Matt Gaetz Show - Christina Bobb, Michael Parker, Lt Randy Sutton, Jeffrey Singer

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The former director of the FBI has been indicted. We
have one of the lawyers who represented President Trump with
us tonight. We'll go over the facts in the law
with Christina Bob and Michael R. Parker. Attacks on ice
continue as the deportation agenda plows ahead. Will go over
force protection strategies with veteran cop Randy Sutton. And the
FDA is trying to ban something they say is the

(00:22):
forthcoming of the plague. We'll test those claims. It's all
next on the Mac Gates Show. Let's do this shaking
up Washington, d C. We're breaking the fever.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Do you ever watch this guy on television?

Speaker 3 (00:34):
It's like a machine.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
He's great. Matt Gates, as we join you this Friday evening,
the Karma train has officially pulled into the station. And
guess who got a first class ticket? Former FBI director
James Holier than thou Comy, the man who thought that
America's moral compass was tied to him. He's indicted for

(00:57):
lying to Congress and obstructing an investigation. He literally titled
his memoir A Higher Loyalty. Well, apparently that higher loyalty
was to himself. His book sales and the MSNBC Green Room.
Loyalty to the truth not so much. The indictment says
he lied under oath in twenty twenty when he told
Congress he never authorized FBI people to leak information to

(01:19):
the media except oops, it turns out he did, and
the government will be able to use his own former
employees as witnesses because he told people like former deputy
director Andrew McCabe to leak. Imagine that James Comy lying
it's like catching the raccoon in your garbage and being shocked.
He wasn't there to recycle. Here's President Trump's reaction to

(01:40):
the indictment earlier today.

Speaker 4 (01:42):
He lied, that was a very important question that he
event and he wanted to be s different, but he didn't.

Speaker 5 (01:49):
The only thing that happened to him, he didn't think,
didn't get gone.

Speaker 6 (01:51):
It's about yes, but he's not event.

Speaker 7 (01:54):
He was.

Speaker 3 (01:56):
Don't feel about the fact that you can't let this
go on.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
A big radical, that big book, and.

Speaker 8 (02:03):
They can't get away with one day.

Speaker 5 (02:05):
Roam Komy was one of the big booms.

Speaker 9 (02:07):
He wasn't the biggest.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Lady's the dirty cop.

Speaker 10 (02:10):
He's always been a data cop.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
Everybody do it a dirty cop. Indeed, the man who
ran the FBI like it was his own personal pr
firm has also been indicted for obstructing a congressional investigation.
The irony is thicker than the not in Adam Shift's tie.
For years, these people screamed obstruction every time Trump tweeted.
Yet here Comy, the self anointed saint of transparency, accused

(02:36):
of the very thing he weaponized against President Trump. When
Trump fired Comy, the media acted like Abraham Lincoln had
been shot again. CNN practically hung Komy's jersey in the rafters.
He was their lebron James of Resistance. Turns out standing
six foot eight doesn't help you, duck charges. The five
year statute of limitations was expiring at the end of

(02:57):
the month, like a bad milk carton the grand I'm
sure he promptly issued the indictments when presented the evidence.
The man who made a career out of leaking memos,
planting stories, and pretending he was Captain America is finally
facing a case styled United States Versus James Comy. He
always thought he was prosecuting someone else, Trump, Flynn, Carter, Page,

(03:20):
you name it. But now the hunter has become the hunted.
Shakespeare couldn't have written it better. And let's not forget
the arrogance. Remember the substance of those dramatic memos he
leaked about his conversations with Trump. He wrote them like
they were love letters to himself, Dear Diary, today, I
was noble again. I told the President. No, he actually

(03:42):
admitted he leaked those memos in order to trigger a
special Council investigation. That's like admitting you lit a match
and threw it on gasoline just to see who would
call the fire department. And this guy ran the FBI.
The media once called him America's boy scout. I call
him America's hall monitor, the kid who takes your gum
and then writes a novel about it. He always had

(04:02):
that smug, sanctimonious look, like he had just discovered morality
and the rest of us were lucky he would tell
us about it. Of course, the resistance crowd is already weeping.
Rachel Maddow probably needs a fainting couch. They'll say this
is a witch hunt. But you know what, Sometimes evil
actually exists, and when you find it, you don't ignore it.

(04:24):
You put it on trial. If convicted, he could actually
face prison time. Imagine the book deal then a higher
loyalty to even behind bars. Justice may be slow, but
it's like Trump's golf swing. It always comes through and
it matters most Joining us now, author of Defiant, Inside
the mar A Lago Raid and the Left's ongoing law Fair,

(04:44):
and former Trump attorney and current attorney for Judicial Watch,
Christina Bob Christina, thanks for being here. What's your reaction
to the indictment of James Comy.

Speaker 11 (04:53):
Well, it's about time. We've been waiting to see somebody
hold anybody accountable for the abuse of the Department of Justice,
the abuse of the justice system, and finally we have
an indictment. So I think it's a good day. I
think the indictment is great. It's pretty thin. It is
not overreaching. When they indicted Donald Trump, we saw thirty

(05:15):
nine counts. You know, he's going to spend a million
years in prison. It was very sensational, and that is
not the case with the Komy indictment. I think it's
pled properly. It's very appropriate, and I'm looking forward to
watching this play out.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
Yeah, the structure of the pleading has gotten a lot
of attention. And it did seem in the actions against
President Trump, it was volume in lieu of any sort
of credible violation of criminal law. Here it's I think
that the thin isn't necessarily bad because it's like, look,
you said before Congress you did not authorize leaks, and

(05:52):
you did, and all these people who worked for you,
who like you a great deal said you authorized them
to do this, And it's pretty STRAIGHTFORWM forward. How do
you read those two different styles?

