're on Twitter, and so late on Saturday,
Speaker 2: I said, well, you know, you know there was a
Speaker 2: h there was a TV station there in Minneapolis.
Speaker 3: I think it might have been an ABC station and
Speaker 3: said that that actually, if you look at the video,
Speaker 3: it looks like the federal agent had taken away the
Speaker 3: guy's gun before he was shot.
Speaker 2: And oh, my god, you think I had just you know,
Speaker 2: made the biggest heresy in the world because the outrage.
Speaker 3: Could anybody say that?
Speaker 2: And it was like I was, it was like I
Speaker 2: was trying. It was almost like we were supposed to
Speaker 2: think the federal agents had somehow performed a miracle by
Speaker 2: saving everybody from getting shot.
Speaker 3: By this guy. Like it was that Stephen.
Speaker 2: Miller or was that Bobino. I think it was Bobino
Speaker 2: who said the agents did a really good job because
Speaker 2: they stopped this guy from killing killing police. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: I'm thinking by that standard, they could kill everybody the demonstrations.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it really has That's one of the
Speaker 1: things I remember most about Ruby Ridge. And then about
Speaker 1: Waco's well was how people lined up as to whether
Speaker 1: or not they liked David Koresh and his group. If
Speaker 1: they didn't like him, oh yeah, do whatever you want
Speaker 1: to to him. You know, I'm a Christian. And so
Speaker 1: I looked at that and I saw these people said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't like this guy. We thinks his
Speaker 1: theology is avran and they do weird things in their
Speaker 1: church and stuff. So yeah, yeah, go after this guy.
Speaker 1: I'm not part of I don't want to be associated
Speaker 1: with them. And so they they basically were cheering the
Speaker 1: incineration of men, women and children. It's like, what in
Speaker 1: the world is going on here? But of course you
Speaker 1: see that now over and over again, like you point
Speaker 1: out the systematic organization of hatred, you know, which is
Speaker 1: And it was.
Speaker 2: The same thing with the Ruby Ridge. The part of
Speaker 2: what happened as the FEDS were very quick to vilify,
Speaker 2: vilify their victims, being the Randy Weegman his wife primarily
Speaker 2: they had some bad ideas, and in the writing that
Speaker 2: I did about it, I was very careful not to say, well,
Speaker 2: you know, maybe they've got a point. No no, no, no,
Speaker 2: I mean bad ideas. But then there are a couple
Speaker 2: people out there who think that I have bad ideas,
Speaker 2: that's right. So you know, you know, I don't want
Speaker 2: to give the FEDS a license to kill people with
Speaker 2: bad ideas. But this is what what a lot of
Speaker 2: the people who want the government to fight extremism, this
Speaker 2: is what it turns out to be people who have
Speaker 2: different ideas than you do. Said, well, you know, got
Speaker 2: to take them out, you know, I mean.
Speaker 3: It's it's hard.
Speaker 2: It's hard to have a free speech if someone's hateful,
Speaker 2: and what's the difference A definition of hateful disagrees with me. So,
Speaker 2: but we've seen that ever since the Clinton administration.
Speaker 1: So and of course, you know, when we look at
Speaker 1: the way people responded first to the killing of Renee Good,
Speaker 1: what I noticed was the MAGA people came out said, oh,
Speaker 1: she's LGBT and she was part of an organization that
Speaker 1: got some Soros money whatever. And it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: you do realize Scott Bessett is a part of that
Speaker 1: LGBT movement. He do realize he got a lot of
Speaker 1: Sous money, didn't He as a partner with the guy
Speaker 1: for a long time. And yet you know, they're completely
Speaker 1: blind to that because now this guy is he's whitewashed,
Speaker 1: he's baptized or whatever because Trump picked him and he's
Speaker 1: working with Trump, and the same type of stuff. If
Speaker 1: you equated Ashley Babbitt to Renee Good, which I think
Speaker 1: was a good comparison because they were both shot at
Speaker 1: point blank range when they were no threat to anyone,
Speaker 1: and yet they came back and it said, yeah, but look,
Speaker 1: you know she's I don't like what she did with
Speaker 1: this or what she says about that, I don't like
Speaker 1: her lifestyle or whatever. So again it's the demonization of
Speaker 1: this kind of thing, and now we've seen it. They
Speaker 1: kept digging and digging. It took a lot longer for
Speaker 1: them to find something on Alex pretty but what they
Speaker 1: were able to find on him was a BBC video
Speaker 1: where he got into a fight with some a border
Speaker 1: patrol aid or something like that. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you've seen that or not. That went viral yesterday.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I haven't watched all of it, but I've seen it.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so here's the tail light out and it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: but they didn't kill him that day, and would that
Speaker 1: justify him being killed that day? Even and he wasn't
Speaker 1: doing that the day that he was killed. It wasn't
Speaker 1: doing anything like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was a story that I wrote that came
Speaker 2: out on the day before he was shot that said, look,
Speaker 2: I mean, you have protests, you're going to have assholes,
Speaker 2: because there's almost always people who behaved like assholes of protests.
Speaker 3: And the same thing.
Speaker 1: If you've got police, you're also going to have all
Speaker 1: that's true.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 2: That's so there's there's an interesting point here on the
Speaker 2: looking at the at what Alex pretty did before he
Speaker 2: got shot. So we don't know the names of the
Speaker 2: two federal agents who shot and killed him, and I
Speaker 2: would very interesting to see what their records were, see
Speaker 2: if they had a record of abusive force, or if
Speaker 2: they had shot somebody else before, or.
