Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh, it's bad enough we had to do the week
without Dragon. Now you're going to take two days off too.
What the hell am I going to do rest of
the week, same thing you do the other days of
the week. Not a damn thing. Just call into radio
programs and be obnoxious and make fun of people. I
can't have Thanksgiving off with my family, not that the
family wants me there. That may be the real issue,
(00:22):
but you know, I'd like to at least show up
and eat and then Friday. I mean, it's a fascinating
time of year when the look. I love Thanksgiving, probably
my favorite holiday of all of them, and because it's
just more family orient somebody described Thanksgiving as being great
because it's the family time and the loving time and
(00:44):
all of that without all the pressure of the gifts
and the presence and everything else, without the commercialization. Other
than oh my god, it's looks black Friday. Looks of
black Friday. I want to talk about the Sedition six
for a minute, and I you know, truthfully, I shouldn't
call them the Seditious six because I don't believe that
(01:06):
what they did is sedition. However, here's the butt now
for those of you who are knew of the program.
You know that I have a rule that the really
important stuff comes after the word butt. Honey, you look
really great today. But or you know, Michael, we think
you're doing a really good job. But or Zach, you
(01:29):
know what, you're a really great producer. But you know,
it's it's everything that comes after the word but that
you have to pay attention to. I really don't think
that what they engaged in is sedition, as Donald Trump claimed,
But that does not mean that the Department of Justice
should not start a criminal investigation of those Democrat members
(01:52):
of Congress for a period in a video that was designed,
in my opinion, to undermine the military chain of command.
And despite what you may think about, oh, you know,
they do because they're trying to convince, you know, members
of the military to follow the law.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I know.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Then that tells me that you don't know what the
law is. You really don't. Title eighteen of the United
States Code, Section twenty three eighty seven makes it illegal
to advise counsel or in any manner caused in subordination
or refusal of duty by any member of the military.
(02:31):
You can go look it up, you know, on your
Google machine. Or whatever you use. Type in eighteen the
capital letters USC the word section twenty three eighty seven,
and it'll pull it up for you. You can read it,
and that if you engage in that activity, you shall
be be fined or imprisoned in not more than ten years,
(02:54):
and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States
or any department or agency thereof. Now a little history,
just to put in perspective, Trump on behalf of not
just himself, but frank On behalf of all future presidents,
cannot allow what happened during his first term to happen
again because that first term Trump one point zero was
(03:17):
completely sabotaged from within. James Comy is the director of
the FBI, various elements of law enforcement, the National security apparatus,
the intelligence community. They conducted a years long I want
to emphasize this official government effort to subvert the authority
(03:38):
of the executive both as the president and as the
commander in chief of the armed forces. They were acting
within or acting they were acting within their official titles,
their official duties in trying to go after the president,
and so Trump cannot allow that to happen again. We
(04:02):
should be demanding that the deep State stopped that it
is within the power of the presidency to make leaders
of the self proclaimed resistance like these six are to
step back and rethink their tactics. Even if they're members
of Congress, I really don't care that they're members of Congress.
In fact, I would argue the fact that they're members
(04:24):
of Congress makes what they did even worse than what
people think they're serving. They're serving members of the government
in the Congress. Those those serving members of the government
in the Congress made that video directing their comments at
the active duty military, and active duty military includes everybody
(04:45):
from the e one privates all the way up to
admirals or generals, and they referenced this administration that was
the subject of their so called advice and council. Now
I use the terms advice in council because that is
what is prohibited by federal statute. Again, Title eighteen, Section
(05:08):
two twenty three eighty seven makes it illegal to advise
counsel or in any manner cause in subordination, in any
manner cause in subordination or refusal duty by any member
of the military. That's the bottom line from which we stop.
So I think it's incumbent upon the Attorney General to
(05:28):
facilitate an investigation that might Sunday lead to that question
being asked and then answered by twelve jurors. Did they
engage in that illegal activity? The members that appeared in
that video actually cited their official positions. They even refer
(05:50):
to their past military service. And why would they do that?
Would I tell a story about something that's going on inside.
I will often remind you that I served as the
under Secretary of Homeland Security, had all of the clearances
you could possibly imagine top secret Special Compartmentalized Information TSSCII
(06:14):
had a Q clearance with the Department of Energy because
I worked with the National Nuclear Security Administration on all
of our nuclear efforts. I had all those clearances, had
unfettered access to the White House. And so I say
that to give legitimacy to what I'm describing about what
goes on inside the BELTWEGH. So that is exactly what
these members of Congress were doing too. Hey, look, number one,
(06:36):
we're either a member of Congress, House or remember the Senate.
And then they went on to describe all of their
past military service or their past service in the intel community,
and they were doing so, because that's what you do
when you're trying to appeal to authority. Well, by doing that,
they've invited an inquiry into their conduct. I want to
(07:00):
make clear about something. What they did in making that
video was not done on the floor of either the
House or the Senate. And why is that important? Because
if they had said exactly the same thing on the
House or the Senate floor, that would be protected speech
under the Speech and Debate clause of the United States Constitution.
(07:23):
You can go if you're a member of Congress, you
can go on to the floor of the House. You
can go on to the floor of the Senate, and
you can just ramble on about anything. You can attack people,
you can lie if you want to. Gosh, imagine that
a member of Congress lying about something. You can go
on and you can lie, and you'll cheat steel and
(07:43):
everything else. But whatever you're saying when you're on the
floor of the House and the Senate is protected from
the Speech and Debate Clause. And the founders put that
in there because they want to members of Congress to
have the right to have unfettered debate without worrying about
getting sued by you know, for life. Bible and slander
by some yahoo out there who's offended by whatever they
might say. So I think that every single member of
(08:07):
this that's in this video ought to be subject to
an investigation, and that investigation ought together every piece of
evidence they can about how did they make the decision
to make the video, who made the video, who produced
the video, how did they broadcast the video? What are
(08:29):
all the communications about everybody involved in that in doing that?
