Speaker 1: Let me tell you, these people are busted and so
Speaker 1: for Jim, call me. That's why I said earlier, Jim,
Speaker 1: you get if you get this message, start thinking about
Speaker 1: what you're gonna what you're gonna give up, because you're
Speaker 1: going to give up some of your freedom, because you're
Speaker 1: you're going to go to jail. You must go to
Speaker 1: jail because of what you did. But maybe they'll cut
Speaker 1: you a little bit of a deal and they'll put
Speaker 1: you in a you know, in a in a softer
Speaker 1: in a softer prison for a shorter period of time
Speaker 1: because you you're able to you know, to give up
Speaker 1: some some uh some evidence on some of these other
Speaker 1: people who are even more deeper than you involved in this,
Speaker 1: because Jim, you know exactly who I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: That was General Michael Flynn on the Benny Johnson Show
Speaker 2: today and he is talking to former Director of the FBI,
Speaker 2: James Comer, and he is telling him, you're gonna flip James,
Speaker 2: because you're going to jail. Now. I have some ideas
Speaker 2: as to why he might be saying that. Uh, in fact,
Speaker 2: I think I know why he's saying that. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure who he's talking about when he says, you're gonna
Speaker 2: give us someone bigger, and you know exactly who I'm
Speaker 2: talking about. If you actually, if you know, drop it
Speaker 2: on the commons down below, because I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 2: Maybe he thinks Biden. It might be Biden or Obama.
Speaker 2: Actually I bet I bet he's thinking Obama obviously, because
Speaker 2: you've got a new guard that's in charge. You just
Speaker 2: as head of the FBI, you tried to frame the
Speaker 2: sitting president for treason. So that's a pretty bad one.
Speaker 2: But there was also reports that he was in fact
Speaker 2: running a honeypot operation against Trump's camp or his cabinet
Speaker 2: back in like twenty sixteen. So he's done. He's a
Speaker 2: bad boy. He's done a lot of bad things. And
Speaker 2: I think that if General Flynn is right, yeah, he
Speaker 2: probably is looking at jail time. And this is going
Speaker 2: to be a really interesting, you know, paradigm shift in
Speaker 2: this country if we actually see you know, high level.
Speaker 2: I mean, you don't get much higher level than the
Speaker 2: head of the FBI, than the President of the United
Speaker 2: States that sees prison. If that happens, we're in a
Speaker 2: totally different world. I can't think of any time that
Speaker 2: we've seen a really high level official. I mean, we've
Speaker 2: seen congressmen get jail time. It's rare, but it does happen.
Speaker 2: But we've never really seen you know, presidents or heads
Speaker 2: of the FBI punished in any significant way. So I
Speaker 2: think that this is going to be really interesting. And
Speaker 2: what I what I find, you know, most troubling about this, Well,
Speaker 2: obviously I'm not I'm not afraid to see politicians go
Speaker 2: to jail or unelected bureaucracy go to jail. I've been
Speaker 2: saying that that's that's what we need for the longest time.
Speaker 2: What I'm most concerned about actually is the way it's
Speaker 2: going to be framed that instead of it being perceived
Speaker 2: as justice, the media apparatus is going to paint Trump
Speaker 2: as a dictator and his entire cabinet, all of his
Speaker 2: officials as dictators, you know, are behaving as fascists that
Speaker 2: you're locking up your political opponents, and it's going to
Speaker 2: be very it's going to be a very trying time
Speaker 2: in this country if this comes to pass, which I
Speaker 2: think it might, is that everybody who's a Democrat, who
Speaker 2: is totally bluepilled, who just doesn't actually dig deep on
Speaker 2: any of this stuff, is going to assume that what
Speaker 2: they're being told by Rachel Maddow is in fact the truth,
Speaker 2: that Trump is just going after his political opposition, and
Speaker 2: that this has nothing to do with justice, that this
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with their behavior what they've done
Speaker 2: that in fact is criminal. And I think that this
Speaker 2: is going to be a really trying time because how
Speaker 2: do you convince them that that's not what they're living through.
Speaker 2: I mean, these people already perceive Trump to be a fascist.
Speaker 2: They already perceive him to be this existential threat to
Speaker 2: their existence. If they start to see the Hillary Clintons
Speaker 2: or the Barack Obamas or the James Comers of the
Speaker 2: world go to prison, confirmation bias will come to the
Speaker 2: fore and they'll just be like, see told you this
Speaker 2: man is a dictator, he's a fascist. We've been warning you.
Speaker 2: And everybody else who's been paying attention is going to say, no,
Speaker 2: they tried to frame him for treason. They have to
Speaker 2: go to jail for this. How do you bridge that gap?
Speaker 2: And I don't know, I don't know how you bridge it,
Speaker 2: and especially living in the same country with one another,
Speaker 2: like I don't know how you coexist where we're celebrating
Speaker 2: as we see these criminals get put behind bars, and
Speaker 2: the other side is feeling as if criminals are putting
Speaker 2: innocent people behind bars. And what it's done to me
Speaker 2: is it's made me reflect on all these other times
Speaker 2: in human history where you've had dictators and or at
Speaker 2: least what I've been told were dictators. And I'm like,
Speaker 2: is there instances of portrayals of historical figures that were wrong,
Speaker 2: that were basically written the history book was written by
Speaker 2: the victor to portray them in a way that's not
Speaker 2: in fact accurate, that in fact the people they were
Speaker 2: going after were as guilty as former head of the
Speaker 2: FBI Comy I've been calling him Comber. I'm sorry, it's
Speaker 2: a congressman, senator. I don't know. I don't know if
Speaker 2: that's the case. Now I have to do more research. Now,
Speaker 2: I have to figure this out. It that's actually how
Speaker 2: much have I been lied to? I don't know, But
Speaker 2: I think that it's a really good example of like
Speaker 2: if in real time we can't have a meeting of
Speaker 2: the minds or come to some semblance of mutual agreement
Speaker 2: as to what's happening. I mean, this is happening now,
Speaker 2: and even now in real time, we have one hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty degree different perspectives on what we're seeing. I've
Speaker 2: described this before as the two worlds phenomenon. I'm sure
Speaker 2: I didn't coin that, but that's what one of my
Speaker 2: episodes was titled, and that's what we're living through. I mean,
Speaker 2: we have two different worlds totally separated from one another,
Speaker 2: and how do you bring those worlds together? Can you
Speaker 2: bring those worlds together? I'm not sure that you can.
Speaker 2: And if you start to see the heroes from one
Speaker 2: world thrown into prison by the villains of that same world,
Speaker 2: well then I think you deal with real chaos after that.
Speaker 2: So we're gonna see. We're gonna see how this plays out. Obviously,
Speaker 2: I think it's necessary if you wanna, if you want
Speaker 2: to have the unelected bureaucracy, the scare quotes deep state, uh,
Speaker 2: stop doing what they've been doing and undermining democracy, which
Speaker 2: is really what they've been doing, Well, then you have
Speaker 2: to jail them, are you, I mean you have to
Speaker 2: prosecute and convict and jail. I'm not I'm certainly not
Speaker 2: calling for him to just throw them all in jail.
Speaker 2: I would like to have the evidence presented to the public,
Speaker 2: and maybe if it's presented in a compelling way, you
Speaker 2: might be able to persuade people that, in fact, what
Speaker 2: Trump is doing is just. But I'm not sure. In fact,
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure you won't be able to convince them
Speaker 2: of that. I mean, we we all watched the trials
Speaker 2: that Trump was put through. Most of us paying attention
Speaker 2: came away going, well, these are very trumped up. You know.
Speaker 2: Oh he called called up that guy in Georgia and
Speaker 2: he said, you gotta find twelve thousand more votes or whatever.
Speaker 2: It's like, you're gonna put him in jail for decades
Speaker 2: over that. Really, okay, he lied, he lied about well,
Speaker 2: he didn't really lie, but he overstated, according to a judge,
Speaker 2: the value of one of his properties or some of
Speaker 2: his real estate portfolio. And then you look at it
Speaker 2: and it's like, no, the judge actually undervalued it and
Speaker 2: then accused him of being fraudulent by overvaluing it when
Speaker 2: he had dramatically undervalued it. So he's the one that's wrong.
Speaker 2: Trump wasn't. But regardless, Oh, we're gontaut him in jail
Speaker 2: for decades. What about the sexual assault case. It's like,
Speaker 2: if you actually listen to that lady talk. Were you convinced, Like,
Speaker 2: did he come across as convincing to you? Probably not
Speaker 2: if you're a Democrat watching, though absolutely believe all women.