Speaker 3: You know, or if they were new hires.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, I mean, this is this is a real
Speaker 2: big This is something which comes up in in big
Speaker 2: cities if some cops shoot someone, especially if the cop
Speaker 2: has shot people before, and especially if there was any
Speaker 2: kind of pattern to the cops killings or shootings. This
Speaker 2: is this is very germane to making any kind of judgment.
Speaker 2: But the Trump people have decided we have no, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know when or how federal agents
Speaker 2: got their right to kill anonymously.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, that's right. But this is this.
Speaker 2: Is, this is what it is at this point, and
Speaker 2: it's it's funny, but I mean it's it's kind of
Speaker 2: a very what we saw. A couple of months ago.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of controversy initially about how the
Speaker 2: how our War Department had done a second hit on
Speaker 2: the survivors out there near Venezuela. And you know, it
Speaker 2: was there was video of that killing, and I guess
Speaker 2: it was being seen on Capitol Hill, and then all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, our Secretary of War, Hag Suth, comes
Speaker 2: out and said, well, of course we can't make that
Speaker 2: public as confidential has got this and that it's like,
Speaker 2: you know, so it's a license to kill.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But the thing is, you know, he put out and
Speaker 1: bragged about their shots against these boats in the past,
Speaker 1: and I said that about the this was I think,
Speaker 1: wasn't the circle back where they killed the shipwrecked people.
Speaker 1: I think that was the very first strike they did.
Speaker 1: And I said, of the video that he put out proudly,
Speaker 1: I said, that's criminal, that's an act of war. They
Speaker 1: didn't interdict that there's there's clearly processes for them to
Speaker 1: check people if they suspect.
Speaker 3: Them of being drug dealers.
Speaker 1: And again I don't agree with any that war on
Speaker 1: drug stuff, but they have their own rules about that
Speaker 1: and they violated all the rules.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's it's it's it's interesting trying to figure
Speaker 2: out if there's laws or you know, constitutional rights that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is going to recognize and uphold.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean, because it's.
Speaker 2: You know, trying to understand what went down in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's it's amazing that the first response by
Speaker 2: the DHS, by Bovino and people like that was like, well,
Speaker 2: people have got no right to know the names that
Speaker 2: we're going to shift them out of the states so
Speaker 2: they can't be held legally liable by Minnesota officials. It's
Speaker 2: it's like, where did they get the right to kill
Speaker 2: in Minnesota? I mean, this is this is this is
Speaker 2: not a recognized federal right. But there again, it goes
Speaker 2: back to Ruby Ridge and you had the FBI sniper
Speaker 2: who killed the mother holding your baby by the cabin door.
Speaker 1: Yes, and I'll never forget his name. It's been burned
Speaker 1: in my memory a lot hor ute, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you had the Janet Reno and the Clinton
Speaker 2: Just Apartment and the Clinton President Clinton moving hell in
Speaker 2: high Water to block any prosecution by the stateo Idaho
Speaker 2: of the FBI sniper, even though a confidential Just Apartment
Speaker 2: report said that his shot that killed Vicky Weaver was
Speaker 2: totally illegal and unjustified.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, recount some of the details about Ruby Ridge because
Speaker 1: it has been a while for people and even people
Speaker 1: who were following it at the time. You know, there
Speaker 1: was a lot at the time we didn't The Internet
Speaker 1: can be both good and bad. I got to say that,
Speaker 1: you know, when Ruby Ridge happened, and then when you
Speaker 1: had the very long standoff there with Branch Davidians, it
Speaker 1: was a bit difficult to get information because the only
Speaker 1: thing you could get was mainstream media whitewashing of stuff.
Speaker 1: And we did have a bulletin board that I was
Speaker 1: a part of at the time, but there was no Internet, right,
Speaker 1: so people in the area were getting information and putting
Speaker 1: it out, and of course it wasn't verified, but of
Speaker 1: course we knew that the stuff coming from mainstream media
Speaker 1: was verified bs So it was interesting to look at
Speaker 1: these things in real time, but go back and recount
Speaker 1: some of the things with Ruby Ridges. You see a
Speaker 1: parallels to what's happening.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, I'll start giving a thumbnail Ruby Rich here.
Speaker 2: It started when an undercover alcohol, tobacco, and firearms atf
Speaker 2: agent and trapped Randy Weaver into selling a salt off shotgun.
Speaker 3: It was a.
Speaker 2: On August twenty first, nineteen ninety two. Three US Marshalls
Speaker 2: dressed and ninja outfits and with face masks illegally intrude
Speaker 2: on Weaver's land and ambush Weaver's fourteen year old son
Speaker 2: and a twenty five of your old family friend, Kevin Harris.