What were the different versions of the script. Do you
have an uncut version of the video? Because every person
made their own video, like Jason Crow made his own video,
and then I'm gonna surmise here, so on emphasize. I'm
(08:51):
surmising that he made his own video in his office
at home wherever he might have been, and he read
whatever scripts given him or that he wrote, and then
he submitted that to who because somebody had to splice it,
edited and put it together. I want to know who
that is. I want who wrote the scripts. I want
(09:13):
to see the uncut video of every participant, whether it
was included in the final version or not. I want
to see the outtakes. How many times did he have
to try to say it the right way? I want
the production records. I want to know who funded them,
because it takes money to do what they did. Every participant,
not just those six, but every participant that was involved
(09:35):
in all of this video needs to be put under
oath before a grand jury, except those six. Those six
should not, and they should not because if you're a
target of a criminal investigation, then you cannot issue a
subpoena against them, and you should not issue a subpoena
(09:56):
against a target. The reason is because if you're the
target of a criminal investigation under the Miranda ruling and
under the Fifth Amendment, you have the right to remain silent.
You don't have to testify against yourself. But everybody else
involved in the putting together that video needs to be
(10:18):
had their butts hauled before a grand jury to find
out everything that took place. Now, then you have the
question of whether their words in that were probable cause
that are crimes being committed under Section twenty three eighty
seven or maybe something else. Well, that's a question for
the grand jurors, and the facts need to be presented
(10:41):
to the grand jury and let them decide whether or
not they violated Title eighteen, Section twenty three eighty seven.
All six of these yahoos gave their voices to a
single video, and the first question ought to be whether
the six discussed the video among themselves, and whether they
shared with each other their intention about what they were
(11:03):
going to say. Why do I say that, because that
would be the basis for a conspiracy investigation, and the
venue for a conspiracy investigation could be any district where
any one of those six was present when the conspiracy
was formed, or in any federal district with where the
act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place. So you have,
(11:28):
for example, Mark Kelly, the Senator from Arizona, the Least Slopkin,
the Senator from Michigan, Chrissy Hulahan, the congresswoman from eastern Pennsylvania,
Christ Luzio, the congresswoman or congressman from a western Pennsylvania,
Maggie Goodland or the congresswoman from New Hampshire, and of
course Jason Crowe, the congressman from Colorado. So you have
(11:51):
all of those choices of where you might bring a
criminal charge. Then you have, in addition to that, all
the people that were involved in the production, the editing,
and the distribution of the video, who might have been
a part of the conspiracy, then you could do that.
So you have a wide range of places where you
(12:13):
could bring an indictment if you wanted to. Now the
reason I say that if this were done on the
floor of the House, it would be protected by the
Speech and Debate clause. But I think if they tried
to challenge their indictment on First Amendment grounds, they would
(12:33):
lose because the basis of the language of Section twenty
three eighty seven is identical. I mean literally identical to
broad language found in the Espionage Act of nineteen seventeen,
and the Supreme Court decisions regarding convictions under the Espionage
Act had been upheld by the Supreme Court against challenges
(12:57):
based on the First Amendment. Ever thought about or do
you know what the Espionage Act says? The Espionage Act
in parts says this, it shall be illegal to willfully
make or convey false statements or false reports with the
intent to interfere with the operation or the success of
(13:18):
the military or naval forces of the United States, or
to promote the success of its enemies, or to willfully
cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty in the military or naval force of the
United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment
(13:39):
service of the United States to the injury of the
service of the United States. In nineteen nineteen, the US
Supreme Court upheld that language against the First Amendment challenge.
And you know what that case was. For those of
you listened to me over the decades, I've talked about
(14:01):
Shank versus United States, because that's the case where Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes used the much maligned analogy about shouting
fire in a crowded theater. That case, the Shank case,
introduced the concept that speech that creates a clear and
present danger to public safety does not enjoy protections of
(14:23):
the First Amendment. Now, it was later. It was later
dealt with in another case, Brandenburg versus Ohio in nineteen
sixty nine, by requiring that the speech at issue must
tend to incite imminent lawless action, but still not protected
by the First Amendment. It just refined what it meant.
(14:45):
The language of the Espionage Act is word for word,
as I said, identical to Section twenty three eighty seven.
So as of this year, within the context of the
relationship between military personnel and their including the commander in chief.
There is no basis in the case law to disregard
(15:06):
the Supreme Court cases. They are still good law until
the Supreme Court says otherwise. Now I know that Trump
made the comment about sedition, and that term gets tossed
around a lot on social media and commentators and everybody else.
Sedition is not the right word. Trump was wrong about that,
and Trump should not have said what he said because
(15:28):
sedition involves overthrowing the government by force. The only Title
eighteen criminal statute that refers to sedition is the statute
that makes it a criminal act to engage in seditious
conspiracy that was passed by Congress at the time of
the Civil War. And the statute that that is sedition
(15:54):
does not require an actual act of sedition. It only
requires an agreement by two or more people to engage
in sedition. In sedition, that's why you get seditious conspiracy.
So that's that you provided President Lincoln with a legal
basis to jail the Southern sympathizers in the Union States
who were working to undermine the Union's war effort. These
(16:17):
six were not engaged in sedition. Let me make that clear.