Speaker 2: I guess my point is it's I just don't know
Speaker 2: how we're going to ever bring our collective mind back together.
Speaker 2: We're just we're bipolar. We're bipolar as a people, bipolar
Speaker 2: as a nation, and that can be dangerous, especially when
Speaker 2: you're the most wealthy, powerful military on the planet. How
Speaker 2: do you coexist? How do you survive that paradigm? I'm
Speaker 2: not sure. Shout out to Benny Johnson. He's had some
Speaker 2: great interviews, but this is with an FBI or former
Speaker 2: FBI agent whistleblower. Listen to what he has to say
Speaker 2: about what they're doing with their database.
Speaker 3: I'll give you a big one that that I heard recently,
Speaker 3: which was already passed on, is that there are FBI
Speaker 3: servers that are sort of stand alone, and people inside
Speaker 3: the FBI have been working night and day to destroy
Speaker 3: files on these servers. And I was told that once
Speaker 3: these files are destroyed the way they are set up,
Speaker 3: that even Elon Musk could not restore them.
Speaker 2: Now, obviously I don't have any confirmation that that's in
Speaker 2: fact true. However, Charlie Kirk has said that he has
Speaker 2: inside sources that are confirming the same. I find it
Speaker 2: all very fascinating. The timing is very interesting. Now, let
Speaker 2: me explain. Cash Ptel has said repeatedly that he intended
Speaker 2: to release the Epstein list on day one. Pam Bondi
Speaker 2: has said that the Epstein list was on her desk
Speaker 2: and she was reviewing, and that it was going to
Speaker 2: be released any day. Now, you have this entire task
Speaker 2: force of congressional representatives that are appointed to take on
Speaker 2: these disclosures. When it comes to MLK, RFKJFK and EPSTEIN,
Speaker 2: they are all clamoring for this information to be released
Speaker 2: to the public, at least that's what they're saying publicly.
Speaker 2: And then you have these reports that come out from
Speaker 2: the FBI whistleblower and others that are saying, in fact,
Speaker 2: FBI agents are actively scrubbing their database of this information.
Speaker 2: You have two possible explanations or three. One it's not true,
Speaker 2: that's always a possibility. Two it is true, and that
Speaker 2: they're trying to cover up because this was in fact
Speaker 2: some sort of intel operation between six CIA, Massade FBI
Speaker 2: who knows right. The third option and the one I
Speaker 2: lean towards, is that in fact this database has been
Speaker 2: scrubbed years ago, if this information has ever been even
Speaker 2: put together, if it wasn't a cover up since day one,
Speaker 2: and I think that's probably the most probable, given that
Speaker 2: there was clear bipartisan participants in the Epstein operation. And
Speaker 2: that's my greatest fear is that in fact all of
Speaker 2: this has been a put on, that they in fact
Speaker 2: do not intend to provide us this information because it
Speaker 2: has been covered up long ago, that this is now
Speaker 2: the cover story by which they get to say, hey,
Speaker 2: we promised to disclose this, but we couldn't because of
Speaker 2: these dirty FBI agents that are going against our will,
Speaker 2: but in fact are doing our bidding now. I hope
Speaker 2: that my jaded nature is too much, that it's overstated
Speaker 2: that in fact that's not what's happening, That in fact,
Speaker 2: Cash Betel and Pam Bondi and annapolinone A Luna and
Speaker 2: all these other representatives that are entrusted with this task
Speaker 2: force of Disclosure are in fact trying to deliver us
Speaker 2: this information, and in fact they are being stonewalled by
Speaker 2: the FBI, which is actively deleting these files as I
Speaker 2: speak to you, so I'll keep an open mind. Obviously,
Speaker 2: I can be proven one way or the other. If
Speaker 2: you deliver the information and it is compelling, well then
Speaker 2: I was wrong. You guys are actually trying to deliver
Speaker 2: us the truth, and that would be a great sign
Speaker 2: and a great effort in rebuilding trust with the public,
Speaker 2: which is desperately needed, given that you guys have lost
Speaker 2: our trust entirely, or at least in my case, entirely,
Speaker 2: as you can tell. So we're going to find out.
Speaker 2: But I think this is a really big story. And
Speaker 2: you know, people have been beating the drums to get
Speaker 2: this disclosed or released for over a decade. Now It's
Speaker 2: gotten really loud as of late, and I'm appreciative of that,
Speaker 2: But I don't think we can really overstate how big
Speaker 2: that story might be. I mean, if it is what
Speaker 2: it appears to be, that it is multiple intel agencies
Speaker 2: from multiple different countries that we're working in tandem to
Speaker 2: build compromunt to compromise not just politicians, but the highest
Speaker 2: levels of not just corporate America, but the corporate oligarchs
Speaker 2: all over the world, to try and get them to
Speaker 2: do their bidding. Well, let's say, really big deal, like,
Speaker 2: in fact, it doesn't get much bigger than that, And
Speaker 2: to be doing so in such a unbelievably criminal fashion,
Speaker 2: trafficking kids for purposes that I don't need to detail
Speaker 2: any further than that, it doesn't get any worse. Obviously,
Speaker 2: if my read of this is right, and that this
Speaker 2: was an Intel agency operation, well, what are the odds
Speaker 2: that they actually disclosed this to us? What are the
Speaker 2: odds that there weren't politicians that greenlit that I think
Speaker 2: they probably were? And are they gonna want that disclosed?
Speaker 2: Are they all Democrats? Are the Republicans really the opposition party?
Speaker 2: Are they really, like, just assuming that this was all
Speaker 2: started by a Democrat, do you think that the Republicans
Speaker 2: are genuinely their opposition and they're gonna genuinely disclose this
Speaker 2: and just burn these guys, just bury them in the
Speaker 2: public eye and possibly in criminal trials. I don't think so. Again,
Speaker 2: let me just repeat, I hope, I'm I need to
Speaker 2: be wrong. I want to be wrong. I want this
Speaker 2: information to be released, and I want the guilty parties
Speaker 2: to be prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. That's how we heal,
Speaker 2: but until I see it, I won't believe it. You know,
Speaker 2: I had Ryan on just a couple days ago, and
Speaker 2: he said, yeah, that list doesn't exist. Like he's like,
Speaker 2: I've put together through my own research, his own list,
Speaker 2: but in terms of like whether or not they've actually
Speaker 2: done this investigation and they just have it all sitting
Speaker 2: there with all the tapes of the compromised, you know,
Speaker 2: politicians and powerful people like he doesn't think. So we'll see,
Speaker 2: We'll see. I hope I'm wrong again. I hope, God,
Speaker 2: I hope. Here's part of the reason I'm hopeful. This
Speaker 2: is the new Deputy Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino,
Speaker 2: in one of his final shows before he took that position.
Speaker 4: Folks, I strongly encourage you to go back and take
Speaker 4: another look today at the Russia collusion hoax. I know
Speaker 4: it's a story that's old and a lot of people
Speaker 4: want to move on. I'm going to be stray with you.
Speaker 4: I don't want to move on. We had the FBI,
Speaker 4: in conjunction with the Department of Justice, officials in Congress,
Speaker 4: foreign governments, and intel people, fabricate a story, invent a
Speaker 4: story that could have caused and done serious long term
Speaker 4: harm to international relations with a nuclear powered foe. It's
Speaker 4: kind of a big freaking deal. I'm not letting it go.
Speaker 4: And you listen to me, this is going to be
Speaker 4: very important in the coming days. I'm not letting this go.
Speaker 4: I want to find out what happened, because it can
Speaker 4: never happen again, not to a Democrat, not to a Republican,
Speaker 4: not to a libertarian, not to any United States citizen.
Speaker 4: You do not get to alter or try to change
Speaker 4: the course of electoral politics by fabricating a story, hijacking
Speaker 4: the justice system. Then to give the patina of truth
Speaker 4: to a fake story. You don't get to do that.
Speaker 4: Why do I bring that up now? Because who is
Speaker 4: the ring master of that circus? Yes, Adam Schiff, and no,
Speaker 4: I'm not letting it go.