Speaker 2: The marshals fired some machine guns at the at the
Speaker 2: UH at them and killed the boy's dog. A firefight
Speaker 2: and sued ensued a US marshals killed as the boy
Speaker 2: was running back home towards his family's cabin, a marshal,
Speaker 2: a Marshall shined in the back and killed him. Yeah
Speaker 2: what and and it was a big issue then in
Speaker 2: the Justice Department of confidential report was that the Marshal
Speaker 2: Service never separated the different marshals who who had killed
Speaker 2: the boy and been in the firefight and gave them
Speaker 2: thereby giving them a chance to create their own cover story,
Speaker 2: which was later approven to be completely false. But so
Speaker 2: the marshals gave a storyline to the FBI that made
Speaker 2: the FBI panic. The next day, FBI snipers arrived. Within
Speaker 2: an hour of them taking position, every adult in the
Speaker 2: Weaver cabin was either dead or severely wounded, even though
Speaker 2: they never fired a shot at the FBI. You had
Speaker 2: FBI sniper whore. You usually shot Randy Willie in the
Speaker 2: back as he stood outside his shack, and then fired
Speaker 2: a shot that killed Vicky Weaver by the cabin door
Speaker 2: as she was holding her baby. Now, the FBI initially
Speaker 2: said that they were justified and killing Vicky Weaver because
Speaker 2: she'd been in the front yard firing at the FBI helicopter.
Speaker 3: That was a.
Speaker 2: Complete scam and that fell apart. And so once that
Speaker 2: story fell apart, the FBI said they killed her accidentally.
Speaker 1: So that sounds like Christine Hohlmes thing the agents were
Speaker 1: stuck in the snow. Oh yeah, yeah, just making this
Speaker 1: stuff up, the contempt for everybody. It reminds me of
Speaker 1: what Jake Tappert just said to one of these guys.
Speaker 1: The guy's going on on about what happened with this
Speaker 1: Alex Pretty thing, and he goes, you do realize there's
Speaker 1: a video of this, don't you.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: And that's the only reason why we've got a chance
Speaker 2: to help getting the truth on this, because if you
Speaker 2: think of the initial storyline that the Trump top officials
Speaker 2: put out on the Alex Pretty shooting, uh, he had
Speaker 2: his non billimeter pistol out. He was a solding law
Speaker 2: enforcement and they were you know, he was there to
Speaker 2: mask for them. And you know, to the New York
Speaker 2: Times credit, you know, within an hour of the Trump
Speaker 2: top officials saying them, you know, New York Times was saying,
Speaker 2: you know, actually there's videos, there's something completely different, and
Speaker 2: so many papers came around to that quite quickly. But
Speaker 2: you had the Trump people quite acclaimed to this absolute
Speaker 2: nonsense version that would whitewash the federal agents who killed Preddy.
Speaker 2: And it's like, Okay, if you're gonna lie so brazenly,
Speaker 2: why should we trust you on anything that's right?
Speaker 3: That's right exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It is brazen, it is arrogant. It's an insult to intelligence,
Speaker 1: isn't it myself?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, it is, except for people on Twitter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because a lot of intelligence because they're just you know,
Speaker 4: it was it was like, you know, but you know,
Speaker 4: but Stephen Miller said this, and you know, it was
Speaker 4: like it was handed down from Mount Sinai and it's like,
Speaker 4: well no, actually, you know.
Speaker 2: It's that's that's that's not what that's not what happened.
Speaker 2: So you're calling them liars, well you.
Speaker 1: Know, yeah, that's right, you got a better wordy than
Speaker 1: the liar. Uh, let's say they were grossly mistaken.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But so so the an interesting thing with this was
Speaker 2: that there was there were a lot of people in
Speaker 2: the just Department who were very unhappy how it went
Speaker 2: down at Ruby Ridge, and there was an internal investigation
Speaker 2: that came up with a five hundred page report. The
Speaker 2: government kept that secret, and early tw early nineteen ninety five,
Speaker 2: FBI Chief Lewis Free does a press conference and announces
Speaker 2: basically whitewashes all the FBI policy makers and the snipers
Speaker 2: for the killing of Vicky Weaver and everything else that
Speaker 2: happened in that case. So a couple of days later,
Speaker 2: I did a piece for the Wall Street Journal called
Speaker 2: no Accountability at the FBI. A couple of weeks later,
Speaker 2: Lewis Free attacked me in the article and a response
Speaker 2: he wrote to the Wall Street Journal, and so, you know,
Speaker 2: it was funny. There was a friend of mine from
Speaker 2: Argentina who had done some work with and on the
Speaker 2: day that the Lewis Free letter condemning me came out
Speaker 2: and the Walls Journal, he calls it and says, well,
Speaker 2: I just wanted to say goodbye, because you know, he's Argentina.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna around very long. And I said, oh,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine the federal officials ever doing anything improper
Speaker 2: like that, but we're.
Speaker 3: Starting to approach that point. Perhaps I don't know.
Speaker 2: There you go, but so so so I kept digging
Speaker 2: and I eventually got a copy of that five hundred
Speaker 2: page confidential report, and I wrote about that for the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal. I also wrote about the case for
Speaker 2: a Playboy and American Spectator, and I think my stories.
Speaker 1: I interrupt you a second. How did you get that
Speaker 1: five hundred page report? I mean, did they give that
Speaker 1: up with a four request?
Speaker 3: No? No, no, they did not give it up. What
Speaker 3: would Yeah? No, it was Look, it was not given up.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, you found it through some alternative sources.
Speaker 3: Well, I came into possession. Okay, there you go. How
Speaker 3: about that. That's the way you put it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, like that, But no, it was Pentagon and and
Speaker 2: having that report it just completely destroyed the entire storyline
Speaker 2: the FEDS had created going back two years or more earlier,
Speaker 2: and it made a mockery of Lewis Free's claims. And
Speaker 2: they finally, uh suspended some officials FBI and the in
Speaker 2: the top the top official of the FBI Violent Crimes
Speaker 2: and Major Fender Section, plaid Guilty was sent to prison
Speaker 2: for destroying evidence on the Ruby Ridge case.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that. I didn't think there's some details.