But they were engaged in something that clearly could be
within Section twenty three eighty seven, Title eighteen, which says
that words words which are designed to create discord within
(16:37):
the military are unlawful. Now ask yourself, what were they
doing here? Because we have example after example after example,
including from Jason Crow here in Colorado. Would you cite
for us exactly what unlawful orders you are trying to
tell people they should not follow, because they couldn't give
(17:00):
any example. No, but not one of them gave one
example of what they thought. They didn't even cite blowing
up the drug running votes coming out of Venezuela, because
clearly the president has the authority to do that. You know,
we've declared war what five times, the most recent being
World War Two, and then we get the War Powers Act,
(17:23):
which allows the president, permits and actually demands the president
take action to protect the national security interests in the
United States. Somethings you think you wouldn't need a law for,
but because the War Powers Act, we do so. When
the president does things that are in lawful protection of
our national security, blowing up drug runners coming out of
(17:45):
a transnational cartel that's been deemed a terrorist organization. He
has the right to blow him out of the water,
just like he had the right to blow up the
Rantian nuclear sites. Nobody. So when you ask these six
what is it that you're trying to get people to disobey?
There's no example, which then begs the question, what were
(18:07):
you really trying to accomplish? For service people?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
But why are we pushy footing around things? We know
what they were trying to do. We just have to
prove that it wasn't something else. Right, So let's just
put it online that they were trying to subvert the
president's authority and then see how that holds out.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
You know, I have a great weekend because I'm I'm
not trying to push your foot around. What I'm trying
to do is to give you the legal basis upon
which I think there should be an investigation and then
take it to a grand jury and let the grand
jury look at the facts as developed through an investigation.
I mean, I'm actually trying to vote do process here
(18:50):
because I do think, as I think you must have,
that that's precisely what they were doing. They were trying
to undermine the authority of the president as the commander
in chief. They were trying to get, you know, young
recruits that as I would describe them this way, you know,
grunts that have come from inner city or elsewhere. It doesn't
(19:12):
make any difference. But they're undisciplined. They're not accustomed to authority.
They have been and maybe they you know, as maybe
it was an alternative they joined the military to you know,
avoid jail time or something. Who knows me, and who
knows whether the military would take them or not. But
people who have been absolutely undisciplined throughout their lifetime and
(19:36):
now they're grunts, and they've got a really hard nosed
drill sergeant who's putting them through basic training. And then
they hear these you know, like Mark Kelly, he's an astronaut. Wow,
he's a United States Center and an astronaut married to
a former congresswoman that got shot by a nutjob. Why
he's telling me the you know this, this sergeant's telling
(19:58):
me to do things I think are wrong legal, and
I should challenge my sergeant. Boom, here comes a court martial,
and then here comes the dishonorable discharge. It is it
was designed, particularly when I would have an excluse. I
would have a completely different argument if Jason Crowe or
any of them had stepped forward and said, we believe
(20:20):
that the following one, two, three, four, five, I don't care,
but at least give me one example of what you
believe the president's doing that is an unlawful order. Now,
on earlier programs, I went through the entire process about
what it takes to deal with what you believe to
be if you're a member of the military, an unlawful order.
(20:44):
And it's not just as simple as saying, oh, I
think this is unlawful. I don't think I'm going to
follow that. No, no, no, no, no. You've got to
have a lot more than that. It's got to be
and it's got to include, among other things, an imminent
an eminent problem for you to follow that law, Like
your your commander tells you that you've got to go
(21:04):
shoot these civilians where we're taking over a village and
we once you go in and wipe out all the civilians,
just wipe them out. Clearly an unlawful order that's imminent.
You're you're in the area of operations, you're in the
combat zone, and you're being told right then, Yeah, under
(21:27):
that kind of scenario, you can refuse that order. But
if you're in you know, hey, listen, guys, we're going
to deploy, and we're going to deploy, you know, in
ninety days, and we're going to be training to do this,
and we want you when you get there, we want
you to go kill civilians. Now, you have to go
through a process that's outlined in the Uniform Code of
(21:50):
Military Justice. And it's not just till like I'm going
to file a complaint, I'm gonna fi you, I'm gonna
put something in a suggestion box. It's more than that. So, yes,
what they were doing here was I believe absolutely in
violation of Title eighteen, Section twenty three eighty seven. Remember
what that says that I am going to repeat it.
(22:13):
Whoever with intent to interfere with, impair or influence the loyalty,
that influenced the morale, or influence the discipline of the
military or naval force of the United States, who advises,
councils urges, or in any manner, causes or attempts to
(22:33):
cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any
member of the military and naval forces. Or who distributes
or attempts to distribute any ridden or printed material or
video which advises councils or urges in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
(22:53):
or refusal of duty by any member blah blah blah,
shall be fined under this title or in prison not
more than ten years, or both, and then becomes ineligible
for employment by the United States or any department or
agency thereof. That's besides what they were doing. But that
may be my opinion. But I want to see it taken.
(23:13):
I want to see the evidence developed about everything I described.
Who came up with the idea? Low is the intent?
What does the evidence show about what your intent was?
What did you what did the script say, how did
you alter the scripts? What are the outtakes? What did
you say that you didn't put in the video? How
many who put this together? Who funded this for you?
(23:34):
Who put it together, who did the distribution, who did
all of that? Because then that gets to a conspiracy,
a conspiracy to violate Section twenty three eighty seven. Now,
the determination, based on the development of the facts about
whether or not they violated Section twenty three eighty seven
should be taken before a grand jury. All of the
(23:57):
people I've described other than the six members of Congress
should be subpoena to testify before the grand jury about
what they were engaged in. The six cannot and should
not be brought before the grand jury because they are
the target of the grand jury and they have a
right to remain silent. So don't waste your time issuing
a subpoena there. Then let that grand jury make the
(24:20):
decision based upon the evidence developed by the Department of Justice,
by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the
Department of War, and by the FBI. Let him take
all of that evidence presented to the grand jury and
see where it falls out. I don't think they ought
to just skip over this. This was a serious violation
(24:41):
in my opinion, of section twenty three eighty seven. They
were trying to affect the armed forces generally. And in fact,
if you actually look if you open a law book,
if you open up a statute book and looked up
title eighteen, section twenty three eighty seven, the title of
that section is activities affecting affecting armed forces generally. That's
(25:08):
what they were doing. It is precisely what they were doing,
but nobody. Everybody's like, oh but Michael, that's that's pretty serious.
