Mike Benz Drops BOMBSHELL Info On Operation Arctic Frost: Jack Smith & Judge Boasberg To Be CHARGED?
November 14, 2025 • 45 mins
Jesse Kelly dives into the chilling revelations of Arctic Frost with special guest Mike Benz, a leading expert on government overreach. They unravel the sinister layers of what could be the most audacious weaponization of government power in history, exposing its far-reaching implications. Benz shares insider insights on how Arctic Frost represents a calculated move by corrupt forces to tighten their grip on control. Plus, Hans Mahncke breaks down the Russia Hoax and hints at future accountability.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV
Masa Chips: Ready to give MASA or Vandy a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to http://masachips.com/JESSETV and using code JESSETV.
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% Off Cowboy Colostrum with code JESSETV at https://www.cowboycolostrum.com/JESSETV
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Let's talk about the weaponization of government. And we're going
to get to Mike Benz and Hans Monkey in just
a few moments. But I just wanted to touch on
something that there are degrees of crimes, right, and you
would understand that you agree with that some crimes. You know,
if I go shoplift the butterfinger, that's bad. You should
never do that. Don't steal. But that's also not murder,
(00:28):
is it. Of course, there are degrees. In my opinion,
the worst crime that can possibly be committed, worse than murder,
is using your position of government power against your enemies
for selfish reasons. There has to be strict rules against
(00:49):
that in any society to keep society from tearing itself apart,
because there is, as the old Spider Man line goes,
that there's so much responsible ability that comes with that
level of power. If I hate my political enemies, hate
my political opponents, okay, I can tell you about it
(01:10):
on television, on the radio. I could put something up
about it on social media. I could go out and
have rallies and donate to political campaigns. But not at
that's the end of the world. That's my right as
a free citizen. But if I take over as Attorney
General of the United States of America as FBI director,
and I start trying to use words, use terms to
(01:34):
manipulate the public into justifying me using the legal apparatus
of the country against my political opponents, that then becomes
the most severe crime in the history of the United States.
It's worse than serial killers. That's how bad that crime is,
because it's a crime that can and will end the
nation if it's not addressed. You remember all that white
(01:55):
supremacy talk, don't you You know why all that was.
We talked about it times. It's not that they thought
there were white supremacists. What they thought was they could
associate you with white supremacy, declare war on white supremacy,
and then gives them all the justification they need to
send the law after you. This was the attorney general,
(02:18):
this was the FBI director.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
A huge chunk of those domestic terrors and investigations involve
racially motivated, violent extremist motivated terrorist attacks, and the majority
of those of the racially motivated violent extremists attacks are
fueled by some kind of white supremacy.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
The FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes
from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who
advocate it for the superiority of the white women.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Why would they say that? Everyone who heard that thought
to themselves, Wait, I don't even know any white supremacists.
And in fact, the only time you ever encounter people
like that, you see five tubby dorks on the steps
of a courthouse in Alabama and they have to have
the cops to protect them because it's five hundred people
around them shouting at them. What white supremacy will? They
were never concerned about white supremacy at all. They were
(03:16):
trying to find a reason to justify sending the cheka
after you over and over and over and over and
over again. That's what they did with January sixth. That's
why they love. Do you think they hate? They love
January sixth. It allowed them to go after you.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
As I said before, the Justice Department will hold all
January six perpetrators at any level accountable under the law,
whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally
responsible for the assault on our democracy.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
We have used our prosectorial discretion to primarily focus on
those who enter the building are those who engaged in
violent or corrupt conduct on capital grounds. But if a
person normally entered the restricted area without authorization, they had
already committed a federal crime. Make no mistake, thousands of
(04:11):
people occupied in the area that they were not authorized
to be present in in the first place.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
That attack, that siege was criminal behavior, plain and simple,
and behavior that we the FBI view as domestic terrorism.
It's got no place in our democracy, and tolerating it
would make a mockery of our nation's rule of law.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Domestic terrorism. Why did they take the misdemeanor of trespassing
and decide to label it domestic terrorism. Well, if a
bunch of people committed a misdemeanor, what is that little fine?
Some community service can't do much there. But if they
turned you into a domestic terrorist, well now I have
(04:59):
all the power, hours of the check I can bring
down on you. And that just so happens to be
all my political opponents, extremely evil, extremely dangerous. We're going
to talk to Mike Ben's about a lot of this
stuff next. I'm a chip Man. Everyone who knows me
knows I'm a chip Man. In fact, ab was just
(05:19):
texting me yesterday. We have this big Thanksgiving thing we're
going to. She said, Hey, what kind of sides should
we bring? I said, some chips. I'm a chipman, but
I'm also forty four and the days of walking in
the gas station and getting a bag of hot Cheetos
have to be behind me. What to do? What to do? Well,
that's what massive Chips is all about. Massive chips. Are
(05:41):
these wonderful three ingredient chips, No seed, oils, none of
that filth. You can actually eat them guilt free. You're
not gonna feel tired and fat and bloated and upsets
that no guilt free. Oh but they must be gross then, right,
this is me. I would tell you if it was gross.
You know, I'm one of these health freaks. They're fantastic, fantastic.
(06:03):
You just now, normal chips taste gross to me. We'll
try them, big fat discount for you. Massive Chips dot com,
slash Jesse TV. Let's talk to the man about all
(06:25):
this government corruption and specifically, you know, we're not going
to focus on the new shiny object. We're going to
focus on arctic frost at first. With of course, Mike
Ben's executive director at the Foundation for Freedom Online. All right, Mike,
Artic Frost is something. It's a name that everybody watching
here is familiar with, but they may be confused about
the origins of it. What did they actually do? I
(06:48):
am handing it over to you. What was Arctic Frost
and why was artic Frost?