Speaker 1: I didn't know. That's good.
Speaker 2: It may yeah, it may have been the evidence that
Speaker 2: he destroyed would have showed that longhor she intentionally killed
Speaker 2: Vicky Weaver or maybe at We don't know because it
Speaker 2: was destroyed and the cover up was successful.
Speaker 1: But and they gave him a medal, didn't they?
Speaker 2: I don't know, But uh, there was a story which
Speaker 2: I did.
Speaker 3: The commendation whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe I'm not sure. But what the Marshall Service
Speaker 2: did is wait until you know, three and a half
Speaker 2: years after the Marshals there killed Sandy Weaver and then
Speaker 2: gave their highest valor commendation to the marshals who had
Speaker 2: been at Ruby Ridge in early nineteen ninety six. And
Speaker 2: I wrote a Wall Street Journal story about that. There
Speaker 2: was a lot of pushback among some of their editors,
Speaker 2: but that's a different story. But no, it was it
Speaker 2: was brazen that they were. It was it was a
Speaker 2: wide arp who was a US marshal someone like that.
Speaker 2: I mean, he was a movie consultant, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not it'd be kind of rude to stop the
Speaker 2: interview and doing an internet search in Google seart so
Speaker 2: but no, but so it was utterly brazen. But and
Speaker 2: it's it's just interesting to see how many lies, i mean,
Speaker 2: lying and killing goes together like hamm and eggs. Yeah,
Speaker 2: oh yeah, you have that with the federal agencies, like
Speaker 2: you have it with the mafia.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So and.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly somebody's going to kill somebody as serious as
Speaker 1: that crime is, they're gonna lie about it.
Speaker 3: And yeah, and so that's.
Speaker 1: What we see when the government does it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of interesting. We talk about the situation of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I've said is that, you know,
Speaker 1: Madison said the the weapons of defense abroad always become
Speaker 1: instruments of tyranny at home, and I think that applies
Speaker 1: to their attitudes towards killing people, their attitudes towards war,
Speaker 1: whether it's foreign or domestic. I think once they have
Speaker 1: crossed that rubicon in their mind, like they did with Venezuela,
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of time before they start doing
Speaker 1: it domestically as well. And I think it's kind of
Speaker 1: amazing too when you look at border patrol and immigration
Speaker 1: control and all the rest of the stuff. They're so
Speaker 1: focused on their political border, but they don't think there's
Speaker 1: any boundaries whatsoever in law for what they do. So
Speaker 1: these are people who say, yeah, we got to have
Speaker 1: borders and so forth, but there's no boundaries for us.
Speaker 1: I mean Trump has even said that, you know, he
Speaker 1: was asked that question. He had no problem about saying, well, no,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any restrictions that I have, any
Speaker 1: rules in any international rules or laws that I need.
Speaker 1: I'm constrained by my morality.
Speaker 3: Oh that was so comforting.
Speaker 2: It was just I mean, there are so many things
Speaker 2: which Trump says that which are just you.
Speaker 1: Know, Yeah, that was a Golden Moment. You know, that's
Speaker 1: kind of like makes insaying, well, when the president does it,
Speaker 1: it's not illegal, you know, it's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's going back to those Border patrol agents
Speaker 2: and the Ice folks. I mean, it's almost as if
Speaker 2: we those federal agents need to have absolute power in
Speaker 2: order to preserve the American way of life.
Speaker 3: Yeah, except that.
Speaker 2: The American way of life and federal absolute power, it
Speaker 2: did not used to go together.
Speaker 1: So that's right. Well, we just had that a week
Speaker 1: or two ago. We had some Israeli billionaire named SloMo,
Speaker 1: and he said, we're going to destroy the First Amendment
Speaker 1: to preserve it. Right, So we got to destroy the
Speaker 1: rule of law in order to have America. We got
Speaker 1: to destroy the Constitution and everything else. Right, that's the
Speaker 1: logic behind what these people are telling us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and some of the Trump actions on
Speaker 2: freedom speech have been appalling. Oh yeah, same with a
Speaker 2: lot of the other things he had done. So but
Speaker 2: it's just part of what's fascinating to me. On going
Speaker 2: back to the parallels or Ruby Ridge and the killing
Speaker 2: on Saturday, what were their rules of engagement for the
Speaker 2: DHS agents there? There was there was a video I
Speaker 2: saw online. Bobino was talking to the agents, giving them
Speaker 2: a pep talk, and he was tell, if anybody touches you,
Speaker 2: then you know, take them down, arrest them, you know,
Speaker 2: just you know, do maximum penalties for them. And this
Speaker 2: is the same attitude. Christy Nomes said something similar that
Speaker 2: if some if somebody, if some protests or really touches you, boom,
Speaker 2: that's assault, so on and so forth. Well, you've seen the
Speaker 2: videos of these a lot of the federal agents being
Speaker 2: super aggressive with people, yeah, down batching them, assaulting them,
Speaker 2: spraying their face for no reason. Why the pepper spray.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is such an absolute disparity. Instead, there's
Speaker 2: a conduct. You know, how are people supposed to be
Speaker 2: free when federal agents have the right to beat them?
