Speaker 1: Dish. I have a thirty one fifty five krc DE
Speaker 1: talk station. Chuck Ingram's on vacation. Judge Jennita Polatana, Heather
Speaker 1: didn't do a personalized message for you today because she
Speaker 1: she's filling in.
Speaker 2: So my stomach was churning, not knowing what to expect.
Speaker 2: Instead of a madman, I heard the voice of a
Speaker 2: lovely lady.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and apparently, you know, like Chuck Ingram does the
Speaker 1: traffic for like the entire United States, I'm overstating the case,
Speaker 1: but he does lots of the city. She apparently is
Speaker 1: in Detroit, so she is not closely following the content
Speaker 1: of the fifty five Carcey Morning Show, but we do.
Speaker 1: And everybody knows. It's it's appointment listening time on the
Speaker 1: fifty five Carsy Morning Show because Judge Enita Polatana joins
Speaker 1: us every Wednesday at this time, and I really enjoyed
Speaker 1: your column this morning, so I always enjoy your column,
Speaker 1: you know, I love it. Searching for Monsters is the title,
Speaker 1: but it involves a subject matter over which I really
Speaker 1: didn't have a whole lot of knowledge and familiarity, and
Speaker 1: that's the whether it's lawful or not for us to
Speaker 1: go to some foreign country and kidnap some one. And
Speaker 1: I know we've done this before, and you cite a
Speaker 1: bunch of illustrations and it almost seems like and I
Speaker 1: know it's against natural law, and you make a great
Speaker 1: argument that this isn't right. But if someone has committed
Speaker 1: a harm against our country, I hear about people fleeing
Speaker 1: to countries that don't have an extradition treaty with the
Speaker 1: United States. That means we can't negotiate with the country
Speaker 1: to have them export the guy and bring him back here.
Speaker 1: But what of going to that country and just picking
Speaker 1: him up and bringing him back. Now, if you got
Speaker 1: harmed under our country, one can make a moral argument that, well,
Speaker 1: that seems okay. They won't extra di ite hm because
Speaker 1: we don't have a treaty. But the guy did us harm,
Speaker 1: Let's go pick him up and bring him back and
Speaker 1: put him to trial. But as you explain, and this
Speaker 1: is puzzling to me, crime is committed against someone outside
Speaker 1: of the United States, not against the United States or
Speaker 1: its interest. We can go and grab that person and
Speaker 1: try him in our country for crimes committed against some
Speaker 1: other government or some other outside the United States interest.
Speaker 2: I yes, yes, as absurd as that sounds. And I
Speaker 2: gave an example, and it was the back pages of
Speaker 2: the New York Times. If you didn't know the background,
Speaker 2: you would say, oh, some Venezuela in general just pleaded
Speaker 2: guilty to drug dealing in Manhattan. I'm glad they caught
Speaker 2: the guy. However, he pleaded guilty to distributing drugs in Venezuela,
Speaker 2: not in the United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: He then left Venezuela retired in Spain. The United States
Speaker 2: tried to extrad item in the Spanish courts said no,
Speaker 2: you have no jurisdiction over him, so they kidnapped him. Anyway,
Speaker 2: he shows up in an American court. He says, I
Speaker 2: was kidnapped. The court said, well, I don't care. The
Speaker 2: FEDS can kidnap you. He pleads guilty to these crimes
Speaker 2: in Venezuela. So far there is no connection to the
Speaker 2: United States except the Congress enacted in the Bidenministration legislation
Speaker 2: telling federal judges, if the FEDS, the FBI, and an
Speaker 2: assistant US attorney walk into your courtroom with a human
Speaker 2: being and an indictment, you have to try that person.
Speaker 2: Even at the human beings never been in the United States,
Speaker 2: never harmed a person in the United States, never harmed
Speaker 2: assets in the United States, and all the events took
Speaker 2: place in another country. Now, why is the government doing this?