Speaker 6 (06:55):
Well, Arctic Frost is serendipitously the name of a orange
tree that happens to also grow in Florida. It was
effectively just chicily appears to be chicily named in the
same way that Operation Crossfire Hurricane was named after the
lyrics in the Jumping Jack Flash Rolling Stones song where
(07:20):
Jumping Jack Flash is a movie starring Whoopee Goldberg about
being chased around by British spies. And just as Trump
was chased around by British spies with Russia Gate and
its origins in Christopher Steele and Richard dear Love and
the Steele Dossier, Arctic Frost appears to have been in
operation to have rid the country of orange trees, basically
(07:49):
removing all support for Donald Trump root and branch, targeting
four hundred and thirty different GOP officials, as I believe
ted crew said, twenty percent of Senate Republicans, his Trump's
media allies, political allies, civil society organizations like the Conservative
(08:13):
Partnership Institute wiretapping secretly getting their cell phoned communications, including
the official phones of sitting senators, including those on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, which is supposed to oversee FBI at
(08:33):
all times, in order to ensure the FBI is not
abusing or overstepping in its authorities. And so this would
be effectively like a defendant spying on the judge, the
secret communications of the judge who is going to rule
on his case and determine his innocence or guilt. This
(08:58):
is a crime. I should note there are statutes that
we have under federal law that require the Senate and
House to be apprized of any such attempt to meddle
in those communications so that the FBI is so that
(09:19):
the Congress is able to conduct its oversight authorities. I
have been arguing that Judge Bosberg, who was effectively the
two in the one to two punch. Here you had
Jack Smith, who was the lead prosecutor in this. Jack
Smith was cryogenically unfrozen from a USAID rule of law
(09:40):
program in Kosovo. In the Hague to descend on our
own domestic politics for this operation. He had previously gone
after a Republican governor in Virginia and was wamped nine
to zero in the Supreme Court, but they rolled him
out again and he worked with Judge Boseburg to get
(10:03):
secret subpoenas against Senate Republicans. And I believe that this
is a conspiracy charge that should be brought and you
can frankly do that with the Justice Department. You don't
need a sixty forty impeachment vote like you do to
impeach a judge. So I'm not convinced that the impeachment
(10:24):
efforts against Judge Bosburg will work.
Speaker 7 (10:26):
Judge Bosburg was.
Speaker 6 (10:27):
Also the one who let Ray EPs go for the
January sixth incitement. I mean, this is just a total
blob job up and down. The other thing that I
think is worth noting is that the technical predicate that
was rolled out in order to justify this sweeping four
(10:48):
hundred and thirty person dragnet all around Trump was the
alternate elector's concept Trump's attempt to overturn the twenty twenty election.
The alternate elector's concept came from the Democrats in the
Democrats Norm Eisen and crew, and the John Podesta actually
(11:12):
was the one who was role played Joe Biden in
the Transition Integrity Project election simulator, where in June twenty
twenty five, months before the election, he literally role played
together with the head of the DNC and the former
head of the RNC, Michael Steele, an never Trump Republican.
(11:33):
How in the event of the clear Trump win in
the electoral College, they would unveil hordes of Black Lives
Matter protesters on the streets while simultaneously lobbying to abolish
the Electoral College and have the popular vote winner be
the one ushered in on Inauguration Day, and that they
would even invoke a breakdown on January sixth to make
(11:56):
this happen.
Speaker 7 (11:57):
The set so that the.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
Cameral meeting of Congress would not vote for Donald Trump
because of the breakdown on January sixth, and so everything
that the FBI did to Republicans, this FBI would be
fully justified doing if that legal predicate is indeed okay
against Democrats. And the final thing on this is that
they did not start this until twenty twenty two, until
(12:23):
Trump was on the verge of announcing.
Speaker 7 (12:24):
He was going to run for president again.
Speaker 6 (12:26):
This entire Arctic Frost operation was done only because Trump
was going to run again.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Mike, Okay, there's so much to take a part of you.
I want to start with this targeting. You mentioned collecting
phone calls, text messages. We know from information that's out
there right now, they were actually collecting locations. Where was
Senator Blackburn when she was doing this? To what end
now thought you were on? That's really really bad. But
I've got four hundred conservatives some sense at my cross here.
(13:01):
As I'm grabbing this text message, this phone, this location.
Let's say I'm the cheka known as the FBI. What
do I do from there? What's the purpose of all this?
Speaker 6 (13:12):
What you're doing is you're fishing for crimes once you
have the predicate. See I did a video about two
years ago called Proxies, Pretexts and predicates, and it's basically
the way all this junk works. When you are trying
to do a dirty operation, you have a proxy you
are trying to take out. In this case, it's Trump World,
(13:32):
the Trump side of the Republican Party. So you need
a pretext in order to justify going against that proxy.
In this case, it would be criminal wrongdoing, and so
you need to create a predicate to go after them criminally,
and the predicate in this case was the alternate Electors plot.
But once you crack that predicate open, you can do
(13:55):
anything you want. You can find all manner of other
skills that they may be a hush hush talking to
their friends about. You can leak that to the media
as the bye as the Chris Ray FBI leaked like
a sieve, as James Comia is currently facing charges over
his leaks and the lengths to which he went through
(14:18):
Daniel Richmond allegedly in what appear to be completely bombshell
damning court filings filed by Lindsay Halligan, who they are
now trying to disbar so that you can't continue with
the prosecution. But effectively, what you have here is a
phishing expedition. Once you open up this wide predicate, then
(14:43):
all manner of other predicates open up once you break
that initial seal. And this has been their strategies to
make these things as wide as possible. You say, okay, well,
a winning or unwinning agent of Russia, for example, was
like what they you know, started the Russiagate probe over,
(15:04):
but they didn't nail a single person for working with
the Russians. They got them on all manner of other
BS charges like Michael Flynn was They targeted Michael Flynn for,
you know, effectively Russia Gate. This is what they argued.
They argued that Michael Flynn because of evidence collected from
(15:27):
Stephen Halper, who was a former CIA guy involved in
Iran contra and what happened at University of Cambridge. They said, well,
Michael Flynn may be working with the Russians. And then
what did what was on that napkin written by James
Comey's goons? They said, what is our goal here? Is
(15:47):
it to get him fired or get him to perjure himself.
You'll notice neither of those things have to do with
what the formal predicate was is are you would think
the goal of the meeting would be to find out
if he's really working with the Russians, since that's what
you used as the predicate to open up the case
against him, the investigation against him. But what they were
(16:10):
asking their boss, James Comy the fbis are was not
is what is our goal in terms of finding out
whether he's working with the Russians. It was is our
goal to get him fired from his job to meddle
in domestic politics using the power of the FBI? Or
is it to get him to lie to us so
(16:31):
that we can hit him with other charges?
Speaker 7 (16:36):
That's what you're doing with that, Okay?