You damn right, it serious, Which is why I wanted
to investigated and why I want it take them before
a grand jury, so a grand jury can make their
own independent judgment about whether they agree with me or
disagree with me. Look, they may disagree with me and say, look,
(25:30):
we're not going to return an indictment. They might debate
it for weeks or months trying to decide whether or
not to return an indictment. But to just let them
get by with this without any accountability whatsoever by at
least having an investigation to find out would you like
to know the who will, where, when, and why? The
five w's of how this all came together. Do you
(25:52):
think they were all just having coffee one day or
do you think they are you know, they just simultaneously
simultaneous combustion of an idea that, oh, let's make a video, guys,
let's make a let's make a little TikTok video. Jason,
you go say something, and you know, at least a
you go say something, and you know, Mark you go
say something, and then we'll have to you know, have
(26:12):
one the staffers, you know, spice it up, ed it
and put it together. No, this was a coordinated effort,
very well produced, very good production values, all designed to
affect the activities the armed forces generally, which is a
violation twenty three eighty seven. It is not sedition. I
(26:33):
want to emphasize that, and I think Trump was wrong.
And for people on the text line who claim that
let's see something about Trump is the one that's engaged
in sedition, really because when you look up sedition, which
(26:53):
my guess is you have not done. Uh, sedition is
is more than a president doing something that you don't
like or having policies that you don't like. Under Title eighteen,
Section twenty three eighty four, which is the seditious conspiracy,
at least two organized groups were charged in connection with
(27:15):
the January sixth. Trump was not charged with that, and
in terms of insurrection or rebellion, no one was charged
with insurrection or rebellion. To get a conviction under twenty
three eighty three for insurrection or rebellion, it must be
(27:35):
proven that the defendant intentionally did at least one of
the following incited sets on foot assists or engage in
a rebellion or insurrection, or gives aid or comfort to
such rebellion or insurrection. You should note the fact that
nobody was charged with the violation of that statute. And
(27:58):
I don't think that the six engaged in seditious conspiracy.
I think they You know, if you want to overcharge
them and include sedition, I think you're going to lose.
But if you focus solely on activities designed to affect
the morale and the activities and the cohesion and everything
(28:20):
of the US military, they clearly did that. And the
mitigating factor that is absent in this story is any
example of an unlawful order. In fact, I would challenge
you if you think that Trump has issued unlawful orders,
then three three one zero three keyword micro Michael, and
(28:42):
insight for me. Where in the statute whatever he's done
is an unlawful order? Oh? In company video?
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Is that is their version of the UH military No
King's March. They're just trying to see if they can
get them to to swing their way for when it's needed.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
L Like what mm, yeah, I'm just real. I'm looking
through the text messages. You guys are kind of funny.
Not all of you, some of you are like, really,
let's see, let's take this one. Where did it go?
(29:29):
Juber number sixty five four nine, Michael, you have the
nerve to talk about the video of the States. What
is actually in the law when Trump was behind the
big lie and the conspiracy I refreshed and the big
line in conspiracy that encourage the right of January sixth.
You've got to be kidding, do you? All you conservatives
have amnesia towers with selective memory. M the big lie
(29:52):
and the conspiracy that encouraged the right of January sixth.
I like to know where you're getting your information. Trump
did not engage in a conspiracy to do that. He
didn't organize it, He wasn't a part of it. He
actually came out and said, hey, don't do this. He said,
let's go march peacefully down to the White to the Capitol.
(30:12):
And in fact, there was a group that he was
speaking to that had an actual lawful permit to protest
on the northeast parking lot of the United States Capital.
It was let's see aliac bar who used to work
for the Bush White House and what's his name from
(30:34):
Info Wars. They had the permit to do that, and
in some of my points. You know, hey, what you're
describing as sedition actually sounds a lot like Ray Epps. Yeah,
it kind of does, doesn't it. Or this one, Michael,
The Uniform Code Code of Military Justice does define the
behavior Mark Kelly did as sedition. I disagree with you.
(30:59):
I don't think it does. Sedition actually involves more than
what you think sedition involves in. Under the actual statute,
Title eighteen, this is me section twenty three eighty four,
(31:20):
two or more individuals conspiring to overthrow, destroy, or levy
war against the US government by force, or to opposed
its authority or obstruct its laws. The Uniform Code of
Military Justice, in much the same language, requires overt acts
(31:40):
of actually overthrowing, of engaging in acts that overthrow things
that Now, there were some defendants charged with sedition on
the January sixth. I think maybe there were six of them.
I don't remember what the exact number was. But to
(32:02):
claim that Trump engaged in those activities, or to claim
that the UCMJ covers what Mark Kelly did, I think
you're missing the nuance between Section twenty three eighty seven
and title ninety four of the UCMJ, because one is
you are affecting, which is what they did, and the
(32:23):
UCMJ requires overt acts that result in an actual overthrow
and you don't have that in this case. Then there's
another text which I find there's maybe some little arrangement
syndrome going on, and that is, oh, what about all
the remodeling of the White House? What about the sixteen
(32:43):
other presidents that have remodeled the White House? You ever
thought about those sixteen
Oh, it's bad enough we had to do the week
without Dragon. Now you're going to take two days off too.