Speaker 11 (06:04):
No, I think that's right. I think you know, when
you see law fair, it's a great way to identify
law fair, as you're very familiar with. When you have
the big sensational types of pleadings to try to make headlines,
it's a good indication that the purpose of the case
is for something other than bringing about justice, which is lawfair.
The purpose of the Trump case was headlines, try to

(06:27):
bankrupt him, try to take him off the campaign trail,
And here the purpose really just is justice. There's nothing
sensational about it. So yeah, I think it's a good
move by the Department of Justice. I think it's great
for Lindsay Halligan. I mean she got sworn in one day.
The next day there was an indictment, So good on her.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
You've seen lawfair from every perspective as an attorney, a target,
a journalist. Some we'll look at this and say it's retribution.
Is that how you see it? In doscomy deserve a
little retribution?

Speaker 11 (06:57):
Well, he does deserve retribution. I'm not sure that that's
what is going on here. I think to the extent
that it is, it's not retribution for what he did
to Donald Trump. It would be retribution or accountability, I
think is probably the better word for what he did
to the American people. Because when Donald Trump says, they're
not after me, they're after you. I'm just in the way.

(07:19):
This is what he's talking about. And you know what
that's like. You've been, you know, very much attacked by
the Department of Justice and the media. I'm currently a
criminal defendant, a much smaller player. But that's kind of
the point, is that they're going after us. They're trying
to take us out, and Donald Trump is preventing that.
And the only way we can stop them from continuing

(07:40):
to target us because there are still about fifty of
us being targeted for the twenty twenty election. I know,
you know, most of the media is not covering it,
but it's still happening.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
No, we have covered it. We've had Mark Medow's on
he's a criminal defendant, We've had Rudy Juliana on he's
a criminal defendant. And we're covering it because we think
that with a real active civil rights division at the
US Department of Justice, some appropriate questions could be raised
of the state entities that are violating people's First Amendment
right to associate, to petition their government, to try to

(08:11):
make the world afraid of MAGA, which is I think
the definition of lawfare right.

Speaker 11 (08:17):
And it was a coordinated effort to try to frame
these Trump supporters in several states exactly as you say,
to try to scare people away from MEGA.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
So there will be some who say, you know, this
is really TICKI tacky stuff. Everybody in Washington leaks and
everybody lies about leaks. That's just sort of how it goes.
We shouldn't use criminal process in this way. Why do
you think it's important to reset that line that the
FBI director can't go light to Congress?

Speaker 11 (08:46):
Well, because they all are. I mean, Christopher Ray did
what Jim call Me did to the FBI. I don't
know if the FBI deserved all of the respect that
it had before he was the director. But the FBI
was respected, and I think the average American looked at
the FBI and thought, that's a great institution. You know,
I'm proud to be American, all the great things. And
then after Jim Comey got in there and did whatever

(09:07):
the heck he was doing, Americans hated the FBI. It
needs to be reset at best, if not shrunk, because
what he did with the FBI is terrible, and that
precedent that he has to be that he has set
has to be walked back, otherwise it's going to get
worse and worse and worse.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
So I talked to a major Democrat donor today and
he told me that Hillary and Bill Clinton were not
sad to see Comy indicted. And when you think there's
not a lot of folks, you know, in that part
of the left who really like him. On the right,
we've had our concerns with violations of civil rights, certainly
the lying and the leaking about President Trump. Who do
you think the constituency is left that James Comy wants

(09:47):
to see on his criminal jury.

Speaker 11 (09:49):
Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. He doesn't appear
to be running for office, so I don't know. I
don't know who's going to rescue him on this. But
I think, you know, it's just kind of a weird dude,
if I could say it that way. I think he
thinks he's this schmoozer, like if you watched the video
that he put out, he thinks he's really smooth. And

(10:10):
you know, I don't know who's gonna save him. I
don't know who feels loyal to him, honestly, I don't.
I don't know who's coming to his rescue.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's like a very small
echelon of like elites who are members of country clubs
who are kind of off put by all of us
MAGA people who enjoy, you know, being with regular folks.
And I think there's there's some like constituency there. But
I don't think he's sleeping well hoping that one of
those folks are on his jury and not because of politics.

(10:39):
Like that's the brilliance of what Halligan has done here.
It's hard to say this is about some grand political
conspiracy when it's just a simple question of are the
things you said true or are they false. What do
you think will be the ultimate legacy of Jim Comey
in the eyes of history.

Speaker 11 (10:55):
I think he will be the first FBI director convicted
of lying to Congress. I think that will be his legacy.
I don't want to make it sound like a slam dunk,
and it's not. There certainly are hurdles, and the venue
isn't particularly helpful, but I think they've got him though.
I think he did lie, and quite honestly, I think
it gets worse from there. I think we could see

(11:15):
a superseding indictment with but it could have potential reco
charges or conspiracy charges. What he did as far as
assisting the overthrow of the American president with Russia Gate
and leaking to the press and lying about Donald Trump
and creating false information that the American people believe is
true because it comes from the FBI, that is so

(11:37):
much worse than what he was charged with that I
think it only gets worse for him from here. So
he'll be lucky if it stays like this and this
is all he gets convicted of.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
Wow, what a prediction, But I think that's true. We
saw this indictment now largely as a forcing function of
the statute of limitations that other conduct would be within
a broader statue of limitations that could still be some
to grand jury review. When there are moments like this
where one of the bad guys has to face the
music or appears they may have to, is there any relief,

(12:10):
like among those the deep state targeted? And I mean
from my own sense, yes, Like I think it actually
is nice to see that this is not an infrastructure
just built to go after us. But when other people
do things such as Comy did, they've got to be
subjected to the very same process. Do you feel that relief?

Speaker 11 (12:28):
I do, And I think they're all scared. The people
that we're hearing crying right now and screaming, going, oh,
this is so bad. I can't believe that they would
do something so unprecedented when they it's not unprecedented, and
they did it for I don't know, at least the
last ten years. I genuinely think they're scared because they
recognize that, Okay, he's got Komy, he's probably going to
go after Bolton. There's going to be more indictments, and

(12:50):
I would expect them to pick up the pace with it.
I think the people that are crying the loudest right
now are the people who are scared of being indicted.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
Wow. Well, we may see more coming, but it is
nice to see us at this stage at the game. Christina, Bob,
thank you so much and thank you for the tremendous
work you guys do. A Judicial Watch would I would
always say, as a member of Congress, judicial Watch did
more actual oversight than the people with the subpoena power
and the powers that are in Article one of the Constitution.