Speaker 2: So needless to say, that gives me some hope that
Speaker 2: the second in command at the FBI seems to have
Speaker 2: the same passion I do when it comes to pursuing
Speaker 2: those that were behind the Russian collusion narrative. And for
Speaker 2: the record, this is not about defending Trump. This is
Speaker 2: about defending our system, at least the justice aspects of
Speaker 2: our system. I think it's very important and close to
Speaker 2: as important as it gets. I mean, if you have
Speaker 2: the intel agencies which are entrusted with the monopoly on violence,
Speaker 2: incredible powers when it comes to spying and everything else
Speaker 2: that they do, just entrusted with so much by us.
Speaker 2: If they turn around and they create whole cloth as
Speaker 2: story like the Russian collusion narrative when it comes to
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, setting Trump aside, just imagine what that means
Speaker 2: for any other person whoever tries to get involved in politics.
Speaker 2: Do you think that it started and stopped with Donald
Speaker 2: Trump or do you think that this is a persistent issue,
Speaker 2: one that they feel very emboldened to carry out in
Speaker 2: the future if they don't pay a price. Now, well,
Speaker 2: the answer is obviously yes. This is not the first
Speaker 2: person and it will not be the last unless these
Speaker 2: systems are reformed and that justice is brought to bear. Now,
Speaker 2: Cash Betel and Dan Bongino know what you and I know.
Speaker 2: They know what transpired, they know who was involved, and
Speaker 2: they know how to actually prosecute these people. So will
Speaker 2: they will they? I hope? Again I hope. Now this
Speaker 2: is going to be an unpopular segment, but I have
Speaker 2: to point this out because Dan and Cash and Pam
Speaker 2: and everybody else. They come across very good when they
Speaker 2: talk about Democrat corruption. They don't come across very good
Speaker 2: when it has to do with another intell agency that
Speaker 2: doesn't work for our government. And you can guess who
Speaker 2: I'm talking about, but I'll show you some clips as
Speaker 2: to why his cabinet concerns me.
Speaker 5: Israel is one of our, if not our greatest ally
Speaker 5: in the world, and I'm so proud of what happened today.
Speaker 5: I've been to Israel twice as Attorney General and Jerusalem
Speaker 5: is the capital of Israel.
Speaker 2: So that was the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. Now it's
Speaker 2: here from the head and second in command of the FBI.
Speaker 6: What causes dear to your heart?
Speaker 4: Causes dear to my Israel, Defense of Israel.
Speaker 7: But as number one, we will shut off the machinery
Speaker 7: that feeds money into Iran. We will no longer have
Speaker 7: one hundred hostages still in captivity Israeli, An American and
Speaker 7: otherwise by Hamas and Iran's Hesbila mercenary forces. We need
Speaker 7: America to wake up and prioritize is and bring home
Speaker 7: Israelis and make sure we stand by our number one
Speaker 7: ally in Israel.
Speaker 2: So those are the three top cops in the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: head of the FBI, second head of the FBI, and
Speaker 2: the ag Attorney General. I mean that's I know, that's justice,
Speaker 2: but still like in terms of bringing justice, like those
Speaker 2: are the three people in trusted with the most power,
Speaker 2: and they're all hard in the paint Zionus. It's just
Speaker 2: the truth on top of that, I mean, even though
Speaker 2: it's less important. But Bobby Kennedy hhs. He's also he's
Speaker 2: called the Palestinians most pampered people on the planet, which
Speaker 2: is insane, which is while they were being bombarded he
Speaker 2: said that, which is an insane thing to say. Absolutely crazy.
Speaker 2: Tulsi Gavard's hardcore for them too. I could go on.
Speaker 2: It's it's all of them. It's his entire cabinet, including
Speaker 2: Trump himself, hardcore Zionists. Now, I've said many times and
Speaker 2: I hate I honestly, I wish that Israel wasn't even
Speaker 2: know Jewish, so I could just criticize this relationship without
Speaker 2: being accused of things, because my concern about this has
Speaker 2: nothing to do with the people that live there. It
Speaker 2: is strictly about the government of Israel and why our
Speaker 2: politicians show such fealty to them. Why why does it happen? Well,
Speaker 2: here's why it matters. Well, one, it's because we have
Speaker 2: the largest military on Earth, and so much of our
Speaker 2: wars over the past twenty years have been at the
Speaker 2: behest and the benefit, much to our non benefit, in
Speaker 2: the Middle East, have been for Israel. That's true. You
Speaker 2: could look up, i mean clean Break Doctrine all of
Speaker 2: the wars in the Middle East. Anytime it didn't make
Speaker 2: sense for us, who did it make sense for qui bono? Right,
Speaker 2: it's very simple. I could go through and show you
Speaker 2: all of the examples. But yeah, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,
Speaker 2: taking out Solemany, Syria. I mean, do you think that
Speaker 2: those were all just to get the oil? Which is
Speaker 2: what we always been told? No, it wasn't. It wasn't
Speaker 2: exactly that simple. I kind of wish it were, but
Speaker 2: it's not. It's not that simple. So why does it matter?
Speaker 8: Though?
Speaker 2: Beyond that, and that's enough for it to matter to you,
Speaker 2: The real reason it matters is that if I'm right
Speaker 2: about what the Epstein trafficking network was doing, well, it
Speaker 2: was being done almost certainly at the behest of Masad.
Speaker 2: Now why do I say that, because Robert Maxwell. It's
Speaker 2: very hard to say anything definitively because this is all
Speaker 2: like cloak and dagger type of stuff. This is all
Speaker 2: intell agency stuff. But Robert Maxwell, there's a tremendous amount
Speaker 2: of evidence. There's been books written about how he was
Speaker 2: almost certainly a MASSAD agent. He was buried on their
Speaker 2: mountain of olives or all of them. I don't know
Speaker 2: how to describe it. But at his funeral you had
Speaker 2: the former prime Minister and a bunch of IDF agents
Speaker 2: that were at his you know, at his grape site.
Speaker 2: Like that doesn't come across as just a regular guy
Speaker 2: to me. So if you assume, or if you assess
Speaker 2: as I have, that he was almost certainly working for Massad. Also,
Speaker 2: his death was very strange. He was killed and thrown
Speaker 2: off a boat. Anyways, Well, then his daughter was the
Speaker 2: right hand gal of Epstein. That's Gislaine Maxwell. She's in jail.
Speaker 2: As you know, or we assume, if I'm right, that
Speaker 2: this operation was being ran to build compromise or to
Speaker 2: compromise politicians not just in America but all across the world,
Speaker 2: as well as corporate figures and it was being done
Speaker 2: by the daughter of a Massad agent. Well, what does
Speaker 2: that lead you to believe? You have to connect some
Speaker 2: dots here. You can't say anything definitively, but it makes
Speaker 2: you think that he was probably or she and he
Speaker 2: Epstein were probably double or triple agents if they were
Speaker 2: working for CIA SO US or Massad aka Israel or
Speaker 2: six aka the UK don't. I don't know for sure
Speaker 2: on any of this, But the issue is that if
Speaker 2: we're trying to find out the truth, do you think
Speaker 2: Pam Bondi or Bongino or Patel are going to be
Speaker 2: comfortable disclosing that information if it in fact happened. The
Speaker 2: answer is no, They're probably not going to be willing to.
Speaker 2: This is why I don't understand. I mean, particularly when
Speaker 2: it comes to Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, Like maybe
Speaker 2: they're hardcore Evangeli evangelists like that believe all of the
Speaker 2: stuff that makes evangelists believe this that Israel comes as
Speaker 2: a top priority for them as a Christian. I don't
Speaker 2: think so with Patel Cash Patel really seems hard to believe.
Speaker 2: Bongino maybe I don't know his religion. This is why
Speaker 2: it matters, Like can you expect them to actually tell
Speaker 2: us the truth if I'm right about this And the
Speaker 2: answer is no. Now, that doesn't prove me right, but
Speaker 2: it does give us real cause for concern, real justifiable
Speaker 2: reason to say, hey, we're your loyalties. If it comes
Speaker 2: out that this was like crafted, hand crafted by Adam
Speaker 2: Shift and James Comy, I think that they would absolutely
Speaker 2: tell us and that they would put them in prison
Speaker 2: for the rest of their life, if not worse. But
Speaker 2: if it comes out that this was done by Komy
Speaker 2: and Shift and net Yahoo, then I don't think they're
Speaker 2: going to tell us the truth. I think this case
Speaker 2: will be buried. And if that doesn't bother you, why
Speaker 2: why does that not bother you? That American people, American
Speaker 2: representatives to you at the highest levels of power and
Speaker 2: just entrusted with like godlike abilities of spying and torture
Speaker 2: and all this other insane stuff that they shouldn't have
Speaker 2: the power to do, but they do. And you can't
Speaker 2: trust them to tell the truth when it comes to
Speaker 2: one nation, and that nation isn't your own. That bothers me.