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: I remember years ago there was a protest at Berkeley,
Speaker 1: I don't even remember what it was for, and you
Speaker 1: had all these people that were you know, setting cross
Speaker 1: legged on the ground and you had this fat cop
Speaker 1: go on with pepper spray right in front of their faces,
Speaker 1: just spraying, and that outraged everybody, rightfully.
Speaker 3: So it's like, what are you doing that for?
Speaker 1: And yet you know, we have the same situation happening
Speaker 1: now with these Ice agents. There's that one picture where
Speaker 1: they had this person pinned to the ground. A guy
Speaker 1: puts the spray can right in his face or her
Speaker 1: face and sprays him with that. There was another one
Speaker 1: after the shooting of Renee Good. I've played that multiple times.
Speaker 1: Video I played multiple times on the show, where you've
Speaker 1: got this guy going around kicking they put on they
Speaker 1: trucked up the sidewalk with her name and things like that,
Speaker 1: and then put some candles there, and you probably saw that.
Speaker 1: He goes on kicking the candles over. The guy says,
Speaker 1: what are you doing? What are you doing?
Speaker 3: Do you know what?
Speaker 1: And the guy gets right up in his face and
Speaker 1: you know it gets like about an inch from actually
Speaker 1: hitting him with his body. Says get back, get back,
Speaker 1: get back, you know, and keeps pushing him back. Just thugish,
Speaker 1: schoolyard behavior, just beyond belief, trying to go the guy
Speaker 1: into touching him so he can go off on this guy.
Speaker 1: He and all the other ones around there. It's going
Speaker 1: to be a gang bang. Just lays a finger on
Speaker 1: this guy, and he's doing everything he can to provoke that.
Speaker 1: And we've seen them coming up to people knocking phones
Speaker 1: out of their hands because it's somehow it's now a
Speaker 1: rule that if you are photographing the police, which you
Speaker 1: have a right to do. Supreme Court has said that
Speaker 1: over and over. I believe it's a Supreme court. There's
Speaker 1: been multiple court cases. I don't know if it got
Speaker 1: up to the Supreme Court or not. But you have
Speaker 1: a right to film the police. We all know that
Speaker 1: that should be there, whether the law says that or not.
Speaker 1: But they come up to people and threaten them, threatened
Speaker 1: to put them in a database, knock the phone out
Speaker 1: of their hands, and all the rest of this stuff.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: The well, the the Trump DHS has been very explicit
Speaker 2: that there is no right to video tape federal agents
Speaker 2: in public. There that to video tape them even when
Speaker 2: they're wearing masks, yes to them, and and that that
Speaker 2: is considered to be a crime, and the federal agents
Speaker 2: are entitled. Do you is force to shut that down.
Speaker 2: And as you mentioned, there's been a Supreme Court has
Speaker 2: not made this explicit, but there have been a number
Speaker 2: of Federal Appeals Court rulings that said, look, you know,
Speaker 2: people have got to write to video tap the police
Speaker 2: in public. I mean, there's there's a certain point where
Speaker 2: the video table could become two a grass server too interfering.
Speaker 2: But I mean there are you know, there's lots of
Speaker 2: the uh Trump supporters would like to have a five
Speaker 2: mile zone of no cameras.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess are they're going to go around Jim
Speaker 1: and are they going to arrest Flock and Amazon for
Speaker 1: the ring cameras and stuff? Because we got cameras everywhere
Speaker 1: in our society now, whether you like it or not,
Speaker 1: and most of us aren't wearing masks when that's happening
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's just it's it's it's interesting how you have.
Speaker 2: You've got two sides here. One, you've got total secrecy
Speaker 2: for the FEDS, they've got their face. Man, nobody's got
Speaker 2: no age, has got name, people got no right to
Speaker 2: know the name of the agents that that killed somebody.
Speaker 2: On the flip side, you've got total surveillance. You got
Speaker 2: these these ages going around and sticking cameras in people's
Speaker 2: faces and saying that that that that they're a face
Speaker 2: and the name will be in a database.
Speaker 3: Now. Yeah, so the terrorists or whatever protests.
Speaker 1: Or database somebody does that to me, I tell them
Speaker 1: to spell my name, right, let me give it to you
Speaker 1: just in case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's it's kind of late for me
Speaker 2: to worry about being a those databases.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: You know, their society, I guess, Jim, we could look
Speaker 1: at it. Their their model for society is a one
Speaker 1: way mirror, right, you know where they are on the
Speaker 1: opposite side of the mirror. You know, you look at
Speaker 1: it and you don't see them at all. You you
Speaker 1: only see yourself that's there as they as they're putting
Speaker 1: you in the databases that are there, but you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to see anything they have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's it's important to keep in mind. Donald
Speaker 2: Trump has often said he's go to make America great again,
Speaker 2: but he never says he's gonna make America free again
Speaker 2: or make America constitutional. And Trump's idea of America great
Speaker 2: and it seems to be focused on the presidential power.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yeah, he's going to make all powers. It's
Speaker 1: going to make America a monarchy again.
Speaker 2: Well, and what's appalling to me is you got so
Speaker 2: many conservatives who are cheerleading for that. Yeah, I'm just thinking,
Speaker 2: are you that historically illiterate?
Speaker 3: Exactly? But to ask that question is to answer it.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, what are you trying to conserve? At this point,
Speaker 1: you know, we've had the terms neocon. We need to
Speaker 1: come up with something for the Trump Trump cons or
Speaker 1: something like that which says that they don't adhere to
Speaker 1: any principles of individual liberty or economic liberty or the
Speaker 1: rule of law whatever.