(13:19):
So please give our best to everyone there. And if
folks are interested in the cutting edge oversight going on,
check out the folks at judicial Watch. They're doing great work.
Thank you, Christina, Thank you, Matt. And coming up, we've
got more on the Comy indictment with legal expert Michael R.
Parker will go through the process that the former FBI
director is likely to face and the strategies that we
may see play out at trial. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 12 (13:46):
Viewers are always asking me how can they watch away
in live. The solution is simple. It's a streaming platform
called cloud tv. Now it's spelled klowd Tvimply go to
cloudtv dot com and subscribe to watch twenty four to
seven live feeds of OAN. The live package is only

(14:07):
two dollars and fifty cents per month for all you
can watch again, simply go to cloudtv dot com and
do it today. Hey, if your cable provider doesn't offer
One America News Network, you should get them a call
and kindly demand that they carry OAN. Now, you're the customer,

(14:30):
and without your feedback, your cable provider will not know
that there is a strong demand across this country for
One America News Network. So please call your cable company
today and kindly ask or demand that they add OANN
to their channel lineup.

Speaker 9 (14:52):
Hey everyone, here's a question for you.

Speaker 12 (14:54):
What does Roku TV, Apple TV, and Amazon fireTV all
have in common? The answer is that all three platforms
offer you the ability to live stream One America News
Network from your Roku TV, Apple TV.

Speaker 9 (15:08):
Or Amazon Fire device.

Speaker 12 (15:11):
Simply go to the app store search out FORN, then
enjoy all the great programming offered by OIEN, including my
show Real America. Hey, did you know that One America
News Network has launched a twenty four to seven Twitter
like social media replacement. We're calling it Free Talk forty five.

(15:33):
So why is it branded free Talk forty five. Well,
free talk because you will not be censored for expressing
your opinion there, and forty five because forty five is
a really lucky number. So join us at free Talk
forty five and express yourself with no fear of cancelation.

Speaker 1 (15:52):
Ever, I'm innocent, So let's have a trial. That's former
FBI Director James Comy. He's been indicted for a lying
to Congress and obstruction, and he wants his trial. A
lot of the centers around Comey's willingness to shuttle information
to the media to smear Trump and then lie about it.

Speaker 6 (16:15):
When asked on May third, twenty seventeen, in this committee,
Chairman Grassley asked you, point blank, quote, have you ever
been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating
to the Trump investigation of the Clinton investigation? You responded
under oath quote never. He then asked you, quote, have

(16:36):
you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to the
unanonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or
the Clinton administration? You responded again under oath No. Now,
as you know, mister McCabe, who works for you, has
publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the
Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it,

(16:59):
and that you direct authorized who's telling the truth?

Speaker 1 (17:03):
I can only speak to my testimony.

Speaker 11 (17:05):
I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I
gave in May of twenty seventeen.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak.
And mister McCabe, when if he says contrary is not
telling the truth?

Speaker 13 (17:17):
Is that correct?

Speaker 12 (17:18):
Again, it's not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine
is the same.

Speaker 1 (17:21):
Today, we wanted to break down what happens next procedurally,
so we're bringing in someone who knows the courtroom. Well.
Michael Parker is the managing partner at m R. Parker
Law and he joins US. So, Michael, simple indictment a
page and a half. I think that shows the strength
of the case.

Speaker 3 (17:37):
What are your thoughts, I mean, it doesn't. It doesn't.
I think there are some concerns to have about the indictment.
So there were actually three charges that were filed for
the indictment against James Comey, So the third one actually
didn't hold up. The grandjury didn't give the third charge

(17:57):
to the prosecutor, to the US Attorney and you know,
the burden of proof for an indictment is fairly low.
It's really just probable cause. So it speaks to the
weakness of one of the charges. But then it also
speaks to the strength of the other ones, because if
the grand jury was willing to let one of them go,
they must have felt really strongly about the other two,

(18:20):
because it's unusual that a grand jury will give some
and then not give others. It's usually an all or
nothing thing. So I think it does speak to the
strength of the remaining two counts and the weakness of
the third one, which may have been a little bit
of overreach. Now, as far as what happens next, Komi's
going to turn himself in, He's not going to be
held in custody. Most likely he'll be released on his

(18:41):
own recognizance and then he'll be arraigned and then we'll
move forward with the case from there. So you know,
we'll see what happens once it gets in the court.
But I think for the two remaining charges, there's a
lot of strength there.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
This isn't state court, it's federal court. Do we get
a mug shot.

Speaker 3 (18:56):
Here, I don't think so. Not in federal court.

Speaker 1 (18:59):
Okay, so now I do want to go over the
what I believe is kind of an elegance to the
charging document, because I think a thrust of the defense
will be this is this political drama playing out in
criminal court. And you know, we had another guest on
who noted that when you had the Alvin Bragg prosecution
against Trump, the Fannie Willis prosecution, that you had all

(19:22):
of these different counts, and you had these very thick indictments,
and after a while the volume started to look like
a substitute for substance, whereas here, like the fact presented
is pretty binary. The guy lied to Congress about authorizing
leaks or he didn't. You know, do you think that
slimming it down limits some of the avenues for those

(19:42):
types of selective prosecution defenses.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
You know, I've tried a lot of cases. My office
has tried a lot of cases. And the simpler you
can make it for a jury, the better. You know,
there's a phrase when you're explaining you're losing when something's complicated,
when it's convoluted, it's really hard to get the jury
to fall and to give you that conviction. And in
this situation, it's very very straightforward. Right in twenty twenty,
there was a conversation with Ted Cruz at a Senate hearing.

(20:09):
You know, he doubled down on his twenty seventeen statement
about not knowing whether an anonymous source was authorized to
speak to the Wall Street Journal. Clearly he lied about that,
and that's it. It doesn't need more than two pages.
It's open shut, easy for a jury to understand. And
I think it's not going to be a hard condiction
to get. Now, whether he'll get jail time or how
hard the judge is going to come down on him,

(20:30):
I don't think much. Remember it's a Biden appoint in judge, right,
you know, there might be some sort of, you know,
a negotiated resolution because of that. But I think that
the charges aren't going to be hard to prove. I
think that it's a very simple, easy, straightforward case for
a jury, and the fact that it's so elegant and
simple really proves the strength of the case.