What the hell am I going to do rest of
the week, same thing you do the other days of
the week. Not a damn thing. Just call into radio
programs and be obnoxious and make fun of people. I
can't have Thanksgiving off with my family, not that the
family wants me there. That may be the real issue,
(00:22):
but you know, I'd like to at least show up
and eat and then Friday. I mean, it's a fascinating
time of year when the look. I love Thanksgiving, probably
my favorite holiday of all of them, and because it's
just more family orient somebody described Thanksgiving as being great
because it's the family time and the loving time and
(00:44):
all of that without all the pressure of the gifts
and the presence and everything else, without the commercialization. Other
than oh my god, it's looks black Friday. Looks of
black Friday. I want to talk about the Sedition six
for a minute, and I you know, truthfully, I shouldn't
call them the Seditious six because I don't believe that
(01:06):
what they did is sedition. However, here's the butt now
for those of you who are knew of the program.
You know that I have a rule that the really
important stuff comes after the word butt. Honey, you look
really great today. But or you know, Michael, we think
you're doing a really good job. But or Zach, you
(01:29):
know what, you're a really great producer. But you know,
it's it's everything that comes after the word but that
you have to pay attention to. I really don't think
that what they engaged in is sedition, as Donald Trump claimed,
But that does not mean that the Department of Justice
should not start a criminal investigation of those Democrat members
(01:52):
of Congress for a period in a video that was designed,
in my opinion, to undermine the military chain of command.
And despite what you may think about, oh, you know,
they do because they're trying to convince, you know, members
of the military to follow the law.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
I know.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Then that tells me that you don't know what the
law is. You really don't. Title eighteen of the United
States Code, Section twenty three eighty seven makes it illegal
to advise counsel or in any manner caused in subordination
or refusal of duty by any member of the military.
(02:31):
You can go look it up, you know, on your
Google machine. Or whatever you use. Type in eighteen the
capital letters USC the word section twenty three eighty seven,
and it'll pull it up for you. You can read it,
and that if you engage in that activity, you shall
be be fined or imprisoned in not more than ten years,
(02:54):
and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States
or any department or agency thereof. Now a little history,
just to put in perspective, Trump on behalf of not
just himself, but frank On behalf of all future presidents,
cannot allow what happened during his first term to happen
again because that first term Trump one point zero was
(03:17):
completely sabotaged from within. James Comy is the director of
the FBI, various elements of law enforcement, the National security apparatus,
the intelligence community. They conducted a years long I want
to emphasize this official government effort to subvert the authority
(03:38):
of the executive both as the president and as the
commander in chief of the armed forces. They were acting
within or acting they were acting within their official titles,
their official duties in trying to go after the president,
and so Trump cannot allow that to happen again. We
(04:02):
should be demanding that the deep State stopped that it
is within the power of the presidency to make leaders
of the self proclaimed resistance like these six are to
step back and rethink their tactics. Even if they're members
of Congress, I really don't care that they're members of Congress.
In fact, I would argue the fact that they're members
(04:24):
of Congress makes what they did even worse than what
people think they're serving. They're serving members of the government
in the Congress. Those those serving members of the government
in the Congress made that video directing their comments at
the active duty military, and active duty military includes everybody
(04:45):
from the e one privates all the way up to
admirals or generals, and they referenced this administration that was
the subject of their so called advice and council. Now
I use the terms advice in council because that is
what is prohibited by federal statute. Again, Title eighteen, Section
(05:08):
two twenty three eighty seven makes it illegal to advise
counsel or in any manner cause in subordination, in any
manner cause in subordination or refusal duty by any member
of the military. That's the bottom line from which we stop.
So I think it's incumbent upon the Attorney General to
(05:28):
facilitate an investigation that might Sunday lead to that question
being asked and then answered by twelve jurors. Did they
engage in that illegal activity? The members that appeared in
that video actually cited their official positions. They even refer
(05:50):
to their past military service. And why would they do that?
Would I tell a story about something that's going on inside.
I will often remind you that I served as the
under Secretary of Homeland Security, had all of the clearances
you could possibly imagine top secret Special Compartmentalized Information TSSCII
(06:14):
had a Q clearance with the Department of Energy because
I worked with the National Nuclear Security Administration on all
of our nuclear efforts. I had all those clearances, had
unfettered access to the White House. And so I say
that to give legitimacy to what I'm describing about what
goes on inside the BELTWEGH. So that is exactly what
these members of Congress were doing too. Hey, look, number one,
(06:36):
we're either a member of Congress, House or remember the Senate.
And then they went on to describe all of their
past military service or their past service in the intel community,
and they were doing so, because that's what you do
when you're trying to appeal to authority. Well, by doing that,
they've invited an inquiry into their conduct. I want to
(07:00):
make clear about something. What they did in making that
video was not done on the floor of either the
House or the Senate. And why is that important? Because
if they had said exactly the same thing on the
House or the Senate floor, that would be protected speech
under the Speech and Debate clause of the United States Constitution.
(07:23):
You can go if you're a member of Congress, you
can go on to the floor of the House. You
can go on to the floor of the Senate, and
you can just ramble on about anything. You can attack people,
you can lie if you want to. Gosh, imagine that
a member of Congress lying about something. You can go
on and you can lie, and you'll cheat steel and
(07:43):
everything else. But whatever you're saying when you're on the
floor of the House and the Senate is protected from
the Speech and Debate Clause. And the founders put that
in there because they want to members of Congress to
have the right to have unfettered debate without worrying about
getting sued by you know, for life. Bible and slander
by some yahoo out there who's offended by whatever they
might say. So I think that every single member of
(08:07):
this that's in this video ought to be subject to
an investigation, and that investigation ought together every piece of
evidence they can about how did they make the decision
to make the video, who made the video, who produced
the video, how did they broadcast the video? What are
(08:29):
all the communications about everybody involved in that in doing that?