Speaker 1 (16:37):
So I so I have a couple things. First of all,
I want to focus on this predicated thing you were
just touching on there. And I know it is the
lamest most naive question in the world. I know this
ahead of time. But that kind of thing sounds like
it should be illegal, and frankly has to be illegal.
If I'm the FBI or the Houston Police Department, I
(16:59):
can't say were looking into Jesse Kelly for tax evasion
and then comb through my text messages to see if
I speed or something like that. You're not supposed to
be allowed to do that, right, So how do how
do they do that?
Speaker 7 (17:14):
This is the big trick?
Speaker 6 (17:16):
If you remember, the head of the ODE and I
James Clapper test perjured himself when he was talking to
Congress and said that the NSA does not collect any
communications about uh, you know, domestic conversations civilian domestic US
citizens and as they're not allowed to. But what they
(17:38):
do is, as it came out in the snowed and leaks,
they collect not just some they collect all all US
citizen communications. And what they what they do is they say, well,
that's incidental bulk collection. You know, if we are going
to comb through your iPhone iCloud photos to see whether
or not you're talking with the Russians or have taken
(18:02):
a picture of what time it is in Russia, well,
in the in the process of looking through all your photos, yeah,
we're going to see everything else that you've saved in
your eye cloud.
Speaker 7 (18:14):
And if we see a crime, well we can't help.
Speaker 6 (18:17):
Uh, you know, it's it's it's effectively like the Fourth
Amendment law, the Fourth Amendment search and seizure.
Speaker 7 (18:25):
Rule about open view.
Speaker 6 (18:28):
If the police pull you over for speeding, but they
see you have an open alcohol container in the passenger
seat or they smell weed in the car, well, they
have no choice but to now pursue the secondary and
tertiary crimes that they just saw on the way to
this investigation, which required them to read all of your communications,
all of your emails, look at all of your photos,
(18:51):
and and this is but to your point I have
been calling for criminal penalties for misuse of criminal predicate.
I think that this FBI should be forced, not just this,
every FBI, now and forever more should be forced to
pick its spots. If it is going to open a
(19:11):
criminal investigation on someone, it better be damn sure there's
a there, there, or else. There should be penalties for
those who have been targeted. Criminal penalties against the people
who opened a false predicate. They defendants should be able
to file counter suits against the FBI in order to
(19:34):
put their case before a judge and jury that the
case was falsely opened. A jury of their peers should
be able to hear whether or not there was really
sufficient evidence to open that predicate, and that if there
is not, there should be at the very least civil
penalties all legal fees that are I mean, this is
(19:56):
a no brainer. I mean I was talking to someone
at mar Lago just last week who had sp four
million dollars in legal fees because the FBI opened a
case against them for what they consider to be a
seventy five thousand dollars You know, miss, you're paying four
million dollars in legal fees to defend yourself against you
know in an investigation over a campaign finance that amounted
(20:17):
to seventy five thousand dollars.
Speaker 7 (20:19):
This is this is a bankrupting tool.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
And if you listen to Norm Eisen and Mark Elias
and these types, they are very, very painfully aware that
the process is the punishment, and this is you can
hear them on MSNBC Kendlanian and the CI mouthpieces.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
We'll talk about.
Speaker 6 (20:36):
How, oh well, even if no matter what happens, think
about the legal fees, think about the legal fees. This
is going to take them out politically because they're going
to be in debt for the rest of their lives
to the legal fees. And that is what they did
to my friends when I was in the White House.
That was what they did to almost every Trump ally.
And I believe that the FBI, frankly, it's you know,
(20:59):
I believe Cash Battel's initial plans around turning the FBI
into a deep state museum. I actually think that can
be best achieved through effectively bankrupting the FBI with a
cascade of plaintiffs filing suits against the FBI for targeting them.
(21:20):
If the FBI's budget was constrained every year by the
legal defense fund, I should say, really the legal restitution
fund they have to set aside for all the people
they wrongly target. That will force the FBI to picket
spots it cannot go. If it wants to do these
fishing expeditions, well, it's going to lose. It's going to
(21:41):
pry fire five ten thousand people because if when those
plaintiffs strike back, when those defendants become plaintiffs, the FBI
is going to be slammed in its budget because it
won't be able to afford all of its other core functions,
because it will be forced to defend itself in court
(22:02):
constantly for wrongly opening predicates. And so I think that
sort of measure would be a huge It would level
the playing field between the sharks and the minnows.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Well, no worries, Mike. The GOP Senate was kind enough
to give itself its senators a nice little carve out
in the recent cr so they can certainly sue and
bring in tons of money. Now I've combed through my records,
I didn't see any carveouts at all for someone like you,
someone like me, one of those poor innocent January six ers.
(22:36):
They got no carve outs. They got nothing, but boy,
you offend a GOP senator, They've got some. They've found
a way to make sure they've got some cash coming
the way. I'm susteemed about it. If you can't tell, Mike,
I'm just freaking steamed about bull thing.
Speaker 6 (22:48):
Well, right, I mean, you want institutional reforms, not a
one time payout to themselves. I mean, this is frankly,
it looks a little gross. Is there has been no
reforms yet. There's a lot of bark and there's no bite.
As I showed on x and a post that got
(23:10):
over a million views, and I know folks in Congress
saw it.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
There's been no attempt.
Speaker 6 (23:18):
For the Justice Department to seek redress against Jack Smith,
against Judge Boseburg. Judges are not above the law. Prosecutors
are not above the law. And frankly, I think that
the entire relationship between the US federal government and the
American Bar Association, which is at the root of the
American legal profession, has to be profoundly and entirely renegotiated.
(23:40):
The American Bar Association led the charge against Trump in
the indictments. The American Bar Association still has a legal
monopoly from the Department of Education to credential American law schools.