Speaker 3: That's a Trump con.
Speaker 1: We're just here for loyalty to Trump because that gets
Speaker 1: us jobs.
Speaker 3: It gets us money.
Speaker 2: The highest freedom, yeah, that's right. That is the highest
Speaker 2: free having the opportunity to obey Donald orders. And it's
Speaker 2: like and it's it's unfortunately Trump has some good ideas,
Speaker 2: He's had some good policies. I had a story in
Speaker 2: New York Post last Sunday on Trump's talking about banning
Speaker 2: the red light cameras and the speed cameras in Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. I mean, those things are an absolute menace.
Speaker 2: They caused so many accents, they've killed people.
Speaker 1: So I didn't see that he said that. I would
Speaker 1: agree with that, but I don't think that he'll do it.
Speaker 2: I'll do Trump had not said that, but if someone
Speaker 2: in his transportation apartment, oh okay, to ban those by
Speaker 2: those cameras and yeah, it's it's a great example of
Speaker 2: how how the government can be a scoundrel because what
Speaker 2: happens is you have those red light cameras put in
Speaker 2: and in order to maximize revenue, what they do is
Speaker 2: shorten the yellow light.
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2: And then cause a lot of accidents and fatalities.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was surprised because wait a minute, does Trump
Speaker 1: every and drive a car? You know, this is one
Speaker 1: of the things when you see.
Speaker 3: No, no, I mean, and.
Speaker 1: This is complained about.
Speaker 2: This, you know, this is a fascinating and want it too,
Speaker 2: because I assume that Trump has had bodyguards going back
Speaker 2: for the last thirty or forty years.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, sure.
Speaker 2: And his absolute contempt for Second Amendment rights. Yes, of
Speaker 2: anybody going to their protest is supposed to disarm and
Speaker 2: put themselves at the mercy of the feds.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is such and you can.
Speaker 1: See that with that other elitist billionaire Scott Bessant who
Speaker 1: gets a free pass working for Soros from the MAGA
Speaker 1: people for some reason. And when he's saying, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: I can't imagine anybody taking a gun to a protest
Speaker 1: or whatever, and it's like he said, I've been at protest.
Speaker 1: I didn't take guns. I thought, I said to my wife,
Speaker 1: I said, they were probably protesting Bessant.
Speaker 3: That's a good point.
Speaker 1: Probably I get my Wall Street or something.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean I've had the experience of being a protests
Speaker 2: where there were guns, and protests where the guns were banned,
Speaker 2: and it's like, you know, eh, it's life. It's like,
Speaker 2: I mean, guns are part of the American way of life,
Speaker 2: and it's also a symbol of American freedom.
Speaker 3: So that's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've said this multiple times on airs and said
Speaker 1: he said that.
Speaker 3: I said.
Speaker 1: The safest protest I was at was a protest at
Speaker 1: the Alamo where they were trying to get the carry
Speaker 1: laws changed in Texas, and you had hundreds of people
Speaker 1: with the rifles slung over their shoulders and police left
Speaker 1: everybody alone. It's a great deterrent to violence, you know.
Speaker 3: Well, this is it.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was fascinating to see the absolute panic
Speaker 2: by the federal agents as soon as someone says gun
Speaker 2: gon gun, Oh, we got to shoot him ten times. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean that was an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they were beating.
Speaker 2: The hell out of this guy who did knock to
Speaker 2: the ground unjustifiably.
Speaker 3: And then they padicked and killed him.
Speaker 2: And it's like, how in the hell anybody can uphold
Speaker 2: that kind of behavior or see it as a model
Speaker 2: or say, yeah, but he was a bad guy because
Speaker 2: he voted for Tim Waltz.
Speaker 3: You know whatever.
Speaker 1: I don't care, that's right, and I don't care about
Speaker 1: what happened, you know. In that video from the BBC
Speaker 1: that was released on Wednesday went viral on Wednesday, I
Speaker 1: really that's not relevant to this particular case. First of all, look,
Speaker 1: you can see the gun is stuck in the in
Speaker 1: the back of his waistband there in his back. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: and he didn't pull it out, right, so what's the
Speaker 1: deal at the point, they didn't kill him either, you know,
Speaker 1: so so if they could deal with it.
Speaker 3: Then yeah.
Speaker 2: It's totally appalling to see Trump talking as if anyone,
Speaker 2: anybody with a gun should be presumed guilty, especially if
Speaker 2: they've got a second magazine. And how many bullets did
Speaker 2: the cops carry, you.
Speaker 3: Know, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well I was at the I was at the Bundy
Speaker 1: Ranch stand off there on the ground.
Speaker 3: Oh it was a great one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was. It was a big win because what
Speaker 1: was good about that it wasn't just a protest. They
Speaker 1: had a specific thing that they wanted. They said, we
Speaker 1: want the cows back, you know, so that you stole
Speaker 1: from us. And so it was very interesting. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that came up in the aftermath of that,
Speaker 1: when they came after several people and sent some of
Speaker 1: them to jail, they had a picture of a guy
Speaker 1: who was up above on the on the road, yeah,
Speaker 1: trying to present him as a sniper, and he was
Speaker 1: down this is one of the protesters side, and he
Speaker 1: was down behind this concrete barrier there, you know, road barrier,
Speaker 1: and so was a woman behind him. And so in
Speaker 1: the court case they said, so why is the defense
Speaker 1: attorney They were trying to make this guy out to
Speaker 1: be the aggressor and the only threat that was there.