Speaker 2: They probably want him to trade information against their real target,
Speaker 2: who's his former boss, Nicholas Maduro, who is the president
Speaker 2: slash dictator of Venezuela. In the meantime, kidnapping, exhaustion of
Speaker 2: a tremendous amount of resources and assets to get this
Speaker 2: guy here, and the use of the federal courts. As
Speaker 2: a point, this also allows the President of the United States,
Speaker 2: who is the ultimate person running the Department of Justice,
Speaker 2: to pick anybody wants around the world and say, indict
Speaker 2: that guy for some crime he committed in some other
Speaker 2: country and for which he wasn't prosecuted, and get him here.
Speaker 2: That's what's happening.
Speaker 1: I don't understand how that represents a judicial controversy in
Speaker 1: a US court. How do you get an indictment against
Speaker 1: someone for a crime committed under somebody of some other
Speaker 1: committed in some other country. Okay, drug trafficking is illegal
Speaker 1: in the United States, but you know that's a US law.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the status of the law is
Speaker 1: in Venezuela, but picking up a guy in Spain for
Speaker 1: a crime he committed in Venezuela in violation of Venezuela
Speaker 1: in law. I mean, I'm just perplexed by this. And
Speaker 1: you pointed out the US Supreme Court does not care
Speaker 1: a wit about what happened behind the scenes as long
Speaker 1: as that person's in front of the court itself. They
Speaker 1: don't care if he was kidnapped or had his due
Speaker 1: process rights violent, or anything else.
Speaker 2: Correct, The Supreme Court does not care how a person
Speaker 2: got in to the courtroom. This has been a longstanding
Speaker 2: and complaint by the natural law libertarian small government people
Speaker 2: of which you and I are two in American jurisprudence.
Speaker 2: But it's been a consistent understanding of federal courts. The
Speaker 2: Feds can kidnap anybody and bring him into the courtroom,
Speaker 2: and his complaint that I was kidnapped these people violated
Speaker 2: the very laws that they are attempting to enforce, will
Speaker 2: fall on deaf ears. The Feds often commit crimes in
Speaker 2: order to solve crimes. Let's face it. The classic case
Speaker 2: is a federal judge in Denver, this is now twenty
Speaker 2: five years ago, tried for bribery, and in that case,
Speaker 2: the Feds bribed a witness to testify against him. He
Speaker 2: was convicted, and the Tenth Circuit overturned it. So this
Speaker 2: stuff happens all the time. They almost always get away
Speaker 2: with it. We'll see where the case of this general goes.
Speaker 2: He's still in Manhattan, he's still in a jail here.
Speaker 2: He's probably trying to give them enough information so they'll
Speaker 2: say to the federal judge before whom he pleaded guilty
Speaker 2: last week and let him go back to Spain. Whole
Speaker 2: thing is a farce. It's an abuse of of the
Speaker 2: rule of law.
Speaker 1: Well, and you raise an excellent point in your uh,
Speaker 1: in your rhetorical question. Is it lawful for the Chinese
Speaker 1: government to enter Hawaii and kidnap an American tech executive
Speaker 1: or politician for some crime that they claim has been
Speaker 1: done and violations to the US law for example?
Speaker 2: Me right?
Speaker 1: That it's just it becomes a question whose ox is
Speaker 1: being going? Oh no, we would screen bloody murder if
Speaker 1: that happened. That what the Chinese kidnap somebody and took
Speaker 1: them to China. This is an outrage.
Speaker 2: You're you're exactly You're exactly right. And and these these
Speaker 2: cases should be on the front page so that the
Speaker 2: public as has outraged as you and I, rather than
Speaker 2: on the back page. And if you read the article,
Speaker 2: not knowing the background, you think, oh, well, they picked
Speaker 2: up another drug trafficker and he's an ex general. I'm blate,
Speaker 2: it's going to jail. No, he didn't violate any American laws.