The American Bar Association has gotten hundreds of millions of
dollars from USAID to work with courts and prosecutors and
(24:03):
judges all over the world to build this global blob
network that they can tap into for favors. It's effectively
a bribery and judicial promotion network. If you want to
get in good to graduate to chief justice of your
district court section, or or move your way up the
(24:25):
Appellate court or on the Supreme Court shortlist, you move
through these American Bar Association World Justice Project networks. The
World Justice Project is a spin out of the American
Bar Association. It too has gotten tens of millions of
dollars from USAID to build up these worldwide networks. There
are four former Supreme Court justices on its board, as
well as the CEO, as well as the CEOs of
(24:48):
major multinational corporations and hedge funds. But the entire legal
profession has to be reconceived in terms of the institutions
who are put in charge of it with a federal
government monopoly. Given the corruption within our judiciary, and this
is the best time in human history to go after
(25:10):
that when you have a republican president who was directly
targeted by it, a Republican majority House that was targeted
by it, a Republican majority Senate that was targeted by it,
and a Republican majority Supreme Court that we'll be hearing
(25:31):
challenges to these reforms. So you know, it's, as Elvis said,
it's now or never. Don't wait too late.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Mike, I don't want to divert away from all this stuff,
and I have to keep I have to ask this
question Russia. And I know this is more of a
broad question. It's not just about Arctic frost. Why so
much centered around Russia seems to be used by these
communists as a justification for everything Russia. He's linked to Russia. Russia,
(26:02):
maybe this, Russia, maybe that? What is this? What is
this relentless obsession with Russia? What is that? Mike? What
(26:32):
is that?
Speaker 6 (26:34):
That's the amount of raw resources that Russia sits on
in total. If you add up all the oil, all
of the gas, all the rare earth minerals, all of
the coal, all the copper, all the aluminum, all the lithium,
all the cobalt, all the gold, all the arable land agriculture.
(26:58):
Russia is the great untapped world home of natural resources.
They have seventy five trillion dollars worth of natural resources.
So just think about what would happen if Russia could
be regime changed and a puppet government could be put
in place, Russia could be turned into a client state.
(27:20):
And think about Wall Street hedge funds, private equity, alternative
asset investors in Wall Street in London, who would profit
if only Russia would just belly up and give its
seventy five trillion dollars worth of natural resources to them.
And everything else is subservient to that. The Ukraine War
(27:42):
will never end because it's not about Ukraine.
Speaker 7 (27:45):
It's about Eurasia.
Speaker 6 (27:46):
It's about the seventy five trillion what we are doing
in the Caspian in that region will never end. It's
about the seventy five trillion what we're doing in Kazakhstan
and Uzbekistan and Mongolia.
Speaker 7 (28:01):
What we're doing, it will never end.
Speaker 6 (28:04):
It will never end until Boris Yeltsin is resurrected from
the grave and put in given some kind of cryogenic
therapy and infused with some sort of IV drip so
that Boris Yeltzen Is from his undead throne, put back
(28:25):
in charge of Russia and giving away that seventy five
trillion to the political donor class, the donor drafter class
in New York City, in London.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
So it's all about money in the end. It's all
this relentless Russia. This in Russia, that Ukraine. It's all
about wanting what Russia has and won't let us have.
Speaker 6 (28:51):
Yeah, now you have to understand there's in addition to
that seventy five trillion. Russia has been the bane of
US foreign policy since about two thousand, well, two thousand
and three to two thousand and five is really when
it started. We had tried to, We had effectively taken
over Russia from nineteen ninety one to nineteen ninety eight
during the ELTs And years. The State Department even effectively
(29:14):
rigged the nineteen ninety six election in Russia to ensure
that Boris Eltson won despite having less than ten percent approval.
There's a Hollywood movie about this called Spinning, Spinning Boris
that I think is worth watching for folks who want
to see an entertaining kind of take on what was done.
(29:35):
I mean, we sent Hollywood over there. We sent tens
of millions of dollars of USAID money to prop Boris
Eltson up. I mean, it was a real weekend at
Bernie's that was done. And at the end of the day,
Russia lost ninety percent of its stock market, the life
expectancy went down about a decade for the average Russian citizen,
all under US vassal state control.
Speaker 7 (29:59):
Putin rowe out of.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
The ashes of that, and the Russian people felt completely
betrayed by the US guiding hand to towards private market capitalism,
because they're all the publicly held wealth by the Soviet
Union that was in a communist government, held at least
(30:21):
nominally for the people. Of course, it was completely corrupt state,
but it didn't at the end of the day that
those assets were sold off to Western firms in large
part other than a few handful of industries like oil.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
And oil and gas.
Speaker 6 (30:38):
And then when Putin came to power, he began to
use the oil and gas. You know, as John McCain said,
there a gas station with an army, and he began
to use that to reassert political control over central eastern Europe.
He began to reverse the gains of the post Cold
War NATO and EU expansion at you know his as
(31:01):
the history tells it, invaded Russia. I'm sorry, invaded Georgia.
Of course, Georgia actually attacked Russia first, but story for
another time, and in doing so undermined Republican oil and
gas interests in the Caspian This Iserbaijan to Georgia pathway
that the Bush family and the Romney family were invested in,
(31:27):
but hadn't hit the Democrats yet because the Democrats were
mostly concentrated in terms of their energy investments in Ukraine.
So this is what the Russian reset was about. The
Obama administration and Hillary Clinton and George Soros thought that
they could play nice with Russia and trade to get
(31:47):
access to that seventy five trillion. And this is where
you have the uranium one in Hillary Clinton green lighting
the sale of twenty percent of America's uranium to Russia
d during this period, and you had you know, Russia
oligarchs paying the Clinton Global Foundation. The Republicans were furious
about this because their donor class wasn't getting paid off
(32:08):
by the Russians. But then when we tried to go
for the whole Ancelota by overthrowing the Democrat the elected,
relatively fair government of Ukraine. In twenty fourteen, Russia struck
back by backstopping the Eastern Province breakaway state in the
don Bass and in Crimea with the Russian annexation the
(32:33):
Democrat vote within Crimea to join the Russian Federation, and
at that point the Democrat donors got hit, and so
there became this bipartisan alliance after twenty fourteen that what
we need is regime change in Russia and a full
new Cold War, and anyone who stands in the way
of that is going to get treated the same way
(32:54):
anyone was treated siding with the Soviet Union in the
Cold War. The difference is this time the opposition mostly
came from right wing populist and nationalists as opposed to
left wing communists. So that conveniently, we have an apparatus
already set up at the CIA, FBI, Department of War, USAID,
(33:15):
the NGO sphere, the media, the unions, the legal advocacy
and rule of law programs to neutralize anyone who opposes
the foreign policy establishment on the Cold War. And they
simply did it with Cold War two point zero.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
Mike awesome as always. Thank you brother, come back soon.