Speaker 1 (20:49):
What do you think will be the next steps as
far as the defense's motion strategy. Obviously they'll try to
do everything they can to avoid a reckoning with a jury.

Speaker 3 (21:00):
Yeah, I mean, I just don't think there's a lot
they can do. It's so straightforward. There's not a lot
of evidence, right, The only evidence is really is testimony
in Congress. There's not a lot to get thrown out
or challenge. I mean, I think they're going to have
to try to negotiate some sort of resolution, and I
think that the Trump administration, Pambondi, the Department of Justice
may do that because the point of this prosecution isn't

(21:20):
political retribution. It's to show that, whether you're an elected
official or not, that you cannot lie in congressional hearings.
The point of this is to preserve the integrity of
congressional hearings. So the outcome of this case doesn't matter
at all. It's the fact that people need to know
when they're testifying in front of Congress or the Senate,
that they need to be honest, that they have to
be straightforward, and that they can't hide behind their office

(21:42):
and think they can get away with it. So I
think the outcome of this is a lot less important
than the message it sends, which is we need to
uphold the integrity of the congressional process Congression, that Congress
needs to be able to investigate things and get the
correct and accurate information, and that's really what this is about.

Speaker 1 (21:59):
So I started writing down who I thought would be
on the government's witness list. Again, I was very involved
in all this stuff in twenty twenty and Comy's activities
and was involved in some of his depositions.

Speaker 3 (22:10):
But that's who's gonna be on there.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
Well, right, So, but that's an interesting little thread to pull, right,
So you're gonna have Andrew McCabe, you gonna have Peter Baker,
some of these upper echelon people at the FBI. And
we spent a good part of twenty twenty and beyond
saying these people were liars, they themselves were dishonest to Congress.
How do you go about, as the government putting people

(22:33):
up as the key witnesses who a lot of people
believe themselves were misleading Congress and the public on these
key questions.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
I mean, I think you just have to look at contexts, right.
It's like Okham's razor, you know, the simplest explanation is
the best one, right, And I think when you look
at all the evidence, you look at the context of
what happened, it's clear that there was this witch hunt, right,
with the Russian investigation against Trump, I think it's clear
that it was coming from the FBI. Right you look
at all the harder page stuff. I mean, you look

(23:01):
at how much stuff happened during the twenty sixteen election cycle.
I think it makes it easy to put it in
context and to see kind of what was going on.
And I don't think the fact that you know, we
call people like mickay but liar during the time it matters.
I think people know what the narrative is. I think
they know what really happened. And I don't think it's
going to be hard to point to those people and say, hey, look,

(23:22):
they might have credibility issues for certain things, but we
believe him here when it comes to Comy and that
Comy knew all about this anonymous source, that Comy gave
his assent to it, and that he was involved and
lied to Congress. When you're speaking to Ted Cruz and
also back in twenty seventeen.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
Witnesses don't typically arrive on the witness stand stepping directly
out of sainthood. You get the witnesses you have, not
the witnesses you want. In all cases, and I've had
matters before where you have to deal with a witness
who's had prior statements that the jury isn't going to
like that are going to be disproven by other evidence.

(23:58):
And I always there were some who say, you deal
with that right at the beginning. I always like to
start with my best stuff, my most important stuff, my
captivating stuff, and then you know, sort of deal with
the fact that, Oh yes, and as an aside, you know,
there are these other matters that you want to control
and present before cross examination. Just like generally speaking, how

(24:18):
do you deal with that? Do do you try to
front load what you have to correct with a witness
like potentially and Andrew McCabe, who's got other statements that
aren't necessarily aligned with the truth.

Speaker 3 (24:29):
Oh, we always put all of our worst evidence in
our opening, right, because you want to control the narrative
of how the jury hears it. Because if you don't
control the narrative of your bad evidence, then the other
side's get to control the narrative of your bad evidence.
So every single case I've ever tried, there's at least
one piece of bad evidence, And to be quite honest,
there's lots of pieces of bad evidence in every single case, right,
even if you have the best plan iff in the

(24:50):
world or the best defendant in the world, and you
need to get in front of that. So you know,
what you're saying about strategy is absolutely correct. You know,
I tend to do it a little different. I lead
with the worst pieces of evidence and then I let
those you know, get out there, and then I follow
up with the best pieces of evidence and leave that
in the juror's mind so that when it moves on
to the other side they're left with a good impression.

(25:11):
But yeah, you are absolutely correct in terms of getting
it out in front of it and getting it out
to the jury on your own terms. And I think
it's going to be funny when this also goes to
people like Tiss James, because I think she's probably going
to be next on the list of people that are
going after.

Speaker 1 (25:27):
Lindsay Halligan got this indictment very quickly. She was appointed
as the US tourney for the Eastern District in this
temporary role that allows someone to serve for hundreds of
days potentially. But what does that tell you about the
grand jury process that she was able to get in
there and activate an indictment on two of these three charges.
Very quickly.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
I mean, I think it just tells you that Number one,
the administration has credibility. Right the fact that they were
able to get a grand jury to you know, rubber
stamp essentially the first two charges so quickly shows that
the administration has credit. I think it shows that she
has more experience than people give her credit for. You know,
when Lindsay came in, a lot of people were saying, hey, look,

(26:07):
you know she's never been a prosecutor. She worked in
the Trump campaign and you know, had been there at
mar Lago, But you know, what experience does she really have.
I think she was an insurance defense lawyer before that,
and it really shows that she can get in there quickly,
she can take control of the situation, that she's a
good leader, and I think Trump got the right person
in there. And we'll see, you know, what happens down

(26:27):
the road. But right now, she seems like a very
capable prosecutor, capable leader, and I have a lot of
faith that she's going to do a good job.