Speaker 2: It does. And again, this is not about Jewish people.
Speaker 2: I do not care. It's about if This was if
Speaker 2: they had this type of relationship with China or say
Speaker 2: an ally the UK, if they were funneling billions of
Speaker 2: dollars into the UK, and if there was some sort
Speaker 2: of operation that was ran and it was then covered
Speaker 2: up on behalf of the UK, I would be equally bothered.
Speaker 2: It's not okay. So I just I hate having to
Speaker 2: like tiptoe around this topic because whatever you say, you're
Speaker 2: going to be accused of anti Semitism. Like literally, whatever
Speaker 2: you say, I could be like, I love Jewish people.
Speaker 2: I could preface it with that, and then I could
Speaker 2: say what I just said to you, and then at
Speaker 2: the end of that I will still be accused of
Speaker 2: anti Semitism. And it's like, that's fucking crazy. And this
Speaker 2: is why I believe that it is a smoke screen
Speaker 2: by which I'm supposed to shut up and just not
Speaker 2: and smile and say, oh nothing, say nothing about it.
Speaker 2: And if you, I mean, I spoke about Charlie Kirk earlier,
Speaker 2: or Benny Johnson for that matter, you talk about any
Speaker 2: of these high level conservative punnets, will they talk about this?
Speaker 2: The answer is no. And I understand why. I like,
Speaker 2: I get it. I do understand why you get dragged
Speaker 2: through the mud to even have this discussion. But I
Speaker 2: feel like I'm compelled to seek out the truth. And
Speaker 2: the truth is that many of our elected politicians and
Speaker 2: the entirety of Trump's cabinet have been just falling all
Speaker 2: over themselves to demonstrate their loyalty to Israel. These are
Speaker 2: American politicians. If it was any other nation, no one
Speaker 2: would accept that. If they were trying to demonstrate their
Speaker 2: loyalty to the UK or France or Russia or Canada
Speaker 2: or Mexico, you'd be like, what the fuck are you doing?
Speaker 2: Why are you why why are you talking like this?
Speaker 2: Why are you saying we have we have to prioritize Canada.
Speaker 2: You'd be like, get the fuck out of office. Then
Speaker 2: I don't want you there, Like the only thing that
Speaker 2: I want you to focus on is America and making
Speaker 2: sure that we're you know, prosperous and free and secure.
Speaker 2: And that's it, right, not even secure. I don't even
Speaker 2: really care about that. There's prosperous and free. Can you
Speaker 2: do that? Then you're on my team? And do you
Speaker 2: trust them to do that? No, you can't. You can't
Speaker 2: trust them to do that. And I've said I've spoken
Speaker 2: very positively about Cash Betel and Tulci and orf k
Speaker 2: Junior aunt Trump. I haven't really talked about Bongino, but
Speaker 2: I like him too. There's no there's no ill will here.
Speaker 2: I'm not like. I'm not saying that these people are
Speaker 2: all bad people, like I don't even know if they
Speaker 2: believe this stuff. I don't like, how can I know
Speaker 2: their heart? I don't know for sure. Maybe they just
Speaker 2: do what they're what they have to do because they
Speaker 2: want to do good. Like I get that. That's a
Speaker 2: really fair argument to make. It'd be like if Ron
Speaker 2: Paul ran as a Republican and he got in the
Speaker 2: government as a libertarian. Oh he did that. Like so
Speaker 2: people do that sometimes. I don't expect you to always
Speaker 2: tell me the truth, especially if it's damaging to your
Speaker 2: political career. But I expect you to do good at
Speaker 2: the end of the day. And as long as you
Speaker 2: do good, then I'll shut the fuck up about this.
Speaker 2: I don't really care if you want to give lip
Speaker 2: service to your loyalty test Israel, fine, as long as
Speaker 2: when you get in there, if you find anything as
Speaker 2: unbelievably evil as a child trafficking ring for the rich
Speaker 2: and powerful all over the world, and it leads you
Speaker 2: back to that nation, Well you better fucking say so,
Speaker 2: and it better change our relationship with that government and
Speaker 2: particularly those that Intel agency. Can you do that? Can
Speaker 2: you deliver on that promise? Well? If you can, then
Speaker 2: I will be totally quiet. But if you can't, well
Speaker 2: then all of my fears were justified that in fact
Speaker 2: it wasn't lip service. We're going to find out, and
Speaker 2: again I hope to be proven wrong.
Speaker 5: I want to know why A. G. Garland and the
Speaker 5: Justice Department are so quiet on this tonight. You know
Speaker 5: they're out there labeling parents domestic terrorist, yet they're saying
Speaker 5: nothing about this, and these documents were so slow to
Speaker 5: come out. Human trafficking is a multi billion dollar business
Speaker 5: in this country. And Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Gerlaine
Speaker 5: Maxwell is in prison for twenty years where she belongs.
Speaker 5: And if people in that report are still fighting to
Speaker 5: keep their names private, Sean, they have no legal basis
Speaker 5: to do so unless they're a child, a victim, or
Speaker 5: a cooperating defendant by some chance against some potential case
Speaker 5: against Gerlaine Maxwell. And I think mark Geragos as a
Speaker 5: great criminal defense attorney will back that up as well.
Speaker 2: So that's Attorney General Panmi before she was the Attorney
Speaker 2: General just a couple of years ago, just destroying Merrick
Speaker 2: Garland for slow rolling this information. She is now in
Speaker 2: the same position as Merrick Garland and she is now
Speaker 2: slow rolling this information. Now, again, this is very early on.
Speaker 2: I understand that I am being overly demanding, perhaps, but
Speaker 2: it has been years, years that this information has been
Speaker 2: held by the government. So how long will it take?
Speaker 2: And if you disclose this information and it doesn't actually
Speaker 2: convince us that it's the full story, that you actually
Speaker 2: have done all of the research that this deserves, or
Speaker 2: of the most egregious cases of criminality that I've ever
Speaker 2: heard of. If you don't actually seek and deliver justice
Speaker 2: on this, well I'm going to assume that you are
Speaker 2: not doing your job and you are not going to
Speaker 2: re earn I trust as people that are interested in justice.
Speaker 2: It's only been thirty five days. You've only got confirmed
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks ago. But the promises you guys
Speaker 2: gave over and over again, Day one, day one, all right,
Speaker 2: it's day thirty five. You got confirmed a couple of
Speaker 2: weeks ago. When give us a real timeline, give us
Speaker 2: an explanation as to why you aren't delivering delivering this
Speaker 2: information yet. What is the hold up? We don't know.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna I'm gonna continue to have patients a
Speaker 2: little bit longer. But the clock is ticking. We need answers.
Speaker 2: Let's pivot to some more positive news. Here's Trump talking
Speaker 2: about the negotiations with Russia. As always, Libertylockdown has brought
Speaker 2: to you by my pillow dot com. If you need
Speaker 2: a new mattress, a mattress topper, you need some slippers,
Speaker 2: need to be uh cool as hell like Mike Lindell,
Speaker 2: cools hell like Mekelendello that flows. If you need a
Speaker 2: new pillow. If you need a new pillow, you should
Speaker 2: definitely go to my pillow dot com slash lockdown. If
Speaker 2: you want look you if you run along cozy, you
Speaker 2: got to go to my pillow And if you love
Speaker 2: Liberty Lockdown, easiest way to support the show is just
Speaker 2: go buy some cozy stuff from my pillow, my pillow
Speaker 2: dot com promo code lockdown or mypollo dot com slash
Speaker 2: lockdown links in the description grab you some cozy, let's gozy.
Speaker 4: What concessions.
Speaker 8: Would you like to see?
Speaker 9: Oh, I don't want to stud right now, but I
Speaker 9: can tell you that NATO you can forget about. That's
Speaker 9: been I think that's probably the reason the whole thing started.
Speaker 9: And I think JD, we can say that, what do
Speaker 9: you have a statement on that?
Speaker 10: Even very much involved, they came into the beating.
Speaker 2: Maybe the hardest questions.
Speaker 11: I mean, look, as the President said, We're not gonna
Speaker 11: do the negotiation in public with the American media. He's
Speaker 11: going to do it in private with the President of Russia,
Speaker 11: with the President of Ukraine and with other leaders. And
Speaker 11: I think that's how this has.