Speaker 1: And the defense attorney says, so why were you bending downside? Sorry,
Speaker 1: you can't ask that question. You know, obviously he's hiding
Speaker 1: behind the concrete barrier because they were threatening to shoot us, right,
Speaker 1: And they said you can't ask that question.
Speaker 2: Well, and there's that's the case I wrote about for
Speaker 2: USA Today, and it's fascinating. A crux of that case
Speaker 2: and part of the reason there were armed people there
Speaker 2: was was the Bundes feared the FBI put snipers around
Speaker 2: their house to kill them.
Speaker 3: Yes they ruby Ridge, Yeah they did.
Speaker 1: There was actually some of the guys there cleaned out
Speaker 1: a sniper's nest one night there, and that's interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, I wasn't aware of that, but I know
Speaker 2: the there was a federal judge. Her first name was Gloria,
Speaker 2: Hispanic lady. But so the so the Feds, I think
Speaker 2: in the retrial of maybe the Bundies themselves, the FEDS
Speaker 2: finally admitted that yes, they they did have snipers around
Speaker 2: the land or the home of the Abundanes, and so
Speaker 2: there was a real threat, whereas what the what the
Speaker 2: Obama people had done was trying to portray them and
Speaker 2: then the Trump people as well. Uh, it's betrayed those
Speaker 2: protesters as just kind of complete liars on trustworthy troublemakers
Speaker 2: because they were saying they were FBI snipers around their
Speaker 2: house and of course that's nonsense. But when they when
Speaker 2: it finally came out, the federal judge was so furious,
Speaker 2: I think she just threw the entire case out of court.
Speaker 1: That's right, they would have hung all of them. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, if there had been there was a BLM
Speaker 1: agent who became a whistleblower.
Speaker 3: He was great, he was great. Yes, And if it had.
Speaker 1: Gone, if it hadn't been for him, that judge would
Speaker 1: have railroaded because they did already send several people to
Speaker 1: prison for long prison stances. And I didn't follow up
Speaker 1: on that to see if they got a pardon with
Speaker 1: it or not. But basically, with the whistleblowers information, she
Speaker 1: realized that they'd been lying to her and that got
Speaker 1: her angry, and so she acquitted them with you know,
Speaker 1: prejudice or wife so they couldn't come after them again.
Speaker 1: But she had been really rough in terms of shutting
Speaker 1: down obvious questions like that, you know, why is this
Speaker 1: person hiding a crouch down behind a concrete burier like that?
Speaker 1: And other people who didn't have guns were doing the
Speaker 1: same thing, and it was simply the answer is because
Speaker 1: I was there heard them yelling get back, you know, disperse,
Speaker 1: we're going to shoot, you know, and they had their
Speaker 1: guns pointed at us.
Speaker 3: Wow. Yeah, wow, Well.
Speaker 2: It's pretty just good that it's good that didn't make
Speaker 2: you lose faith in the system.
Speaker 1: I didn't have any faith in the system to start with.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I didn't lose any more faith in the system. Well, no,
Speaker 1: I don't have any faith in the system at all.
Speaker 1: It's a that's great, Well, tell us what you're up to.
Speaker 1: And I see a book there in the back, last writes,
Speaker 1: Is that a recent publication that you had?
Speaker 3: Oh, that's the most recent book I've got.
Speaker 2: Last rites, it's an update of all the different government
Speaker 2: crimes and abuses I did loss Rights over thirty years ago.
Speaker 2: And last writes is how things have gotten a lot
Speaker 2: worse since nineteen ninety four when the Loss Rights came out.
Speaker 1: I was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Now at
Speaker 1: this point, aren't we It's.
Speaker 2: Well, well, there's a lot of good examples to write about,
Speaker 2: but I don't know.
Speaker 3: How much good it does. So I'm I've got the
Speaker 3: books I've got.
Speaker 2: I write for various think tanks, Mazies, libertarians, to a
Speaker 2: Future Freedom Foundation. I do suffer New York posts. I
Speaker 2: do for some magazines. I've done some stuff recently for
Speaker 2: a reason. So you know, here and there, just just
Speaker 2: trying to hustle and keep positive cash flow.
Speaker 1: And again, when you look at somebody who I've never
Speaker 1: seen more open contempt for the First Amendment than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I think he's surpassed Richard Nixon on this. Well that
Speaker 1: he's got against a Wall Street Journal that you've written for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean Trump and his lawsuits. It's like ten
Speaker 2: billion dollars because you said I sent a birthday card.
Speaker 2: Here's the freaking card. Okay, well yeah, but you know,
Speaker 2: but I'm still suing you. It's like, I mean, there's
Speaker 2: this is called slapsuits.
Speaker 3: What's the.
Speaker 2: Strategic lawsuit against public participation? I think is how the
Speaker 2: acronym goes. But Trump has done that so much. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: and some I mean okay, I mean one of the
Speaker 2: things was most the soundings is that I think Trump
Speaker 2: was suing sixty minutes because of how they edited an
Speaker 2: interview with Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: I know, I know, and you had you had the.
Speaker 2: White House Press sectory threatening a massive lawsuit. If was
Speaker 2: that CBS did any editing of Trump's Trump's interview or
Speaker 2: with them recently, It's kind of like, so editing is
Speaker 2: now crime or what?