Speaking of Russia, Hans Monkey knows a lot about the
Russia hoax. Talk about that next. I love being in
a good mood. Kind of a dumb thing to say, right,
doesn't everybody? Well, everybody wants to be in a good mood.
You do, I do? But why do you get down? Sometimes?
(33:56):
I'm not talking about you watching old yeller? Do you
ever just get down? Sometimes? You know while you're down
because your t levels are low. It happens when you
have low testosterone. Your mood is severely affected by it.
And when you get your tea levels up twenty percent
and ninety days with a male Vitality Stack from Chalk,
(34:16):
you notice the difference. You're just in a good boot,
smile and more. You're better at home, you're better at work,
You're better everywhere when your tea levels are up where
they should be. I've got eighty year olds writing me
emails telling me their doctor told them they have the
testosterone of twenty year old men. Thank you to a
Male Vitality Stack from Chalk. Go to chalk dot com,
(34:40):
slash jessetv and get a subscription.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
The walls feel like they are closing in.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
But as the walls close in around the president, Donald
Trumpe the walls closing in.
Speaker 3 (35:01):
I think this is a guy who feels like the
walls are closing in.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
The walls are closing in on him, because the walls
are closing in.
Speaker 8 (35:07):
The walls are closing in on the president. Now the
walls appear to be closing in.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
The really kind of the walls closing in on him,
the walls are closing in, because the walls are indeed
closing in.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
I think at this point the walls are spinning.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
The legal walls are closing in. The walls are closing
in on President Trump.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
The walls are closing in on the presidency. He says,
as the walls begin to close.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Around us, the local walls closing in on him.
Speaker 5 (35:30):
As a president that fills the walls closing in.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.
Speaker 8 (35:35):
I think the walls are finally closing in.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
He's not looking forward to any of it. He's horrified.
He's just talking big. The walls are closing in. As
as has been said before. Ah, yes, that's a little
throwback to yesteryear joining me now. Author of the book
Swift boating America, Hans Monkey, Hey, Hans, whatever happened to
(36:01):
those walls that were closing in? Did they separate again?
How did all that that stuff end up panning out?
Speaker 8 (36:08):
Well, it didn't pan out too well for them in
terms of the lawfair even though now they're throwing out
this Epstein stuff again and hoping some of it will stick.
But look, I think we're going to see quite a
different set of walls closing in. And that's those are
the walls on these Russia Gate conspirators. We've had a
few cases already, brought a few indictments already out there,
(36:30):
but I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot
more coming.
Speaker 7 (36:34):
Hans.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
What were the geopolitical consequences of this Russia hoax? Because
it was far from some victimless investigation where Trump ended
up scott free and everything worked out well. And then
that was not the case at all, was it? No,
it wasn't.
Speaker 8 (36:51):
Unfortunately. What happened is that Russia as a country was
of course vilified. And you know, in part there's bad
people here like this, bad people everywhere, and there's problems
and so on. But the thing is the entire country
was vilified. And we saw it with you know, even
hockey players and you know, tennis players, whatever, you know,
everyone was any Russian was vilified. But unfortunately that had
(37:13):
the sort of extra effect of criminalizing diplomacy. So when
Trump in his first term tried to do diplomacy of
any kind with Russia, immediately, you know, there was a
giant meltdown with the media and he just wasn't able
to get any traction to get anything going. And then
of course Russia said, well, if we can't talk to you,
we'll talk to China. And now we see what's happened
with that. You know, they're they're not only your new
(37:35):
best friends, but there's a huge economic partnership that grew
out of that. And of course you got Ukraine as well,
which wouldn't have happened. You know, Trump says it wouldn't
have happened if he'd had a second term in twenty twenty,
twenty twenty one and so on. That's probably true, but
it wouldn't have happened at all had it not been
for the Russia hoax. So there's a lot of shifting
that happened because of that hoax.
Speaker 1 (37:58):
So what is this new Russia China relationship. How intertwined
are they?
Speaker 8 (38:04):
I'm getting more and more so. And you know, the
media and the sort of the establishment and the think
tank people will make you think, well, it's always been
like that or was always inevitable and so, and that's
absolutely not true. These countries had a war not that
long ago, something like fifty years ago. They still haven't
solved some of their border problems. Putin when he was
the I think it was deputy Mayor Saint Petersburger Mayor
(38:29):
Saint Petersburg's late nineties before he became president, he was
really good friends with Taiwanese Taiwanese president. They had established
new flights and new trade and they were doing space
exploration together projects and so there was a lot going on.
So this idea that you know, China and Russia always
kind of we're going to be together is absolutely not true.
(38:49):
And unfortunately the fact that Trump, who ran in twenty
fifteen sixteen on this platform of yeah, not being best
friends in the whole world, but at least trying to
normalize things with Russia, the fact that that was not
allowed to happen made Russia pivot to China. Now you've
got huge explosion in their trade volume. If you just
look at the numbers there, you know, we're talking hundreds
(39:10):
of extra percent as to compared to a few years ago.
We've got China obviously cooperating on the Ukraine War. We've
got energy, so you know, Russia gives China energy and
China gives Russia, you know, advanced technology things they need
for their drones and you know, all that kind of stuff. So,
I mean, it's happening on all fronts. It's a very
(39:31):
deep relationship now within just a few years. I mean,
Putin was in Beijing a couple of times. He was
there for the big anniversary back in October's a lot
going on. My point is it wouldn't have happened, and
it didn't need to be this way had it not
been for these Russia Gate hoaxers.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Who were the Russia Gate hoaxers, who were the names
who did this.
Speaker 8 (39:54):
Well, hopefully the people who will now be held accountable.
It started with Hillary Clinton, so her campaign had this
plan to smear Trump as a Russian agent, and it
wasn't you know, I don't think there was this huge
grand conspiracy into which it grew at the time. It
was simply about making clear that Russia was cooperating with Trump,
(40:18):
and that was supposed to be a distraction to Hillary's
own problems with their emails. So when you know, people
talked about that, everyone would say, no, look at Trump
and look at Trump and Russia.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
So that was just sort of the whole idea.
Speaker 8 (40:29):
But then it kind of grew into something, you know,
much much bigger than that, because the government jumped on board.