Speaker 2: To go now. Needless to say, I like the fact
Speaker 2: that they are talking about peace. I like the fact
Speaker 2: that they are talking about negotiating. But most importantly I
Speaker 2: like that he said you can forget about NATO. That
Speaker 2: that's probably what got this war started. To have the
Speaker 2: President say that is a big deal. And NATO expansion
Speaker 2: is clearly a big factor. I'm not saying it's the
Speaker 2: only factor. I'm not saying that Putin was justified in
Speaker 2: invading as a consequence of NATO's expansion. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: it was the primary driving catalyst the provocation that led
Speaker 2: to Putin's decision to do what he did. And it's
Speaker 2: very important that he's willing to say that and to
Speaker 2: take Ukraine's admission into NATO off of the table, so
Speaker 2: by you can then negotiate peace. And I think that's
Speaker 2: that's probably what we're going to see. Now here's where
Speaker 2: I get concerned though, and this mineral deal.
Speaker 10: What does Ukraine get internals three hundred and fifty billion
Speaker 10: dollars and lots of equipment and military equipment and the
Speaker 10: right to fight on and originally the right to fight. Look, Ukraine,
Speaker 10: I will say they're very brave and they're good soldiers.
Speaker 9: But without the United States and it's money and it's
Speaker 9: military equipment, this war would have been over in a
Speaker 9: very short period of time.
Speaker 2: So for those that are in the dork, Zelensky came
Speaker 2: out last week, a couple days ago and he said,
Speaker 2: I don't know you all, shit, I don't know you
Speaker 2: a penny. Well I don't know if he said a penny,
Speaker 2: but basically they were asking him, you know, are you
Speaker 2: going to pay back America? Are you going to pay
Speaker 2: back the rest of NATO for all of the hundreds
Speaker 2: of billions that you've you've received, and he said these
Speaker 2: were grants, these were not loans. Now I think some
Speaker 2: of that's true. Some of that was grants, but some
Speaker 2: of it was loans. But regardless, Trump isn't playing that.
Speaker 2: He's like, I didn't negotiate these deals. I want your
Speaker 2: mineral rights as compensation for the hundreds of billions that
Speaker 2: we sent your way. And Zelenski has so far been
Speaker 2: telling him no. So Trump is now trying to negotiate
Speaker 2: to get mineral rights to you know, rare earth mineral deposits.
Speaker 2: I don't know exactly what they can consist of, but
Speaker 2: I know that they're very valuable, and he would like
Speaker 2: to have some return on our investment via those minerals.
Speaker 2: It's like, all right, look, I opposed the war, I
Speaker 2: oppose the aid, but I would also like to get
Speaker 2: some benefit to our country. So I'm not going to
Speaker 2: like oppose it entirely, especially if it's to be agreed upon. Fine,
Speaker 2: here's the issue. What he says right after that, though,
Speaker 2: is that this gives them the ability to fight da
Speaker 2: da dah. But here's the key phrase, it gives them
Speaker 2: the ability to fight on that doesn't come across as
Speaker 2: someone who's actually negotiating towards peace, Now does it? I mean,
Speaker 2: if you're interested in peace, you probably don't want to
Speaker 2: keep fighting. Now, I'm not naive. I do understand that
Speaker 2: you have to have a meaningful threat there by which
Speaker 2: there you can then have leverage or at least some
Speaker 2: power by which you can say, hey, if you want
Speaker 2: this war to end, it's not going to just be conquest.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have to negotiate here. So there could be
Speaker 2: you know, a piece through strength type of argument to
Speaker 2: be had here. And maybe that's what he's doing, and
Speaker 2: if so, great, but if not, if we have two options.
Speaker 2: One option is we get mineral rights to get you know,
Speaker 2: recoup some of the hundreds of billions that we ship
Speaker 2: to Ukraine, or we get peace. Well, I'm going with peace.
Speaker 2: That is my priority here. You may feel differently, That's fine,
Speaker 2: tell me why I'm wrong, But that's my priority. If
Speaker 2: you can get both, all the better. Totally happy with that.
Speaker 2: But my fear is that you could end up with
Speaker 2: the mineral rights and continued war, and that would be
Speaker 2: really bad, really really really bad, because I do not
Speaker 2: want to see further escalations with Russia, So I just
Speaker 2: want to keep our eye on the prize. During the campaign,
Speaker 2: do you remember Trump going around the country talking about
Speaker 2: how we were going to get paid back via mineral
Speaker 2: rights in Ukraine for our hundreds of billions that we
Speaker 2: ship to them, or do you remember him saying I
Speaker 2: want people to stop dying, I'll negotiate peace on day one?
Speaker 2: It was the latter. That promise was made repeatedly. I
Speaker 2: intend to hold Donald Trump to that, and I hope
Speaker 2: you'll join me in that, not to be unappreciative, not
Speaker 2: to be overly demanding, but rather to expect our representatives
Speaker 2: to deliver on what they promised. He promised that repeatedly,
Speaker 2: didn't have anything to do with mineral rights. So I'm
Speaker 2: the price here Trump. Let's go. Well, we're in the
Speaker 2: critiquing Trump Trump area. Let's talk about Canada. This is
Speaker 2: very interesting.
Speaker 10: Can I shift our attention to Canada?
Speaker 8: R Yes.
Speaker 6: Last week I spent some time with two government officials
Speaker 6: for Canada that has asked them, how realistic is it
Speaker 6: that Canada.
Speaker 2: Would be the fifty first state? Yeah, and they told
Speaker 2: me there is a path. Alberta is first in a
Speaker 2: bayside on saskatchewe would follow and then you go west
Speaker 2: to Bridge along get it. There is a movement in
Speaker 2: Canada to join us. Want to get your bots on
Speaker 2: that and how that's proceding.
Speaker 9: So it's true, Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 10: It's true.
Speaker 9: So a lot of people in Canada liking becoming our beautiful,
Speaker 9: cherished fifty first state. They'll have to pay much lower taxes,
Speaker 9: they'll have the ultimate security. You know, they don't pay
Speaker 9: very much for security right now because they rely on us.
Speaker 2: Now, I'm sure there are some Canadians that wouldn't mind
Speaker 2: being the fifty first state. Alberta, from my understanding, is
Speaker 2: the more conservative area within Canada and or province. Therefore
Speaker 2: maybe they would be on board. But the vast majority
Speaker 2: of Canadians, I think are highly patriotic and have no
Speaker 2: interest in becoming the fifty first state of America and
Speaker 2: losing their sovereignty. So I think that Trump continues to
Speaker 2: control on this issue. But the fact that it has
Speaker 2: persisted for months now continues to give me pause as
Speaker 2: if maybe this is more serious, and I hope not,
Speaker 2: because if you intend to have them become the fifty
Speaker 2: first state, given how they've voted in the past Trudeau
Speaker 2: being their current prime minister. My god, do you really
Speaker 2: want to add these people? No disrespect to the good
Speaker 2: Canadians that exists, and there's millions of them, but let's
Speaker 2: be honest in terms of a voting block, they're not
Speaker 2: very American, Like, are they big on the Bill of Rights?
Speaker 2: Are they really interested in gun rights? Free speech for
Speaker 2: that matter, bodily autonomy the Canadians. No, they may say
Speaker 2: that they are, but actually if you look what happened
Speaker 2: during lockdown era in the twenty twenty twenty twenty one
Speaker 2: area or arena, no, they were not. They were not
Speaker 2: very American. Now, we weren't very American either during that period,
Speaker 2: so maybe I'm overstating it. I hope i am. Anyways,
Speaker 2: Point is not interested in expanding, Okay, I don't want
Speaker 2: fucking Mexico. I don't want Panama Canal. I don't want
Speaker 2: Greenland or Iceland or Canada or China or anybody else.
Speaker 2: I just want to focus on getting our budget in order,
Speaker 2: and this gives me a good opportunity to tangent Briefly.
Speaker 2: The new spending bill was passed yesterday, with one Republican
Speaker 2: deciding to go against it and guess who that was.