Speaker 1: Yeah, don't do any editing. Yeah, everybody has to do it.
Speaker 3: Editing. I mean, the.
Speaker 1: You've got a time you've got to fit this into So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if Crump was Sparder, he would realize
Speaker 2: he needs an ader as much as anybody his good lord.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, going on for two hours, it's
Speaker 2: like he's inspired by Fidel Castro.
Speaker 3: That's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So you got your ticket yet for the Millennia
Speaker 1: premiere that's going to be today. So by a ticket
Speaker 1: you can have a private screening because you'll be the
Speaker 1: only person in the theater.
Speaker 2: Well, this is this is gonna be interesting. I mean,
Speaker 2: I hope that there's not a war to distract how
Speaker 2: the movie does badly.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Well, it's kind of interesting. You know, we're talking about
Speaker 1: the law suits about don't talk about me and Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein things like that, because they threatened a lot of
Speaker 1: people Milania did with lawsuits, as well as Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And I think it's going to be kind of interesting
Speaker 1: what happens with Michael Wolfe, because they had threats of
Speaker 1: lawsuits for people who are repeating what Michael Wolfe had said,
Speaker 1: essentially that about Jeffrey Epstein, and I thought, well, why
Speaker 1: don't they sue him. He's the one who is a
Speaker 1: source of information, So they threatened him with that, and
Speaker 1: he said, Okay, that's it. I'm going to sue you.
Speaker 1: So he's kind of kicked that off. It'll be interesting
Speaker 1: to see how that develops. I think we'll get more
Speaker 1: information out of that than we will out of any
Speaker 1: of the Epstein documents that are setting on Pam Bondi's
Speaker 1: desk purportedly.
Speaker 2: Well, it's so brazen that the Trump folks have got
Speaker 2: total contempt for disclosure, contempt for federal law, contempt for
Speaker 2: their president's own promises and the top law enforcement officials promising,
Speaker 2: and it's like, Okay, it's almost as if they have
Speaker 2: decided that they don't need any credibility with most Americans
Speaker 2: and almost all the media because they are so power
Speaker 2: for they were so wonderful, or that they can get
Speaker 2: away with anything. So it's that's Nixon like in a way,
Speaker 2: as you said earlier.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it is absolutely.
Speaker 1: Well, he kind of got his start with Rogerstone, who's
Speaker 1: got a tattoo of Nixon on his back.
Speaker 3: And that's one of the things I thought was me.
Speaker 1: I worked there at Info Wars for a while and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Rogers got that tattoo of Richard Nixon how
Speaker 1: does that square with the idea of being libertarian? I
Speaker 1: never could figure that one out, so.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean it's I won't I will not
Speaker 2: ask you any questions about a former employer in his
Speaker 2: position on the shooting.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, exactly, Alex Jones. It's been disgraceful. I tweeted
Speaker 1: about that. I got a lot of people angry at
Speaker 1: me because when I said, I said, I can't believe
Speaker 1: I ever worked for this guy. But he completely flipped
Speaker 1: on the police state. I mean, he did documentary after
Speaker 1: documentary about police Now he is all cheering it, you know,
Speaker 1: as as well as foreign wars. I mean, he's just
Speaker 1: you know, money talks, I guess, and we can kind
Speaker 1: of assume who's paying him.
Speaker 3: You know. Well, it's truly as amazing. Oh it might
Speaker 3: pay off his next libel lawsuit losing. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: Well, Jim is great talking to you as always, And
Speaker 1: again the book is last, right, So that's your most
Speaker 1: recent one, and people get that anywhere books have sold,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, and they can find your your website, which
Speaker 1: we'll have I guess links to any of the articles
Speaker 1: that since you write for so many different outlets, they
Speaker 1: can go to jimbovar dot com and find your IPEd
Speaker 1: pieces there in your articles. That's the best place for
Speaker 1: them to find you, right, So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Hey, thanks so much for having me on. Thanks
Speaker 2: for your kind words, and thanks for keeping up the fight.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, and thank you for all the work
Speaker 1: in the research that you have turned up. I've done
Speaker 1: some very valuable research with that. Thank you, Jim, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Have a good day. Well, that's it for today's broadcast.
Speaker 1: This is my grandson here and we're going to all
Speaker 1: try to stay warm. He's got a special penguin suit here.
Speaker 1: I want to thank everybody who is a hoarded us.
Speaker 1: This month, weorried about seventy five percent. But we're going
Speaker 1: to go buy this afternoon Friday and check the PO
Speaker 1: box again and we will update the gas gauge to
Speaker 1: let you know where we wound up. But I, Karen,
Speaker 1: I see you, but thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend, and again, be careful with all
Speaker 1: the ice you. I the common man. They created common
Speaker 1: Core and dumbed down our children. They created common Past
Speaker 1: Track and Control us their Commons project to make sure
Speaker 1: the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see
Speaker 1: the common man as simple, not sophisticated ordinary. But each
Speaker 1: of us has worth and dignity created in the image
Speaker 1: of God. That is what we have in common. That
Speaker 1: is what they want to take away. Their most powerful
Speaker 1: weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything
Speaker 1: about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 3: It's time to turn that around.
Speaker 1: And expose what they want to hide. Please share the
Speaker 1: information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow dot com.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you
Speaker 1: can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
Speaker 1: Ddavidnightshow dot com