Speaker 1 (26:34):
She seems to get the essence of this case very quickly.
And I know Lindsay Halligan, well, she's brilliant. Anyone who underestimates.
Lindsay Halligan does so with their own peril. Michael R. Parker,
thank you was always I love getting into the nerdy
parts of legal process with you. When these stories are
in the headlines, I always appreciate it too, Thanks so much, Matt.
And there are attacks against ICE agents that are rising

(26:55):
in a very dramatic and troubling fashion. We wanted to
learn more about how force protection works during these operations,
how the integration of police at the state and local
level can lead to safer and more secure conditions for ICE.
We've got a veteran cop here with us next to
walk through those issues. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 9 (27:19):
Hey everyone, here's a question for you.

Speaker 12 (27:21):
What does Roku TV, Apple TV, and Amazon fireTV all
have in common. The answer is that all three platforms
offer you the ability to live stream One America News
Network from your Roku TV, Apple TV or Amazon Fire device.
Simply go to the app store, search out for an

(27:42):
then enjoy all the great programming offered by Oien, including
my show Real America.

Speaker 9 (27:51):
Viewers are always asking me how can they.

Speaker 12 (27:53):
Watch away in live. The solution is simple. It's a
streaming platform called cloud tv. Now It's spelled KLOWDTV. Simply
go to cloudtv dot com and subscribe to watch twenty
four to seven live feeds of OAN. The live package
is only two dollars and fifty cents per month for

(28:15):
all you can watch. Again, simply go to cloudtv dot
com and do it today. Hey, if your cable provider
doesn't offer One America News Network, you should give them
a call and kindly demand that they carry OAN. Now,
you're the customer, and without your feedback, your cable provider

(28:38):
will not know that there is a strong demand across
this country for one America News Network. So please call
your cable company today and kindly ask or demand that
they add OANN to their channel lineup. Hey, did you
know that One America News Network has launched a twenty

(28:59):
four to seven Twitter like social media replacement. We're calling
it free Talk forty five.

Speaker 9 (29:05):
So why is it branded free Talk forty five?

Speaker 12 (29:08):
Well, free talk because you will not be censored for
expressing your opinion there, and forty five because forty five
is a really lucky number. So join us at free
Talk forty five and express yourself with no fear of cancelation.

Speaker 14 (29:24):
Ever, we know this person was politically motivated. They were
politically motivated to go after law enforcement. They were politically
motivated to go after people who are enforcing our border.
It is time to stop the rhetorical assault on law enforcement.

(29:47):
Because here's what happens when Democrats like Gavin Newsom did
say that these people are part of an authoritarian government.
When the left wing media lies about what they're doing,
when they lie about who they're arresting, when they about
the actual job of law enforcement, what they're doing is
encouraging crazy.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
People to go and commit violence.

Speaker 14 (30:07):
You don't have to agree with my immigration policies, you
don't have to agree with Donald Trump's immigration policies. But
if your political rhetoric encourages violence against our law enforcement,
you can go straight to head and you have no
place in the political conversation of the United States of America.

Speaker 1 (30:25):
In the Trump era, we have law borders and agents
enforcing that law. But lately, instead of support, those agents
are under fire, literally, and the attacks are spiking. It's
no coincidence. According to the Department of Homeland Security, assaults
on ice officers of skyrocketed, and one press release they
cite a five hundred percent increase in assaults while carrying

(30:47):
out enforcement operations. That's when they're most vulnerable. What might
once have been isolated scuttles or heated protests now look
like organized aggression. Add bomb threats, doxing of ICE families,
car dragons, and outright ambushes on detention facilities. In July,
a coordinated attack targeted the Prairie Land ICE detention facility

(31:09):
in Alvarado, Texas. Fireworks drew officers out and then gunfire
rained down. One local officer was shot in the neck.
And just this week, a sniper opened fire on a
Dallas ICE facility from a rooftop, killing a dtaee and
wounding two anti ICE Slogans were found on the AMMO.
You don't need to be a genius to see a pattern.
These aren't spontaneous events, they're attacks. White House Deputy Chief

(31:33):
of Staff Stephen Miller explained how the administration will go
after this organized violence by the left.

Speaker 15 (31:39):
Because of this executive order, Cash and PAM are going
to have the tools they need, working with Scott to
take these organizations apart, piece by piece, and the central
hub of that effort is going to be the Joint
Terrorism Task Force er JTTF, which sits inside the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. But for those at home, we're worried
about terrorist in this country. To understand, because the President
Shump's strength, of his vision, because of his leadership, we

(32:03):
are now going to use the entire force of the
feral government to uproot these organizations, root and branch.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
So yes, attacks on ICE should shock us. Their attacks
on the rule of law, and unless enforcement is backed
up physically, legally, politically, financially, these attacks will keep growing.
You cannot expect agents to do their job if they
fear for their lives. If you want borders, if you
want to see this deportation agenda continue, you have to

(32:30):
protect the enforcers. You have to have ICE able to
get back up from local law enforcement. When instead we've
seen some of these state and local officials indicate that
ICE is not welcome. So they need to stop that rhetoric.
They need to support these agents, defend the law because
the attacks against ICE are not abstract. They are the
first step in dismantling the deportation, border control, and sovereignty

(32:54):
of this nation. Here with us now, founder of the
Wounded Blue and retired police lieutenant for the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department. Randy Sutton. Randy, we've done interviews from
the Law Enforcement Memorial before. I know how much you
and your organization do for law enforcement families. These attacks
on ice they don't seem to be going down, they
seem to be ramping up. How do you see the situation.

Speaker 12 (33:18):
Now?

Speaker 13 (33:18):
You're one hundred percent right with the I think the
statistic now is one thousand percent more attacks on ice
officers in the last year. That is an astronomical statistic.
And here's what it means in terms of the human experience.
These are moms and dads, they're they're the children of others,

(33:39):
and they are literally going out there every single day
in more and more danger. Why because the radical left
has continued to demonize them and literally call for violence
towards them. When when the leadership of a of a
city or or a county or a federal government actually

(34:03):
goes into the public forum and talks about how it's acceptable,
not only acceptable, but they encourage violence towards these brave
men and women, What it does is put these people
more in more and more danger every single day, and
we are seeing the injuries of these officers going up.