Speaker 2: Oh it was Thomas Massey. Yeah, you could already guess that, right,
Speaker 2: And he is once again being pilloried as the rhino,
Speaker 2: despite the fact that he's the only one who's not
Speaker 2: a rhino, who's actually interested in fiscal solvency. And here's
Speaker 2: what he said. He said that on this current budget
Speaker 2: and what it would do to the deficit or to
Speaker 2: the national debt, it would wreck another twenty trillion in
Speaker 2: national debt over the next decade, I think he said, yeah,
Speaker 2: over the next decade. So that would put us at
Speaker 2: fifty seven trillion dollars by the year twenty thirty five. Now,
Speaker 2: if you think our national debt is unsustainable, now imagine
Speaker 2: how unsustainable it would be in a decade from now
Speaker 2: on this current path. So he voted no, and he
Speaker 2: and he's being brutalized for it, as he normally is.
Speaker 2: But this has been his sticking point for the longest time.
Speaker 2: He will not vote for a spending bill unless it
Speaker 2: cut spending and cuts the deficit. This doesn't, it grows it.
Speaker 2: And this is totally counter to what you know, Trump
Speaker 2: and many of the other Republicans have ran on that, Yeah,
Speaker 2: we're gonna we're gonna, you know, the adults are back
Speaker 2: in charge. We're gonna get our spending ounder control. Well,
Speaker 2: no they're not. It was voted for almost unanimously, almost
Speaker 2: by the GOP. I mean it only got passed by
Speaker 2: like a vote or two. And uh, I just think
Speaker 2: this is this is evidence that, you know, our job
Speaker 2: isn't done yet, Like we need to continue to get
Speaker 2: more and more of the rhinos out and more and more.
Speaker 2: Thomas Massey's in we need more people that actually take
Speaker 2: this seriously. And to Elon's credit as the you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know if he's the head of DOZE, but whatever,
Speaker 2: he's his his role in DOGE, the Department of Governmental Efficiency.
Speaker 2: He responded to Massey's uh, you know protests by saying,
Speaker 2: this is concerning you know, when he was talking about
Speaker 2: how this is gonna explode the national debt. The Elon's
Speaker 2: repeated claim has been the entire reason he got involved,
Speaker 2: The entire reason that he's doing this DOGE thing is
Speaker 2: because he knows that our national debt isn't sustainable and
Speaker 2: that we will be insolvent as a consequence. So when
Speaker 2: he sees this spending bill, it's basically fighting against what
Speaker 2: he's trying to do. His belief is that if we
Speaker 2: can cut fifteen percent of the spending through by going
Speaker 2: after waste and fraud, then we can actually balance the budget.
Speaker 2: But if you continue to increase the budget, well, then
Speaker 2: no you can't. You're going to have to cut more
Speaker 2: than that. And do you really think that there's more
Speaker 2: than fifteen percent waist in fraud? Well? Probably, but can
Speaker 2: you prove that and can you cut that with a
Speaker 2: scalpel to actually get it right? Probably not. So we
Speaker 2: need Congress to be on board with actually cutting spending,
Speaker 2: and as of now, given the vote yesterday, they're not.
Speaker 2: Clearly they're not. And what's most infuriating is that the
Speaker 2: way that they marketed to the people was that it
Speaker 2: was going to remove taxes on overtime, taxes on Social Security,
Speaker 2: and taxes on tips. Well, they can't do it that way.
Speaker 2: They need to have standalone legislation that does that, because
Speaker 2: this does not affect tax policy based off of my
Speaker 2: reading of coverage of the bill, so it was basically
Speaker 2: a lie. I don't think it actually accomplishes that. I
Speaker 2: hope I'm proven wrong, but as of now, I think
Speaker 2: they're going to have to pass additional legislation to cut
Speaker 2: these taxes on people. Now. I hope they do that,
Speaker 2: and yes, I understand that that adds to the deficit,
Speaker 2: but I am still a libertarian, and I believe that
Speaker 2: taxation is theft and any cuts and taxes are preferable,
Speaker 2: like that's what we want. But I would also like
Speaker 2: to see our country stay solvent, not so much because
Speaker 2: I believe in the social safety net or anything else,
Speaker 2: but because people have paid end to this system, particularly
Speaker 2: social Security, and they now rely on it. And if
Speaker 2: you can't make good on that promise, you're gonna have chaos,
Speaker 2: absolute chaos. So, especially for the elderly, it just feels
Speaker 2: totally immoral to rug pull them after paying into it
Speaker 2: their entire lives and just say, oh, you get nothing.
Speaker 2: I know this may be unpopular to some libertarians, but
Speaker 2: I think it's true. I mean, if you're taxed with
Speaker 2: the understanding that you're going to get this money back
Speaker 2: when you're retired, are you not owed that? I think
Speaker 2: you are. I don't even necessarily perceive it as a tax,
Speaker 2: given that, like, you're paying into the system with an
Speaker 2: expectation that you're going to get it back. Now it's mandatory,
Speaker 2: so I guess it's I don't know what the better
Speaker 2: term for it is, but anyways, I don't support some security,
Speaker 2: but for those that have paid into it for decades
Speaker 2: and decades or fifty years in some cases, yeah, you
Speaker 2: deserve that money back. Fuck, yeah you do. So. I
Speaker 2: just think that Congress continues to demonstrate that it does
Speaker 2: not have the level of seriousness that Thomas Massey or
Speaker 2: Elon Musk do, and that includes Donald Trump. He doesn't
Speaker 2: have the seriousness in this either, because he endorsed this
Speaker 2: spending bill. So we need to have a real adult
Speaker 2: moment here and a real conversation about how serious the
Speaker 2: situation is and what we're going to do about it.
Speaker 2: And are you guys the party that actually stands for
Speaker 2: fiscal sanity, because as of now it doesn't look so.
Speaker 2: Apologies for the lengthy tangent there. I want to get
Speaker 2: back into Canada. Here's Christia Freeland.
Speaker 8: The US is turning predator, and so what Canada needs
Speaker 8: to do is work closely with our democratic allies, our
Speaker 8: military allies. I've been foreign minister. I know how to
Speaker 8: do that. That's why I would start with our Nordic partners,
Speaker 8: specifically Denmark, which is also being threatened, and our European
Speaker 8: NATO allies. I would be sure that France and Britain
Speaker 8: were there who possess nuclear weapons, and I would be
Speaker 8: working urgently with those partners to build a closer security
Speaker 8: relationship that guarantees our security in a time when the
Speaker 8: United States can be a three.
Speaker 2: The US is turning predator according to the former foreign
Speaker 2: minister to Canada, and she is now running for Prime minister,
Speaker 2: might I add, and she's talking about creating a new
Speaker 2: defensive alliance between basically NATO without America, saying that we're
Speaker 2: turning predator and that we can be a threat. Now
Speaker 2: I understand from a Canadian perspective why they would feel
Speaker 2: that way, and particularly given Trump's rhetoric. And this is
Speaker 2: why I don't support his rhetoric on this issue. Obviously,
Speaker 2: I don't expect Trump to be invading Canada anytime soon,
Speaker 2: and I don't think the American people would support that
Speaker 2: at all, at least I hope not. My god, I
Speaker 2: hope not. But this is, you know, potentially their next
Speaker 2: prime minister. You know, I find that hard to believe,
Speaker 2: given that she walked arm in arm with Trudeau, and
Speaker 2: Trudeau is not beloved in Canada. To put it mildly,
Speaker 2: but I would have never expected Trudeau to stay in
Speaker 2: there as long as possible, so god knows what could
Speaker 2: happen anyways, point being, what if she does end up
Speaker 2: being prime minister and she's working with our former allies
Speaker 2: to basically create a trade block and a security block
Speaker 2: that is oppositional to the United States. That's not exactly ideal, now,
Speaker 2: is it. I would say, no, it's not so now
Speaker 2: I'm not interested in having entangling alliances, but I'm also
Speaker 2: not interested in becoming enemies with all these countries. And
Speaker 2: I feel like that's because of Trump's rhetoric. That's more
Speaker 2: the direction we're headed in now. I like most of
Speaker 2: his rhetoric, and I like that he pisses people off,
Speaker 2: so don't get me wrong. However, sometimes it can go
Speaker 2: the wrong way right, and I think that this may
Speaker 2: be an instance where you might want to moderate a
Speaker 2: little bit. You might want to figure out what actually
Speaker 2: is the end goal here, And unfortunately I don't really know,
Speaker 2: Like I don't know what Trump's angling for. Maybe you do,
Speaker 2: maybe you have a better understanding, but like if you
Speaker 2: take him at face value, it looks like he's angling
Speaker 2: to make America consist of the entire western hemisphere potentially,
Speaker 2: and maybe that is the goal. Maybe, I mean, especially
Speaker 2: with you know, if he wants to bolster his legs
Speaker 2: and go down as like some sort of conquering hero,
Speaker 2: I guess you could argue that's what he's actually angling for.