What were the different versions of the script. Do you
have an uncut version of the video? Because every person
made their own video, like Jason Crow made his own video,
and then I'm gonna surmise here, so on emphasize. I'm
(08:51):
surmising that he made his own video in his office
at home wherever he might have been, and he read
whatever scripts given him or that he wrote, and then
he submitted that to who because somebody had to splice it,
edited and put it together. I want to know who
that is. I want who wrote the scripts. I want
(09:13):
to see the uncut video of every participant, whether it
was included in the final version or not. I want
to see the outtakes. How many times did he have
to try to say it the right way? I want
the production records. I want to know who funded them,
because it takes money to do what they did. Every participant,
not just those six, but every participant that was involved
(09:35):
in all of this video needs to be put under
oath before a grand jury, except those six. Those six
should not, and they should not because if you're a
target of a criminal investigation, then you cannot issue a
subpoena against them, and you should not issue a subpoena
(09:56):
against a target. The reason is because if you're the
target of a criminal investigation under the Miranda ruling and
under the Fifth Amendment, you have the right to remain silent.
You don't have to testify against yourself. But everybody else
involved in the putting together that video needs to be
(10:18):
had their butts hauled before a grand jury to find
out everything that took place. Now, then you have the
question of whether their words in that were probable cause
that are crimes being committed under Section twenty three eighty
seven or maybe something else. Well, that's a question for
the grand jurors, and the facts need to be presented
(10:41):
to the grand jury and let them decide whether or
not they violated Title eighteen, Section twenty three eighty seven.
All six of these yahoos gave their voices to a
single video, and the first question ought to be whether
the six discussed the video among themselves, and whether they
shared with each other their intention about what they were
(11:03):
going to say. Why do I say that, because that
would be the basis for a conspiracy investigation, and the
venue for a conspiracy investigation could be any district where
any one of those six was present when the conspiracy
was formed, or in any federal district with where the
act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place. So you have,
(11:28):
for example, Mark Kelly, the Senator from Arizona, the Least Slopkin,
the Senator from Michigan, Chrissy Hulahan, the congresswoman from eastern Pennsylvania,
Christ Luzio, the congresswoman or congressman from a western Pennsylvania,
Maggie Goodland or the congresswoman from New Hampshire, and of
course Jason Crowe, the congressman from Colorado. So you have
(11:51):
all of those choices of where you might bring a
criminal charge. Then you have, in addition to that, all
the people that were involved in the production, the editing,
and the distribution of the video, who might have been
a part of the conspiracy, then you could do that.
So you have a wide range of places where you
(12:13):
could bring an indictment if you wanted to. Now the
reason I say that if this were done on the
floor of the House, it would be protected by the
Speech and Debate clause. But I think if they tried
to challenge their indictment on First Amendment grounds, they would
(12:33):
lose because the basis of the language of Section twenty
three eighty seven is identical. I mean literally identical to
broad language found in the Espionage Act of nineteen seventeen,
and the Supreme Court decisions regarding convictions under the Espionage
Act had been upheld by the Supreme Court against challenges
(12:57):
based on the First Amendment. Ever thought about or do
you know what the Espionage Act says? The Espionage Act
in parts says this, it shall be illegal to willfully
make or convey false statements or false reports with the
intent to interfere with the operation or the success of
(13:18):
the military or naval forces of the United States, or
to promote the success of its enemies, or to willfully
cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty in the military or naval force of the
United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment
(13:39):
service of the United States to the injury of the
service of the United States. In nineteen nineteen, the US
Supreme Court upheld that language against the First Amendment challenge.
And you know what that case was. For those of
you listened to me over the decades, I've talked about
(14:01):
Shank versus United States, because that's the case where Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes used the much maligned analogy about shouting
fire in a crowded theater. That case, the Shank case,
introduced the concept that speech that creates a clear and
present danger to public safety does not enjoy protections of
(14:23):
the First Amendment. Now, it was later. It was later
dealt with in another case, Brandenburg versus Ohio in nineteen
sixty nine, by requiring that the speech at issue must
tend to incite imminent lawless action, but still not protected
by the First Amendment. It just refined what it meant.
(14:45):
The language of the Espionage Act is word for word,
as I said, identical to Section twenty three eighty seven.
So as of this year, within the context of the
relationship between military personnel and their including the commander in chief.
There is no basis in the case law to disregard
(15:06):
the Supreme Court cases. They are still good law until
the Supreme Court says otherwise. Now I know that Trump
made the comment about sedition, and that term gets tossed
around a lot on social media and commentators and everybody else.
Sedition is not the right word. Trump was wrong about that,
and Trump should not have said what he said because
(15:28):
sedition involves overthrowing the government by force. The only Title
eighteen criminal statute that refers to sedition is the statute
that makes it a criminal act to engage in seditious
conspiracy that was passed by Congress at the time of
the Civil War. And the statute that that is sedition
(15:54):
does not require an actual act of sedition. It only
requires an agreement by two or more people to engage
in sedition. In sedition, that's why you get seditious conspiracy.
So that's that you provided President Lincoln with a legal
basis to jail the Southern sympathizers in the Union States
who were working to undermine the Union's war effort. These
(16:17):
six were not engaged in sedition. Let me make that clear.