(34:27):
We are seeing the danger mentally, physically, and emotionally.

Speaker 1 (34:32):
How should city and state officials be reacting to these
ICE raids and their jurisdiction. What would be the example
of good cooperation.

Speaker 13 (34:40):
Well, here's how they can justify and rationalize in their
own minds not cooperating with ICE, which is a federal
law enforcement agency, and law enforcement departments around this country
should be embracing them, not shunning them. And what they're

(35:02):
doing is they're following the orders of the mayors and
of the in some cases governors who are telling these
police leaders not to cooperate. This is highly dangerous and
it is unprecedented. We've never seen law enforcement officers not
cooperate with one another when they're facing danger, and this

(35:24):
is aready acceptable.

Speaker 1 (35:26):
It's just completely even when you say it, different components
of our own law enforcement not working together over politics.
I don't care if you're right or left. Putting people
up to do those jobs in that situation just sounds
like a tragedy. Now, if you are local PD and
you understand these urban environments, having worked in Vegas, talk
to me about how force protection is best done so

(35:49):
that ICE can operate in these types of increasingly contested environments.

Speaker 13 (35:55):
Okay, so here's what we know, especially in some of
the sanctuary cities that we seeing sanctuary states, that the
ICE puts a detainer on an illegal and the way
that in the normal world, the uh the individual will
not be released from from custody until ICE can serve

(36:16):
that that that detainer. What has been happening is they
many of these sanctuary cities have just said we're not
going to cooperate, and so they release these dangerous individuals
onto the streets. So what happened? What happens? Then, well,
ICE isn't going away, right, They have a mandate, and
that mandate is from the President of the United States
that you are to enforce the ICE laws. So they

(36:38):
have to go into the communities and they have to
be in a much more dangerous situation apprehend these individuals. Now,
you know, in a in a in a in a
controlled environment like jail, it's it's much safer. But when
you go into into a an urban environment, it becomes
much more dangerous. And of course we've seen how when

(37:01):
when they're making these arrests, they are sometimes besieged by
hostile crowds. You have you have elected officials, announcing where
ice is going to be. It is. It is incredible,
and I believe that there should be arrests made of
elected officials if they interfere with the with the safety

(37:23):
of these officers.

Speaker 1 (37:24):
It's clear that the Trump administration is willing to do
that when we've seen that and there's just no need
for it and no use for it. I am concerned
about snipers seeming to become all the rage now, these
attacks that we've seen on facilities in Texas and that
we've seen even this week. Are drones the best anti

(37:45):
sniper tool at this point? How are local law enforcement
officials supposed to react to this emerging threat around some
of the detention facilities themselves, not even the operational work,
but even just the detention facility.

Speaker 13 (38:00):
Sure, so you know, drones are an excellent tool. They
haven't even come into their own when it comes down
to law enforcement. There are still many many most agencies
don't have drones. They don't have the capabilities, they don't
have the money for it, and it's very very defensive
to try and mount a drone surveillance system over a facility.

(38:24):
And that's one of the situations here. The expense here
in trying to secure these ice facilities. But it's not
just ice who's getting ambushed. Remember, just in the last
couple of weeks, we had uh real, we had officers
killed in York, Pennsylvania, very you know, a rural farming community.
We had officers ambushed in a small community in Utah.

(38:49):
So we're seeing these ambush these ambushed killings taking place
on a more frequent basis. And then you look at
the attack yesterday where we saw this individual writing on
the rounds that were left at the scene. And let's
let's all be really clear here. If that isn't a

(39:12):
copycat of Charlie Kirk, I don't know what is. And
when you have weak minded individuals, losers like this guy
who's got nothing else in his life and they are
willing to lay down their life for some weird, perverted
ideology and make themselves aggrandize themselves, this is highly dangerous.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
I do Unfortunately, we have to reference your organization because
it's still necessary. I'm sure you would love if your
organization wasn't necessary, if law enforcement wasn't having to succumb
to some of these really really challenging environments on the street.
But talk about how folks can be involved in supporting
law enforcement families through the Wounded Blue.

Speaker 2 (39:55):
Thank you.

Speaker 13 (39:55):
The Wounded Blue is you can see us at the
Wounded Blue dot com. We're a nationwide charity that helps
injure and disabled officers across this country. And just two
days ago, I was in a conversation with an officer
who had been ambushed and shot in the throat with
a twelve gage shotgun. And when he heard he and

(40:16):
I were together when the news came out about the
incident in Texas, and you can see in his eyes
the fear, you could see the pain because he was
reliving his own trauma from what is taking place. Wow now,
and that's happening to cops across America. If you want
to help, please go to the Wounded Blue dot org.

(40:38):
See who we are, see what we do, give what
you can.

Speaker 1 (40:41):
Lieutenant Randy Sutton, formerly of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,
thanks for coming on, Thanks for all you do for
law enforcement families.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
Thank you man.

Speaker 1 (40:52):
And coming up. There's a product that the FDA is banning.
The only issue is that we can't find a great
deal of harm from it, and there are Americans speaking
out against the potential ban will break down that issue
with the Cato Institute following a quick break.

Speaker 12 (41:12):
Hey, if your cable provider doesn't offer One America News Network,
you should give them a call and kindly demand that
they carryan Now, you're the customer, and without your feedback,
your cable provider will not know that there is a
strong demand across this country for One America News Network.
So please call your cable company today and kindly ask

(41:36):
or demand that they addaann to their channel Lineup, Hey,
did you know that One America News Network has launched
a twenty four to seven Twitter like social media replacement.
We're calling it free Talk forty five. So why is
it branded free Talk forty five? Well, free talk because

(41:58):
you will not be said answered for expressing your opinion there,
and forty five because forty five is a really lucky number.
So join us at free Talk forty five and express
yourself with no fear of cancelation. Ever, viewers are always
asking me how can they watch away in live? The

(42:20):
solution is simple. It's a streaming platform called cloud tv.
Now it's spelled klowd TV. Simply go to cloudtv dot
com and subscribe to watch twenty four to seven live
feeds of OAYN. The live package is only two dollars
and fifty cents per month for all you can watch again.