And when you ask about names, that's when you get
into the sort of the nitty gritty head. At the
helm of it, you had Obama. You had Obama CIA
Chief Brennan, you had his FBI Chief Comy, you had
his dn I Clapper, and so many others kind of
in the second and third level behind him. But these
(40:51):
are the people who co opted the Hillary Clinton hoax
and made it into a government law. Fair said, or
what do you want to whatever you want to call it,
to tryin ause Trump and at the very least to
cripple him in terms of doing whatever you wanted to
do in the first term. And in that unfortunately, they
were quite successful.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
Hans. Let me ask you about Obama, because his role
in this has not been talked about. Enough. Now we're
starting to understand more and more. My question for you
is the man who really wrote the book on this
is why his two terms were up. I understand he's
a tried and true communist revolutionary. I get all that,
but it's quite a step to take to sit the
(41:35):
CIA and FBI on your political opponent when you're about
to retire. Yeah.
Speaker 8 (41:43):
No, I think there was probably a couple of reasons
for that. I mean, first of all, there was the
shock that Hillary actually lost. I don't think they expected that,
which is also why I don't think this sort of
Russia Gate hoax was planned as this huge conspiracy, which
it became. I think, as I said, initially it was
just to distract from Hillary's emails. Then she lost, they
had to do something.
Speaker 7 (42:02):
They had to do.
Speaker 8 (42:03):
Something to explain away her loss. As to Obama, obviously
that's kind of a broad topic of his, but more specifically,
what he would have been after is to protect his
own legacy, because he knew that if Trump was going
to be successful, then everything that Obama tried to do,
and you know, pushing the country leftward and all the
things he did, Obama Care and on and on and on,
(42:25):
immigration and so on that would have been erased or
you know, after eight years of Trump, there would have
been no more trace of Obama. So he wanted to
protect that by basically crippling the Trump presidency then trying
to get rid of him, which they tried to do
through Mueller, or which they then succeeded in twenty twenty.
Just get rid of him through the election, and then
(42:46):
you know, he'll never come back. And it's true, if
he had not come back in twenty twenty four, all
of his, all of Trump's initiatives would have sort of
been cast by the wayside and we would have been
stuck with, you know, back to Obama basically.
Speaker 7 (42:59):
So I think for.
Speaker 8 (43:00):
Obama it was really a matter of trying to preserve
his own legacy. What, of course, he did not plan for,
probably never expected in a million years, is that Trump
would actually mount that comeback that he did in twenty
twenty four, and so it didn't work out for him.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
Oh sure, didn't praise God for that, Hans, Thank you, brother,
I appreciate it. We have final thoughts next, gut health.
You never hear that term, now, what about your gut health?
I always mocked it to be honest with you. But
that's because my stomach, for almost all of my life,
(43:36):
can handle anything jalapenos. It doesn't matter. My stomach can
handle anything. But you notice something when you turn forty
four that you didn't notice when you turn twenty four.
There are limits. Now, what do you do to make
sure your gut is in good health? Colostrum Cowboy colostrum.
Someone told me it's a must if you want your
(43:56):
gut to feel good. It's a must.
Speaker 7 (43:58):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (43:58):
I decided to try it. Wow, and it's delicious. I
have the chocolate kind. I put two scoops in my coffee.
Every single morning. I have chocolate coffee delicious. My gut
feels good. Go get some Cowboy colostrum for your gut health.
Go to cowboycolostrum dot com slash jessetv. We'll be back.
(44:32):
We have to end the weaponization of the government, and
there is only one way to do that. You don't
have the power to do it, neither do I. We
have to find the people who use their office against
their political opponents. We have to arrest them, try them,
and send them to prison. It is the only way
to make future tyrants, future evil people too afraid to
(44:55):
do it. If these people get off scot free, if
we just let them go that, what incentive is there
for them to ever stop. This has to stop now
or it gets worse from here. It's snowballs from here.
Let's hope the Trump administration Pam Bondi as the stones
to do it, do it again.
Let's talk about the weaponization of government. And we're going
to get to Mike Benz and Hans Monkey in just
a few moments. But I just wanted to touch on
something that there are degrees of crimes, right, and you
would understand that you agree with that some crimes. You know,
if I go shoplift the butterfinger, that's bad. You should
never do that. Don't steal. But that's also not murder,
(00:28):
is it. Of course, there are degrees. In my opinion,
the worst crime that can possibly be committed, worse than murder,
is using your position of government power against your enemies
for selfish reasons. There has to be strict rules against
(00:49):
that in any society to keep society from tearing itself apart,
because there is, as the old Spider Man line goes,
that there's so much responsible ability that comes with that
level of power. If I hate my political enemies, hate
my political opponents, okay, I can tell you about it
(01:10):
on television, on the radio. I could put something up
about it on social media. I could go out and
have rallies and donate to political campaigns. But not at
that's the end of the world. That's my right as
a free citizen. But if I take over as Attorney
General of the United States of America as FBI director,
and I start trying to use words, use terms to
(01:34):
manipulate the public into justifying me using the legal apparatus
of the country against my political opponents, that then becomes
the most severe crime in the history of the United States.
It's worse than serial killers. That's how bad that crime is,
because it's a crime that can and will end the
nation if it's not addressed. You remember all that white
(01:55):
supremacy talk, don't you You know why all that was.
We talked about it times. It's not that they thought
there were white supremacists. What they thought was they could
associate you with white supremacy, declare war on white supremacy,
and then gives them all the justification they need to
send the law after you. This was the attorney general,
(02:18):
this was the FBI director.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
A huge chunk of those domestic terrors and investigations involve
racially motivated, violent extremist motivated terrorist attacks, and the majority
of those of the racially motivated violent extremists attacks are
fueled by some kind of white supremacy.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
The FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes
from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who
advocate it for the superiority of the white women.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Why would they say that? Everyone who heard that thought
to themselves, Wait, I don't even know any white supremacists.
And in fact, the only time you ever encounter people
like that, you see five tubby dorks on the steps
of a courthouse in Alabama and they have to have
the cops to protect them because it's five hundred people
around them shouting at them. What white supremacy will? They
were never concerned about white supremacy at all. They were
(03:16):
trying to find a reason to justify sending the cheka
after you over and over and over and over and
over again. That's what they did with January sixth. That's
why they love. Do you think they hate? They love
January sixth. It allowed them to go after you.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
As I said before, the Justice Department will hold all
January six perpetrators at any level accountable under the law,
whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally
responsible for the assault on our democracy.