But they were engaged in something that clearly could be
within Section twenty three eighty seven, Title eighteen, which says
that words words which are designed to create discord within
(16:37):
the military are unlawful. Now ask yourself, what were they
doing here? Because we have example after example after example,
including from Jason Crow here in Colorado. Would you cite
for us exactly what unlawful orders you are trying to
tell people they should not follow, because they couldn't give
(17:00):
any example. No, but not one of them gave one
example of what they thought. They didn't even cite blowing
up the drug running votes coming out of Venezuela, because
clearly the president has the authority to do that. You know,
we've declared war what five times, the most recent being
World War Two, and then we get the War Powers Act,
(17:23):
which allows the president, permits and actually demands the president
take action to protect the national security interests in the
United States. Somethings you think you wouldn't need a law for,
but because the War Powers Act, we do so. When
the president does things that are in lawful protection of
our national security, blowing up drug runners coming out of
(17:45):
a transnational cartel that's been deemed a terrorist organization. He
has the right to blow him out of the water,
just like he had the right to blow up the
Rantian nuclear sites. Nobody. So when you ask these six
what is it that you're trying to get people to disobey?
There's no example, which then begs the question, what were
(18:07):
you really trying to accomplish? For service people?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
But why are we pushy footing around things? We know
what they were trying to do. We just have to
prove that it wasn't something else. Right, So let's just
put it online that they were trying to subvert the
president's authority and then see how that holds out.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
You know, I have a great weekend because I'm I'm
not trying to push your foot around. What I'm trying
to do is to give you the legal basis upon
which I think there should be an investigation and then
take it to a grand jury and let the grand
jury look at the facts as developed through an investigation.
I mean, I'm actually trying to vote do process here
(18:50):
because I do think, as I think you must have,
that that's precisely what they were doing. They were trying
to undermine the authority of the president as the commander
in chief. They were trying to get, you know, young
recruits that as I would describe them this way, you know,
grunts that have come from inner city or elsewhere. It doesn't
(19:12):
make any difference. But they're undisciplined. They're not accustomed to authority.
They have been and maybe they you know, as maybe
it was an alternative they joined the military to you know,
avoid jail time or something. Who knows me, and who
knows whether the military would take them or not. But
people who have been absolutely undisciplined throughout their lifetime and
(19:36):
now they're grunts, and they've got a really hard nosed
drill sergeant who's putting them through basic training. And then
they hear these you know, like Mark Kelly, he's an astronaut. Wow,
he's a United States Center and an astronaut married to
a former congresswoman that got shot by a nutjob. Why
he's telling me the you know this, this sergeant's telling
(19:58):
me to do things I think are wrong legal, and
I should challenge my sergeant. Boom, here comes a court martial,
and then here comes the dishonorable discharge. It is it
was designed, particularly when I would have an excluse. I
would have a completely different argument if Jason Crowe or
any of them had stepped forward and said, we believe
(20:20):
that the following one, two, three, four, five, I don't care,
but at least give me one example of what you
believe the president's doing that is an unlawful order. Now,
on earlier programs, I went through the entire process about
what it takes to deal with what you believe to
be if you're a member of the military, an unlawful order.
(20:44):
And it's not just as simple as saying, oh, I
think this is unlawful. I don't think I'm going to
follow that. No, no, no, no, no. You've got to
have a lot more than that. It's got to be
and it's got to include, among other things, an imminent
an eminent problem for you to follow that law, Like
your your commander tells you that you've got to go
(21:04):
shoot these civilians where we're taking over a village and
we once you go in and wipe out all the civilians,
just wipe them out. Clearly an unlawful order that's imminent.
You're you're in the area of operations, you're in the
combat zone, and you're being told right then, Yeah, under
(21:27):
that kind of scenario, you can refuse that order. But
if you're in you know, hey, listen, guys, we're going
to deploy, and we're going to deploy, you know, in
ninety days, and we're going to be training to do this,
and we want you when you get there, we want
you to go kill civilians. Now, you have to go
through a process that's outlined in the Uniform Code of
(21:50):
Military Justice. And it's not just till like I'm going
to file a complaint, I'm gonna fi you, I'm gonna
put something in a suggestion box. It's more than that. So, yes,
what they were doing here was I believe absolutely in
violation of Title eighteen, Section twenty three eighty seven. Remember
what that says that I am going to repeat it.
(22:13):
Whoever with intent to interfere with, impair or influence the loyalty,
that influenced the morale, or influence the discipline of the
military or naval force of the United States, who advises,
councils urges, or in any manner, causes or attempts to
(22:33):
cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any
member of the military and naval forces. Or who distributes
or attempts to distribute any ridden or printed material or
video which advises councils or urges in subordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
(22:53):
or refusal of duty by any member blah blah blah,
shall be fined under this title or in prison not
more than ten years, or both, and then becomes ineligible
for employment by the United States or any department or
agency thereof. That's besides what they were doing. But that
may be my opinion. But I want to see it taken.
(23:13):
I want to see the evidence developed about everything I described.
Who came up with the idea? Low is the intent?
What does the evidence show about what your intent was?
What did you what did the script say, how did
you alter the scripts? What are the outtakes? What did
you say that you didn't put in the video? How
many who put this together? Who funded this for you?
(23:34):
Who put it together, who did the distribution, who did
all of that? Because then that gets to a conspiracy,
a conspiracy to violate Section twenty three eighty seven. Now,
the determination, based on the development of the facts about
whether or not they violated Section twenty three eighty seven
should be taken before a grand jury. All of the
(23:57):
people I've described other than the six members of Congress
should be subpoena to testify before the grand jury about
what they were engaged in. The six cannot and should
not be brought before the grand jury because they are
the target of the grand jury and they have a
right to remain silent. So don't waste your time issuing
a subpoena there. Then let that grand jury make the
(24:20):
decision based upon the evidence developed by the Department of Justice,
by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the
Department of War, and by the FBI. Let him take
all of that evidence presented to the grand jury and
see where it falls out. I don't think they ought
to just skip over this. This was a serious violation
(24:41):
in my opinion, of section twenty three eighty seven. They
were trying to affect the armed forces generally. And in fact,
if you actually look if you open a law book,
if you open up a statute book and looked up
title eighteen, section twenty three eighty seven, the title of
that section is activities affecting affecting armed forces generally. That's
(25:08):
what they were doing. It is precisely what they were doing,
but nobody. Everybody's like, oh but Michael, that's that's pretty serious.