(42:42):
Simply go to cloudtv dot com and do it today.

Speaker 9 (42:49):
Hey everyone, here's a question for you.

Speaker 12 (42:51):
What does Roku TV, Apple TV, and Amazon fireTV all
have in common? The answer is that all three platform
offer you the ability to live stream One America News
Network from your Roku TV, Apple TV or Amazon Fire device.
Simply go to the app store, search out for a
n then enjoy all the great programming offered by Alien,

(43:15):
including my show Real America.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
Have you ever heard of a compound called seven oh?
I hadn't until we saw FDA Chief Marty McCarey tell
us it was coming to kill us all.

Speaker 7 (43:34):
How many if there are any known cases there are
of seven oh h being recorded as the sole cause
of a fatal overdose.

Speaker 4 (43:43):
We have terrible statistics because if somebody comes in with
seven oh overdose, I'm not even sure a doctor would
know to ask about seven oh. Very few doctors I've
spoken with know what's in these vape stores or know
what seven oh is. I've had to explain it to
a dozen or so doctors I've talked to, so I
think we're just starting to understand.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
We're just starting to understand. I'm sorry the FDA, and
I really like Marty McCarey, but public health edicts before
you understand is definitely something you lost your mulligan on
after COVID When the government says we are just starting
to understand, and what follows is a ban on your conduct,

(44:25):
that concerns us. The reporter's question in that press conference
was a good one. The press conference was called to
announce that the FDA was going to place seven oh
on the Schedule one drug list, indicating that it couldn't
be provided to people who wanted to buy it. Maybe
we don't have fifty thousand deaths from seven OHH, but
is there even one. We can't find a single case

(44:48):
where seven oh has killed even one person, absent some
other substance being in the system like fentanyl. By the way,
if someone dies with fentanyl in their system, we try
not to blame other costs of death because it serves
our policy goals. By comparison, ibuprofen kills thousands of people
in the United States annually. Thailand all kills hundreds Benadrill

(45:09):
kills hundreds. Seven OH has over a billion doses distributed
since it hit the shelves, not one confirmed death. Seven
OH has led to harm reduction for tens of thousands
of Americans like these.

Speaker 15 (45:22):
I'm a one hundred percent permanently and totally disabled veteran
of the US Air Force.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
He's seven zero for chronic pain and PTSD.

Speaker 10 (45:29):
Span pivotal along with critem as getting not only me,
but so many people off of narcotic drugs, especially the
prescription painkillers.

Speaker 7 (45:42):
I suffer from extreme PTSD and depression, and before taking
seven OH, I was jobless, lifeless, I had no relationship
with literally anybody. I was just existing, not living. And
since taking seven OH, I've created my own business. I've
gotten a new job and been promoted at that. There
are so many benefits from this.

Speaker 16 (46:02):
I've had five surgeries and five spine injections, and after
that amount of time, that amount of pain tailent on
motrin is not enough. Seven OH helps me in those
really painful days to just do simple things like work.

Speaker 8 (46:18):
It helps me manage my pain when generally the doctors
haven't been able to. I've had surgeries, I've had ruptured discs.
I've had all sorts of stuff and the doctors just
keep giving me tailin all in advil, and it started
wrecking my stomach. I started causing all these problems. And
the Creatim has been the only natural alternative I've been
able to find.

Speaker 11 (46:33):
And seven oho gave me my life back after a
car accident let me struggling for years with chronic pain.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
It is an all in one for me. It is
an anti depression and anti anxiety, a mood boost, it
helps pain relief. I originally found these alkaloids to get
off of hard drugs, not to put myself deeper into
a hole, and it worked.

Speaker 15 (46:53):
It wasn't for Kretim and for seven oh I would
not be sitting here today with my beautiful family, working
a full time job, giving back to my community.

Speaker 13 (47:00):
Let's stop the man.

Speaker 1 (47:02):
We make no claims about the efficacy of Kretom or
seven oh H, but it strikes us as news that
something is getting so much attention from the FDA while
people seem generally happy.

Speaker 9 (47:14):
With the product.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
So why is an over the counter pill that hasn't
killed anyone being called the next round of the plague
by the FDA After COVID. We're gonna need actual receipts.
Here's what it looks like to us. Kretum was a
product on the shelves and growing in popularity. But then
seven OHH became the better mouse trap, a creatum derivative

(47:35):
that had better sales. Why would the kreatim industry itself
support banning seven oh? Simple money? If consumers prefer other options,
guess what happens to the sprawling market for kilos of
kreatum leaf and water down extracts. It shrinks. You don't
need to sell truckloads of leaf. When a milligram of

(47:56):
seven oh leads to a customer experience, that inns's customer
choice of that product. In other words, the ban isn't
about safety, it's about turf. Here's the other irony. If
you push seven oh underground, you don't eliminate it. You
just guarantee that it comes back as a black market product, unregulated, mislabeled,
and far riskier. That's how we got fentol in the

(48:17):
first place. Prohibition created a niche for ultrapotent substitutes. The
smart play here would be regulation, not eradication, label it,
test it, cap dosages, do real research, rather than saying
you're just starting to understand and treat adults like adults.
That's how you save lives. So let's be honest. Seven

(48:38):
oh isn't the grim Reaper. It's not a new fentanyl.
It's a compound consumers like vilified by an industry afraid
of losing market share and by politicians eager for another
crisis to rail at. If the standard for banning substances
is someone might misuse it, then lock up your tile
and all your benadrill and your bud light. Because if

(48:59):
history is taught us anything, prohibition doesn't save lives. Innovation does.
And seven oh, whether the Kratim lobby likes it or not,
is innovation. Senior fellow at the Cato Institute Jeffrey Singer
wrote an opinion piece on the subject. He joins me, now, so, Jeffrey,
what guy you writing about seven oh? And what did
you learn about this fight?