Speaker 5 (03:49):
We have used our prosectorial discretion to primarily focus on
those who enter the building are those who engaged in
violent or corrupt conduct on capital grounds. But if a
person normally entered the restricted area without authorization, they had
already committed a federal crime. Make no mistake, thousands of
(04:11):
people occupied in the area that they were not authorized
to be present in in the first place.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
That attack, that siege was criminal behavior, plain and simple,
and behavior that we the FBI view as domestic terrorism.
It's got no place in our democracy, and tolerating it
would make a mockery of our nation's rule of law.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Domestic terrorism. Why did they take the misdemeanor of trespassing
and decide to label it domestic terrorism. Well, if a
bunch of people committed a misdemeanor, what is that little fine?
Some community service can't do much there. But if they
turned you into a domestic terrorist, well now I have
(04:59):
all the power, hours of the check I can bring
down on you. And that just so happens to be
all my political opponents, extremely evil, extremely dangerous. We're going
to talk to Mike Ben's about a lot of this
stuff next. I'm a chip Man. Everyone who knows me
knows I'm a chip Man. In fact, ab was just
(05:19):
texting me yesterday. We have this big Thanksgiving thing we're
going to. She said, Hey, what kind of sides should
we bring? I said, some chips. I'm a chipman, but
I'm also forty four and the days of walking in
the gas station and getting a bag of hot Cheetos
have to be behind me. What to do? What to do? Well,
that's what massive Chips is all about. Massive chips. Are
(05:41):
these wonderful three ingredient chips, No seed, oils, none of
that filth. You can actually eat them guilt free. You're
not gonna feel tired and fat and bloated and upsets
that no guilt free. Oh but they must be gross then, right,
this is me. I would tell you if it was gross.
You know, I'm one of these health freaks. They're fantastic, fantastic.
(06:03):
You just now, normal chips taste gross to me. We'll
try them, big fat discount for you. Massive Chips dot com,
slash Jesse TV. Let's talk to the man about all
(06:25):
this government corruption and specifically, you know, we're not going
to focus on the new shiny object. We're going to
focus on arctic frost at first. With of course, Mike
Ben's executive director at the Foundation for Freedom Online. All right, Mike,
Artic Frost is something. It's a name that everybody watching
here is familiar with, but they may be confused about
the origins of it. What did they actually do? I
(06:48):
am handing it over to you. What was Arctic Frost
and why was artic Frost?
Speaker 6 (06:55):
Well, Arctic Frost is serendipitously the name of a orange
tree that happens to also grow in Florida. It was
effectively just chicily appears to be chicily named in the
same way that Operation Crossfire Hurricane was named after the
lyrics in the Jumping Jack Flash Rolling Stones song where
(07:20):
Jumping Jack Flash is a movie starring Whoopee Goldberg about
being chased around by British spies. And just as Trump
was chased around by British spies with Russia Gate and
its origins in Christopher Steele and Richard dear Love and
the Steele Dossier, Arctic Frost appears to have been in
operation to have rid the country of orange trees, basically
(07:49):
removing all support for Donald Trump root and branch, targeting
four hundred and thirty different GOP officials, as I believe
ted crew said, twenty percent of Senate Republicans, his Trump's
media allies, political allies, civil society organizations like the Conservative
(08:13):
Partnership Institute wiretapping secretly getting their cell phoned communications, including
the official phones of sitting senators, including those on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, which is supposed to oversee FBI at
(08:33):
all times, in order to ensure the FBI is not
abusing or overstepping in its authorities. And so this would
be effectively like a defendant spying on the judge, the
secret communications of the judge who is going to rule
on his case and determine his innocence or guilt. This
(08:58):
is a crime. I should note there are statutes that
we have under federal law that require the Senate and
House to be apprized of any such attempt to meddle
in those communications so that the FBI is so that
(09:19):
the Congress is able to conduct its oversight authorities. I
have been arguing that Judge Bosberg, who was effectively the
two in the one to two punch. Here you had
Jack Smith, who was the lead prosecutor in this. Jack
Smith was cryogenically unfrozen from a USAID rule of law
(09:40):
program in Kosovo. In the Hague to descend on our
own domestic politics for this operation. He had previously gone
after a Republican governor in Virginia and was wamped nine
to zero in the Supreme Court, but they rolled him
out again and he worked with Judge Boseburg to get
(10:03):
secret subpoenas against Senate Republicans. And I believe that this
is a conspiracy charge that should be brought and you
can frankly do that with the Justice Department. You don't
need a sixty forty impeachment vote like you do to
impeach a judge. So I'm not convinced that the impeachment
(10:24):
efforts against Judge Bosburg will work.
Speaker 7 (10:26):
Judge Bosburg was.
Speaker 6 (10:27):
Also the one who let Ray EPs go for the
January sixth incitement. I mean, this is just a total
blob job up and down. The other thing that I
think is worth noting is that the technical predicate that
was rolled out in order to justify this sweeping four
(10:48):
hundred and thirty person dragnet all around Trump was the
alternate elector's concept Trump's attempt to overturn the twenty twenty election.
The alternate elector's concept came from the Democrats in the
Democrats Norm Eisen and crew, and the John Podesta actually
(11:12):
was the one who was role played Joe Biden in
the Transition Integrity Project election simulator, where in June twenty
twenty five, months before the election, he literally role played
together with the head of the DNC and the former
head of the RNC, Michael Steele, an never Trump Republican.
(11:33):
How in the event of the clear Trump win in
the electoral College, they would unveil hordes of Black Lives
Matter protesters on the streets while simultaneously lobbying to abolish
the Electoral College and have the popular vote winner be
the one ushered in on Inauguration Day, and that they
would even invoke a breakdown on January sixth to make
(11:56):
this happen.
Speaker 7 (11:57):
The set so that the.
Speaker 6 (12:00):
Cameral meeting of Congress would not vote for Donald Trump
because of the breakdown on January sixth, and so everything
that the FBI did to Republicans, this FBI would be
fully justified doing if that legal predicate is indeed okay
against Democrats. And the final thing on this is that
they did not start this until twenty twenty two, until
(12:23):
Trump was on the verge of announcing.