You damn right, it serious, Which is why I wanted
to investigated and why I want it take them before
a grand jury, so a grand jury can make their
own independent judgment about whether they agree with me or
disagree with me. Look, they may disagree with me and say, look,
(25:30):
we're not going to return an indictment. They might debate
it for weeks or months trying to decide whether or
not to return an indictment. But to just let them
get by with this without any accountability whatsoever by at
least having an investigation to find out would you like
to know the who will, where, when, and why? The
five w's of how this all came together. Do you
(25:52):
think they were all just having coffee one day or
do you think they are you know, they just simultaneously
simultaneous combustion of an idea that, oh, let's make a video, guys,
let's make a let's make a little TikTok video. Jason,
you go say something, and you know, at least a
you go say something, and you know, Mark you go
say something, and then we'll have to you know, have
(26:12):
one the staffers, you know, spice it up, ed it
and put it together. No, this was a coordinated effort,
very well produced, very good production values, all designed to
affect the activities the armed forces generally, which is a
violation twenty three eighty seven. It is not sedition. I
(26:33):
want to emphasize that, and I think Trump was wrong.
And for people on the text line who claim that
let's see something about Trump is the one that's engaged
in sedition, really because when you look up sedition, which
(26:53):
my guess is you have not done. Uh, sedition is
is more than a president doing something that you don't
like or having policies that you don't like. Under Title eighteen,
Section twenty three eighty four, which is the seditious conspiracy,
at least two organized groups were charged in connection with
(27:15):
the January sixth. Trump was not charged with that, and
in terms of insurrection or rebellion, no one was charged
with insurrection or rebellion. To get a conviction under twenty
three eighty three for insurrection or rebellion, it must be
(27:35):
proven that the defendant intentionally did at least one of
the following incited sets on foot assists or engage in
a rebellion or insurrection, or gives aid or comfort to
such rebellion or insurrection. You should note the fact that
nobody was charged with the violation of that statute. And
(27:58):
I don't think that the six engaged in seditious conspiracy.
I think they You know, if you want to overcharge
them and include sedition, I think you're going to lose.
But if you focus solely on activities designed to affect
the morale and the activities and the cohesion and everything
(28:20):
of the US military, they clearly did that. And the
mitigating factor that is absent in this story is any
example of an unlawful order. In fact, I would challenge
you if you think that Trump has issued unlawful orders,
then three three one zero three keyword micro Michael, and
(28:42):
insight for me. Where in the statute whatever he's done
is an unlawful order? Oh? In company video?
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Is that is their version of the UH military No
King's March. They're just trying to see if they can
get them to to swing their way for when it's needed.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
L Like what mm, yeah, I'm just real. I'm looking
through the text messages. You guys are kind of funny.
Not all of you, some of you are like, really,
let's see, let's take this one. Where did it go?
(29:29):
Juber number sixty five four nine, Michael, you have the
nerve to talk about the video of the States. What
is actually in the law when Trump was behind the
big lie and the conspiracy I refreshed and the big
line in conspiracy that encourage the right of January sixth.
You've got to be kidding, do you? All you conservatives
have amnesia towers with selective memory. M the big lie
(29:52):
and the conspiracy that encouraged the right of January sixth.
I like to know where you're getting your information. Trump
did not engage in a conspiracy to do that. He
didn't organize it, He wasn't a part of it. He
actually came out and said, hey, don't do this. He said,
let's go march peacefully down to the White to the Capitol.
(30:12):
And in fact, there was a group that he was
speaking to that had an actual lawful permit to protest
on the northeast parking lot of the United States Capital.
It was let's see aliac bar who used to work
for the Bush White House and what's his name from
(30:34):
Info Wars. They had the permit to do that, and
in some of my points. You know, hey, what you're
describing as sedition actually sounds a lot like Ray Epps. Yeah,
it kind of does, doesn't it. Or this one, Michael,
The Uniform Code Code of Military Justice does define the
behavior Mark Kelly did as sedition. I disagree with you.
(30:59):
I don't think it does. Sedition actually involves more than
what you think sedition involves in. Under the actual statute,
Title eighteen, this is me section twenty three eighty four,
(31:20):
two or more individuals conspiring to overthrow, destroy, or levy
war against the US government by force, or to opposed
its authority or obstruct its laws. The Uniform Code of
Military Justice, in much the same language, requires overt acts
(31:40):
of actually overthrowing, of engaging in acts that overthrow things
that Now, there were some defendants charged with sedition on
the January sixth. I think maybe there were six of them.
I don't remember what the exact number was. But to
(32:02):
claim that Trump engaged in those activities, or to claim
that the UCMJ covers what Mark Kelly did, I think
you're missing the nuance between Section twenty three eighty seven
and title ninety four of the UCMJ, because one is
you are affecting, which is what they did, and the
(32:23):
UCMJ requires overt acts that result in an actual overthrow
and you don't have that in this case. Then there's
another text which I find there's maybe some little arrangement
syndrome going on, and that is, oh, what about all
the remodeling of the White House? What about the sixteen
(32:43):
other presidents that have remodeled the White House? You ever
thought about those sixteen
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.