Speaker 5 (49:18):
Well, you know, I'm a physician, and I studied drug
policy for the Cato Institute. And there have been a
couple of high profile cases in the mainstream press lately.
Have some young teenagers, for example, who purchased seven oh
at a vaping store or at a gas station and

(49:39):
they had an overdose reaction, and of course, understandably the
parents were very upset. They were on TV. A lot
of people started getting very worried. A number of states
have started banning it, although not all of them. In fact,
the state of Rhode Island this summer reversed this band
instead replaced it with adri restrictions and and that kind

(50:01):
of thing, using well under the influence. So I thought
I'd better learn about this because this is becoming an issue.
And what I discovered is, of course that kreatom, which
comes from the plant Mitrogena speciosa which goes in Southeast Asia,
has been around for a couple of centuries as a

(50:22):
sort of a natural pain believer. People use creative as
the form of a t or capsule or other types
of uses. And uh, there are two active ingredients in
the in kreatum. One is mitrogeny and the other is
seven hydroxy mitrogeny, which is a more potent version. So

(50:45):
recently a lot of stores have been selling Justice seven
hydroxy migagenin, which is seven O H for short, because
people get the desired effect more quickly. What it does is,
even though it's not an opioid. It binds to the
opioid receptors, so it causes a similar kind of pain relief,
and so a lot of people are using it instead

(51:05):
of opioids as sort of a natural pain reliever. And
because it doesn't bind to all of the receptors, it
is what they call a partial opioid agonist. It's less
likely to cause respiratory depression, sort of like suboxone is
less likely than methadone it cause respiratory depression. Some people
who are trying to get off of opioids actually switch

(51:28):
to create them to kind of help get them off
of opioids and avoid the withdrawal symptoms. So what I'm
concerned about is it's perfectly okay, for example, for states
to pass laws having you know, age restrictions like they
do for alcohol and other psychoactive substances, and restrictions on

(51:49):
you know, where you can use it, like if you're
using it while driving a vehicle or something something like that.
But if this is getting popular and it's banned, that's
only going to drive it to the black market and
you know, give another product for the cartels to start selling. Interestingly,
it's there only been a few cases very rare. According
to the CDC, it's very rare for people overdose from

(52:11):
either creative.

Speaker 1 (52:12):
Or anyone died. I mean, an overdose could have a
lot of different implications, but doctor I couldn't find a
single case where someone died whether there wasn't some other
interactive drug like fentanyl or cocaine or someone.

Speaker 5 (52:26):
Else, exactly exactly, according to the CDC. First of all,
according to the Center Consumer Choice Center, which is in
the UK, out of six hundred thousand calls to the
poison control centers in the United States between February May,
fifty three were related to seven O ways or kretom
or point zero zero zero zero nine percent as opposed

(52:48):
to for comparison, during that same period, eleven percent were
from kylon all overdoses. So and every single death has
been related to polydrugs. So, for example, according to the CDC,
I see about two thirds of the people who did
overdose on seven oh had fentanyl in their system, another
third had heroin in their system, and then about twenty

(53:09):
percent had cocaine in their system, and then another twenty
percent had prescription pain pills. So the people who are
overdosing are obviously people who are using recreational drugs illegally,
and they have multiple drugs in their system. It's really
kind of it is wrong to blame it on the
seven oh.

Speaker 9 (53:26):
But I could tell you one thing.

Speaker 5 (53:27):
If they're already used to getting those drugs in the
black market, they're gonna have no problem getting seven oas
in the black market, and it's gonna make it more
likely that the seven oighths they buy in a black
market could have one of those substances as contaminalt like
we see when people try to buy you know, oxyconton
on a black market and turns out it's fentanyl. So
I think it would be ill advised to ban it.

(53:50):
But if states want to put age restrictions, those kind
of you know, sensible regulations like we do for alcohol,
that's that's fine.

Speaker 1 (53:58):
The Cato Institute stands for fair free markets, and it
always offends me when a particular business tries to wrap
the apparatus of government around their business model and get
rid of the competition. And I look at this, and
I see the seven hydroxy tablets really replacing the other
features of creatim in the marketplace, and I'm just kind

(54:19):
of wondering if this focused effort by the FDA to
ban seven h H but be incredibly explicit about the
fact that they don't want to ban Creatim, that that
is just Creatim trying to destroy the competition. Do you
have those concerns?

Speaker 5 (54:33):
Well, it's certainly any thinking person is going to at
least wonder about that that I don't have any evidence
of it, but yeah, there's some interesting inconsistencies. For example,
we also hear that Secretary Kennedy is in favor of
the idea of making psychedelics more available, and that those
are cards of illegal drugs. So why does he want

(54:54):
to at the same time make psychedelics more available make
create them less available. There's a lot of inconsistence, is
that that you know, are certainly curious.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
So where does this effort stand with the scheduling process?

Speaker 15 (55:06):
Now?

Speaker 1 (55:07):
The DEA has to undergo some sort of review. What
will be the critical components of that review to reach
a determination?

Speaker 5 (55:15):
As far as I know right now, nothing has yet occurred,
but I do know that the part of HHS wants
the DA to do a review to see if they'd
like to see it placed on schedule one like heroin
and UH and psychedelics, which is defined as no uh
no currently uh uh no currently no current medical use,

(55:39):
and the high potential for abuse. And of course, like
just like marijuana, creatom does have a currently accepted medical use,
is very good for pain control.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
I don't know where.

Speaker 5 (55:50):
How far along the DA has come with this, but
I know that's what h hhs we'd like to see happen.

Speaker 1 (55:56):
Doctor Jeffrey Singer, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. It's
an excellent piece. It raised some important questions. I appreciate you
coming on my program to talk about it.

Speaker 9 (56:03):
Thank you so much for having me.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
That's all the time we have. We'll be back on Monday,
nine o'clock eastern, sixth Pacific. Make sure to sign up
for the OA and Live app. If you haven't already,
you just go to OA n N dot com. Make
sure you get all the information. You can also follow
me on x at Matt Gates and email us the
Matt Gates Show at OA n N dot com. Stay
right here Fine Point with Chanel Ryan is up next.

(56:26):
Let's go get them