Speaker 2: I tend to think that's not what he's doing. But
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, I don't really understand
Speaker 2: if it's a bluff and you're just trying to negotiate
Speaker 2: to get border security, which is what I tend to
Speaker 2: believe he's doing. Like do you have to go so
Speaker 2: hard in the paint? Do you have to talk consistently
Speaker 2: about making them the fifty first state? That seems a
Speaker 2: little bit excessive. Now, if you want to do it
Speaker 2: once to reframe the debate and get people thinking differently
Speaker 2: about these issues and get them to the negotiating table, fine,
Speaker 2: If you're going to continue to do it for months,
Speaker 2: I mean, you've now been the president for over a month.
Speaker 2: You started doing this in mid if not early December.
Speaker 2: We're like two and a half months, almost three months
Speaker 2: deep into you talking about Canada becoming the fifty first state, Like,
Speaker 2: of course this is going to piss people off. Of course,
Speaker 2: how mad do you want to make them? I mean,
Speaker 2: when you're negotiating, yes you do want to have leverage,
Speaker 2: and yes you do want to get people the negotiating table,
Speaker 2: but once you get them to the negotiating table, it's
Speaker 2: usually not advisable to insult them. And just so you see,
Speaker 2: I'm being fair minded on this same thing with uh,
Speaker 2: you know Zelensky I was critiquing him for this, or
Speaker 2: criticizing him harshly for this, is that he was saying,
Speaker 2: you know, he was insulting Trump's intelligence, saying he's just
Speaker 2: a wash and misinformation. And Jade Vance even pointed out,
Speaker 2: he said, what are you doing, Like that's not the
Speaker 2: way you negotiate with Donald Trump. Well, now I'm going
Speaker 2: to tell Donald Trump that's not the way that you
Speaker 2: negotiate with our neighbors either, Like you can't just insult
Speaker 2: these people to the end of the earth and then
Speaker 2: expect them to want to negotiate a fair deal here
Speaker 2: or border of security or having any sort of you know,
Speaker 2: reduction of tariffs, Like you're just being intentionally provocative to
Speaker 2: the point that you're not going to get the best
Speaker 2: deal for us. So I know he's mister art of
Speaker 2: the deal. And I'm just a you know, novice podcaster,
Speaker 2: Like I ran a serious business I know, I know
Speaker 2: business negotiations. I do have a college degree in business.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, not that college degrees matter. The real the
Speaker 2: real schooling was actually when I did it to the
Speaker 2: dunes of millions of dollars, that's what matters. So I'm
Speaker 2: just telling you, as a former business professional and negotiator myself,
Speaker 2: this is not I think this is misguided. I really do.
Speaker 2: And I'm not really interested in going to war with
Speaker 2: the Canadians, even though we would win easily. Don't get
Speaker 2: a twisted Canada. We got your number. But I don't
Speaker 2: see that's joking, that's not me actually being provocative. I
Speaker 2: just don't think this is a good way to negotiate.
Speaker 2: I really don't. And if you see an angle that
Speaker 2: makes this a good negotiating tactic, drop in the chat
Speaker 2: down below you tell me what I'm missing here, because
Speaker 2: it just seems nutty to me. And this is the leverage,
Speaker 2: like this is the real deal leverage that the United
Speaker 2: States has over Canada. This is one of their finance
Speaker 2: people talking about it. They are in dire straits.
Speaker 12: In the case of a trade war, there's no bounce back.
Speaker 12: If you introduce tariffs, the economy works less efficiently. We
Speaker 12: don't get those economies of scale. Businesses can't grow their
Speaker 12: businessusiness is by growing their exports to the United States,
Speaker 12: so they're going to invest less. There's going to be
Speaker 12: less production, incomes will be lower in Canada. And unless
Speaker 12: we introduce a new structural shock, some structural reform that
Speaker 12: boosts our potential output but boost supply, there's no bounce back.
Speaker 12: So what that means, you know, for monetary policy, we can't.
Speaker 12: We can't change that reality. The economy is going to
Speaker 12: a permanently lower path. So the only thing we can
Speaker 12: do is we can help smooth the painful economic adjustment
Speaker 12: to tariffs. But even there, monetary policy is constrained because
Speaker 12: we have to make sure that the tariff problem doesn't
Speaker 12: become an inflation problem. So what that means is you're
Speaker 12: not looking like a COVID type response. We're going to
Speaker 12: have to proceed quite carefully. We're going to have to
Speaker 12: balance the Yes, there will be downward pressure on inflation
Speaker 12: from the from the weakness in the economy. But there's
Speaker 12: going to be also upward pressures from higher import costs,
Speaker 12: a weaker Canadian dollar, supply, inevitable supply chain disruptions that
Speaker 12: will all increase cost and that'll put upward pressure on inflation.
Speaker 12: So we're not we're not. I mean, when I was
Speaker 12: really trying to convey in my remark, todaies, we're not
Speaker 12: thinking of a COVID type response here.
Speaker 2: So that's the head of the Bank of Canada and
Speaker 2: that's basically like the chair of the Federal Reserve for Canada.
Speaker 2: Let me cut through the accountant and economists speak at
Speaker 2: Kingsian economists speak and just tell you what he's saying there.
Speaker 2: He's saying we're fucked, like he said like longer than
Speaker 2: he's like, we're so, guys, we're so fucked a because
Speaker 2: he's a Canadian. Uh, they're in serious shit, Like you
Speaker 2: don't just think about the soft pedaling that the Federal
Speaker 2: Reserve chairs do. You know, we expect headwinds like that's
Speaker 2: the that's the worst thing they'll ever say. And they're
Speaker 2: hesitant to even say that because they understand in their
Speaker 2: position of authority and power that if you say that,
Speaker 2: just just their words will actually shift the market, like
Speaker 2: it'll hurt the market. You'll see sell offs because of
Speaker 2: what they have to say. So the fact that this
Speaker 2: guy is saying that that is about as strong a
Speaker 2: statement as you will ever hear from a central banker
Speaker 2: like ever. And what he's saying, just to put it
Speaker 2: in less profane but more understandable language, is that because
Speaker 2: of the tariffs. So I've did this research on a
Speaker 2: prior episode, but if I recall correctly, seventy percent of
Speaker 2: their exports of Canadian exports go to the United States,
Speaker 2: that is enormous. That is an enormous amount of their
Speaker 2: market share. So if you have a tariff war with
Speaker 2: the United States and you can no longer export seventy
Speaker 2: percent of your goods, now it's not going to be all,
Speaker 2: but it'll be a big chunk because they're no longer
Speaker 2: you know, competitive price wise. Well, what happens to your economy. Well,
Speaker 2: what he's saying is that you're going to produce less,
Speaker 2: that you're gonna have less capital investment into these businesses
Speaker 2: that had been exporting, and you will see lower wages
Speaker 2: and consistently lower wages, which is a depression. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's a decrease in GDP for Canada. And then he's
Speaker 2: asked or then he's just talking and thinking out loud
Speaker 2: about well, what can we do in terms of monetary policy. Well,
Speaker 2: we can't do much because the tariffs from America when
Speaker 2: it comes to the import or the imports from America
Speaker 2: into their economy, well, there will be tariffs on those
Speaker 2: that'll put upward price or upward you know, pressures on
Speaker 2: prices to the consumer. So then what will you do
Speaker 2: ubi you just flood the system with cash. Well, then
Speaker 2: you have inflation problems, which is already you're already feeling
Speaker 2: price inflation because of the tariffs from the United States side.
Speaker 2: So then what you have wages, you have increased prices.
Speaker 2: That's stagflation or depression inflation, where you actually have a
Speaker 2: depression or GDP is dropping over multiple quarters significantly and
Speaker 2: and you have inflation. It's the worst case scenario. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is what central bankers fear more than anything is
Speaker 2: deflation and uh, I mean it's really not deflation, it's
Speaker 2: inflation with uh, you know, depression level economy or GDP.