Speaker 2: He probably didn't even violate any Venezuelan laws the way
Speaker 2: they are understood and enforced in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's what I was alluding to earlier. I
Speaker 1: obviously do not know the state of Venezuelan law. But
Speaker 1: the idea that we were trying a guy for committing crime,
Speaker 1: allegedly committing crimes in Venezuela in a US court that
Speaker 1: we kidnapped, it's I just am sitting here totally in sense,
Speaker 1: in my mind is blown that that exists. It used
Speaker 1: to be, though there was a limitation, it was justified
Speaker 1: to redress criminal harm actually caused by the kidnapp person
Speaker 1: to an American person or property, or he pointed out
Speaker 1: earlier in the Biden administration. In twenty twenty two, Congress
Speaker 1: extended that authority in federal courts to cover crimes committed
Speaker 1: in foreign countries against foreign persons. So there's a law
Speaker 1: on the books that authorized.
Speaker 2: Yes, it not only authorizes it, it tells federal judges
Speaker 2: that Jay, they have jurisdiction under that clause in the
Speaker 2: Constitution that lamentable Jimmy Madison, clause that lets the Congress
Speaker 2: expand or contract federal judicial jurisdiction. They expanded it and
Speaker 2: said you will try it. I would throw it out
Speaker 2: and say it's not just issiable. But that's me and
Speaker 2: I was not a federal judge. I was a state judges,
Speaker 2: you know, and I never had anything like this. This
Speaker 2: stuff is of relatively recent vintage. The statute that I
Speaker 2: cite is only three years old. Wow.
Speaker 1: So we've extended federal courts authority over foreign lands and
Speaker 1: over foreign crimes.
Speaker 2: Correct. So expect the Feds to pick up a Russian
Speaker 2: soldier who killed a Ukrainian civilian and they'll be tried
Speaker 2: in the Eastern District of Virginia where the Feds never lose,
Speaker 2: and will be sentenced to jail for the rest of
Speaker 2: his life. And then they'll trade him with some American
Speaker 2: basketball player that's in a Moscow jail.
Speaker 1: Wow. And I presume the CIA the ones responsible for
Speaker 1: going out and doing the kidnapping in most of these cases.
Speaker 2: Sadly, yes, yes, there are six CIA agents who can't
Speaker 2: go to Europe because a European wide indictment still stands
Speaker 2: for their having kidnapped an Egyptian cleric, brought him to
Speaker 2: Egypt for torture, and then came back to the United States.
Speaker 2: They've been indicted by Italian magistrates and that indictment still stands.
Speaker 2: George Bush can't go to Europe because he and Dick
Speaker 2: Cheney and indicted by a Spanish magistrates.
Speaker 1: So well, under our theory, then it will be aoka
Speaker 1: for whatever Italy has by way of special forces to
Speaker 1: come in here and kidnap those CIA agents and bring
Speaker 1: them back to Italy.
Speaker 2: Yes it would, Yes, it would. If the logic behind
Speaker 2: the American use of kidnapping applies universally, it would make
Speaker 2: perfect sense for the Italian intel people to kidnap these
Speaker 2: CIA guys and put them on trial in Italy, and
Speaker 2: they'll be convicted because what they did is on tape.
Speaker 1: Judge of Polton an enlightening discussion, again an area that
Speaker 1: I was really not familiar with at all, and it's
Speaker 1: obviously I share with you this outrageous a system and
Speaker 1: the state of the law that we were living under
Speaker 1: right now in the United States. It's just mind blowing
Speaker 1: but refreshing to talk with you about it and bring
Speaker 1: it to everybody's attention so more people know about it.
Speaker 1: Judge entered Apolitano judging Freedom is his podcasts. Who are
Speaker 1: you going to be talking to today, your honor?
Speaker 2: I have Max blumouthal of Colonel Larry Wilgerson, the former
Speaker 2: chief of staff for Colon Powell, and the great filled
Speaker 2: CIA agent who told George Bush that Saddam Hussein does
Speaker 2: not have weapons of mass destruction, whereupon Bush threw him
Speaker 2: out of the Oval office.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, it's amazing what we actually learn over time,
Speaker 1: isn't it. It's refreshing at least get the information out,
Speaker 1: even if it's way past due until next Wednesday, my
Speaker 1: dear friend, have a wonderful week you as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian, all the best.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Eight forty two Right now fifty five
Speaker 1: KRC the talk station, don't go away.
Speaker 2: I'd be right back fifty five KRC dot Com