Speaker 2: So this is why they normally just turn on the
Speaker 2: printing press and they say, fuck it, we're gonna hyper
Speaker 2: inflate instead, like we're not. We're not going the route of, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, deep depreciating assets because they're bankers at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, and they want to maintain their
Speaker 2: purchasing power and they own hard assets. So that's how.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it's just I just wanted to make
Speaker 2: you guys aware, like Canada, like the highest level economists
Speaker 2: over there is saying this is no joke, like they
Speaker 2: are in serious shit. And yes, America will feel it too,
Speaker 2: no doubt, especially when it comes to tariffs, like we're
Speaker 2: going to feel it. There's not it's not going to
Speaker 2: be all sunshine and rainbows. But this has been my
Speaker 2: point all along to the libertarians that just oppose tariffs
Speaker 2: and tariff wars and negotiations using tariffs entirely, I've been saying, look,
Speaker 2: I think you're really under selling how significant the American
Speaker 2: economy is, particularly to our neighbors Mexico and Canada. So
Speaker 2: if you think that we can't win these negotiations, definitely wrong.
Speaker 2: Like you can win these negotiations because we have immense
Speaker 2: leverage over Canada and Mexico in particular. So my expectation
Speaker 2: is that given the warning from the head of the
Speaker 2: Bank of Canada that if the Canadian political class has
Speaker 2: any sense of sanity whatsoever, they're going to come to
Speaker 2: the negotiating table and say, look, we understand the leverage
Speaker 2: that you have over us. We're not going to get
Speaker 2: taken to the woodshed, but we are willing to negotiate
Speaker 2: to avoid, you know, complete destruction of our economy. We'll
Speaker 2: see if it happens. But this is this is why
Speaker 2: it ties back into my my question earlier as to
Speaker 2: like what is Trump's actual end goal here? And I
Speaker 2: can't tell because the hard the hard ball that he
Speaker 2: is playing right now is so significant that like genuinely
Speaker 2: he can just destroy Canada economically, Like he has that capacity.
Speaker 2: And my fear is that his his base, his supporters
Speaker 2: are just so die hard for him, and they don't
Speaker 2: really give a fuck about Canada. And I don't really
Speaker 2: give a fuck about Canada to be honest, no disrespect
Speaker 2: to the Canadians. Like my priority is America, Like that's
Speaker 2: that's obviously my priority, but like I would rather not
Speaker 2: spiral our neighbors into a depression. You know, like, that's
Speaker 2: that's not my ideal outcome here. Like my ideal outcome
Speaker 2: is can we negotiate them securing their borders and and
Speaker 2: negotiate lowering their TIFFs and have a little bit more
Speaker 2: free trade and a little bit more secure border and
Speaker 2: I don't know, maybe get rid of Trudeau, like okay,
Speaker 2: that would kind of be my ideal glide path here.
Speaker 2: As of now, it seems like we're going to have
Speaker 2: a massive trade war and just spiral Canada into a
Speaker 2: nineteen thirties dust bowl depression. Scary times, especially for Canadians.
Speaker 2: I feel so bad for you guys, because you've already
Speaker 2: been stripped up all your rights and if your economy
Speaker 2: goes to shit, like oh, it's going to be so bad.
Speaker 2: So I hope cooler heads prevail, and I hope adults
Speaker 2: actually meet at the negotiating table and they figure this
Speaker 2: shit out for all of our sakes, but particularly for
Speaker 2: the sake of Canadians. You guys don't deserve this. Maybe
Speaker 2: you do. I don't think so though. Anyways, thank you
Speaker 2: guys so much for tuning in once again. We're doing
Speaker 2: record numbers in terms of viewership, and that's all because
Speaker 2: you guys continue to tell people that this is something
Speaker 2: worth watching or listening to at liberty lockpot on X.
Speaker 2: If you want to support my work, subscribe there I'll
Speaker 2: fall you back, or libertylockdown dot locals dot com. If
Speaker 2: you want to get some merch liberty loockdown shirts, you
Speaker 2: go to top loops dot com. The link is in
Speaker 2: the description below. And last, but not least, just pick
Speaker 2: up your child's phone and your grandparents' phone and go
Speaker 2: to the podcatcher, whether if it's Apple Podcasts or Spotify
Speaker 2: or whatever else and search for liberty Lockdown and click
Speaker 2: subscribe and click auto update, and then hand them their
Speaker 2: phone back and don't say shit, don't tell them what
Speaker 2: you did, just do that. And then when they finally
Speaker 2: realize what you've done, and they go, hey, hey, Bob,
Speaker 2: why the fuck do you subscribe me to this liberty
Speaker 2: Lockdown podcast? You know I'm a libtard. You go, hey, Bob,
Speaker 2: I don't like the fact or sorry, it's not bob.
Speaker 2: Bob is the one that did this. So what's a
Speaker 2: good name for a libtard?
Speaker 12: Uh?
Speaker 2: I don't know what do you call these people? John?
Speaker 2: It's just like a regular name, Oh John, I don't
Speaker 2: like your politics, and I think that your brain is
Speaker 2: like you're you're clearly incapacitated, like you're incapacitated as a
Speaker 2: human being. And I'd still like to maintain our friendship,
Speaker 2: but I'm gonna need you to listen to some truth
Speaker 2: every now and then. So as a requirement of the
Speaker 2: continuation of our friendship, I'm gonna need you to listen
Speaker 2: to livery lockdown, and I'm gonna need you to report
Speaker 2: back what Clint tells you every week, just to make
Speaker 2: sure that we could still be friends. And if you
Speaker 2: can't do that, well, then you have to be put
Speaker 2: into an insane asylum. Sorry, Bob or John. Sorry that
Speaker 2: was bad names. I could have come up with something
Speaker 2: way more creative. It's a good it's a good name
Speaker 2: for a liberal. I don't know. I don't know. I'm
Speaker 2: in a good mood, as you can tell. I've been
Speaker 2: in a good mood for fucking months now. This is fun.
Speaker 2: I hope you guys are enjoying the more optimistic version
Speaker 2: of me. I did talk about some things that I'm
Speaker 2: not super happy about, but I think I did it
Speaker 2: in a more positive way. I'm gonna go hit the
Speaker 2: gym now and check out. No, don't, don't check that
Speaker 2: out never mind take it back. Yeah, leave comments, dounblope,
Speaker 2: just share this, share, shut around fucking God's sakes. By
Speaker 2: the way, we're almost at a thousand reviews on Apple podcasts.
Speaker 2: If you could leave a fucking five star review on
Speaker 2: Apple podcasts, I would really appreciate it. It's may the
Speaker 2: thousand and five star reviews very few, Like I can't
Speaker 2: even tell you how few podcasts get to one thousand
Speaker 2: five star reviews, very few on Apple podcasts. So if
Speaker 2: you can get me over that hump, I will be
Speaker 2: a Cloud nine. Thank you guys for tuning in. Love
Speaker 2: you peace, do something I rarely do, and let Bill
Speaker 2: Maher take us out as he educates Tom Green on
Speaker 2: why Canada isn't free.
Speaker 6: There's been some misinformation about Canadian freedom of speech though.
Speaker 6: That's been floating around it there, like we've got freedom
Speaker 6: of speech in Canada. It's in our our Canadian Charter
Speaker 6: of Rights and freedom, freedom of the press, freedom.
Speaker 8: Of a stake.
Speaker 6: Well, just get something is in a charter.
Speaker 4: I mean we have it too, and Trump is threatening
Speaker 4: that And sometimes I've.
Speaker 6: Never experienced a situation where I can't say something up
Speaker 6: there there hate speech laws in Canada, so there are
Speaker 6: things you can't say. But you know what, who would
Speaker 6: want to say that? Ship anyways?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 7: So well, but that's not how that's not what free
Speaker 7: speech means.
Speaker 6: It's a slight, it's a slight, but it's there's a
Speaker 6: there's a really defined definition of what hate speech is.
Speaker 6: So it's not overreaching. You know, it's fairly specific. That's
Speaker 6: record pretty much say anything you want, except for extreme
Speaker 6: things that you would not agree with I would think,
Speaker 6: and that nobody would really want to agree with society.
Speaker 2: You don't know what free speech is, then you don't know.
Speaker 1: That's not what free speech is.
Speaker 7: It's a definition of not free speech.
Speaker 2: Do you know how asked backwards you have to be
Speaker 2: to have Bill Maher correct you on what is freedom?
Speaker 2: Topre Oh buddy, oh buddy, uh, kudos to Bill mar
Speaker 2: though he's right, and Canada, your liberty has been lockdown.
Speaker 6: We welcome to liberty.
Speaker 2: Lockdown this guy get liberty ain't come. But yeah, it's alcohol.
Speaker 2: It's where did it come from? And where did