Speaker 7 (12:24):
He was going to run for president again.
Speaker 6 (12:26):
This entire Arctic Frost operation was done only because Trump
was going to run again.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
Mike, Okay, there's so much to take a part of you.
I want to start with this targeting. You mentioned collecting
phone calls, text messages. We know from information that's out
there right now, they were actually collecting locations. Where was
Senator Blackburn when she was doing this? To what end
now thought you were on? That's really really bad. But
I've got four hundred conservatives some sense at my cross here.
(13:01):
As I'm grabbing this text message, this phone, this location.
Let's say I'm the cheka known as the FBI. What
do I do from there? What's the purpose of all this?
Speaker 6 (13:12):
What you're doing is you're fishing for crimes once you
have the predicate. See I did a video about two
years ago called Proxies, Pretexts and predicates, and it's basically
the way all this junk works. When you are trying
to do a dirty operation, you have a proxy you
are trying to take out. In this case, it's Trump World,
(13:32):
the Trump side of the Republican Party. So you need
a pretext in order to justify going against that proxy.
In this case, it would be criminal wrongdoing, and so
you need to create a predicate to go after them criminally,
and the predicate in this case was the alternate Electors plot.
But once you crack that predicate open, you can do
(13:55):
anything you want. You can find all manner of other
skills that they may be a hush hush talking to
their friends about. You can leak that to the media
as the bye as the Chris Ray FBI leaked like
a sieve, as James Comia is currently facing charges over
his leaks and the lengths to which he went through
(14:18):
Daniel Richmond allegedly in what appear to be completely bombshell
damning court filings filed by Lindsay Halligan, who they are
now trying to disbar so that you can't continue with
the prosecution. But effectively, what you have here is a
phishing expedition. Once you open up this wide predicate, then
(14:43):
all manner of other predicates open up once you break
that initial seal. And this has been their strategies to
make these things as wide as possible. You say, okay, well,
a winning or unwinning agent of Russia, for example, was
like what they you know, started the Russiagate probe over,
(15:04):
but they didn't nail a single person for working with
the Russians. They got them on all manner of other
BS charges like Michael Flynn was They targeted Michael Flynn for,
you know, effectively Russia Gate. This is what they argued.
They argued that Michael Flynn because of evidence collected from
(15:27):
Stephen Halper, who was a former CIA guy involved in
Iran contra and what happened at University of Cambridge. They said, well,
Michael Flynn may be working with the Russians. And then
what did what was on that napkin written by James
Comey's goons? They said, what is our goal here? Is
(15:47):
it to get him fired or get him to perjure himself.
You'll notice neither of those things have to do with
what the formal predicate was is are you would think
the goal of the meeting would be to find out
if he's really working with the Russians, since that's what
you used as the predicate to open up the case
against him, the investigation against him. But what they were
(16:10):
asking their boss, James Comy the fbis are was not
is what is our goal in terms of finding out
whether he's working with the Russians. It was is our
goal to get him fired from his job to meddle
in domestic politics using the power of the FBI? Or
is it to get him to lie to us so
(16:31):
that we can hit him with other charges?
Speaker 7 (16:36):
That's what you're doing with that, Okay?
Speaker 1 (16:37):
So I so I have a couple things. First of all,
I want to focus on this predicated thing you were
just touching on there. And I know it is the
lamest most naive question in the world. I know this
ahead of time. But that kind of thing sounds like
it should be illegal, and frankly has to be illegal.
If I'm the FBI or the Houston Police Department, I
(16:59):
can't say were looking into Jesse Kelly for tax evasion
and then comb through my text messages to see if
I speed or something like that. You're not supposed to
be allowed to do that, right, So how do how
do they do that?
Speaker 7 (17:14):
This is the big trick?
Speaker 6 (17:16):
If you remember, the head of the ODE and I
James Clapper test perjured himself when he was talking to
Congress and said that the NSA does not collect any
communications about uh, you know, domestic conversations civilian domestic US
citizens and as they're not allowed to. But what they
(17:38):
do is, as it came out in the snowed and leaks,
they collect not just some they collect all all US
citizen communications. And what they what they do is they say, well,
that's incidental bulk collection. You know, if we are going
to comb through your iPhone iCloud photos to see whether
or not you're talking with the Russians or have taken
(18:02):
a picture of what time it is in Russia, well,
in the in the process of looking through all your photos, yeah,
we're going to see everything else that you've saved in
your eye cloud.
Speaker 7 (18:14):
And if we see a crime, well we can't help.
Speaker 6 (18:17):
Uh, you know, it's it's it's effectively like the Fourth
Amendment law, the Fourth Amendment search and seizure.
Speaker 7 (18:25):
Rule about open view.
Speaker 6 (18:28):
If the police pull you over for speeding, but they
see you have an open alcohol container in the passenger
seat or they smell weed in the car, well, they
have no choice but to now pursue the secondary and
tertiary crimes that they just saw on the way to
this investigation, which required them to read all of your communications,
all of your emails, look at all of your photos,
(18:51):
and and this is but to your point I have
been calling for criminal penalties for misuse of criminal predicate.
I think that this FBI should be forced, not just this,
every FBI, now and forever more should be forced to
pick its spots. If it is going to open a
(19:11):
criminal investigation on someone, it better be damn sure there's
a there, there, or else. There should be penalties for
those who have been targeted. Criminal penalties against the people
who opened a false predicate. They defendants should be able
to file counter suits against the FBI in order to
(19:34):
put their case before a judge and jury that the
case was falsely opened. A jury of their peers should
be able to hear whether or not there was really
sufficient evidence to open that predicate, and that if there
is not, there should be at the very least civil
penalties all legal fees that are I mean, this is
(19:56):
a no brainer. I mean I was talking to someone
at mar Lago just last week who had sp four
million dollars in legal fees because the FBI opened a
case against them for what they consider to be a
seventy five thousand dollars You know, miss, you're paying four
million dollars in legal fees to defend yourself against you
know in an investigation over a campaign finance that amounted
(20:17):
to seventy five thousand dollars.
Speaker 7 (20:19):
This is this is a bankrupting tool.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
And if you listen to Norm Eisen and Mark Elias
and these types, they are very, very painfully aware that
the process is the punishment, and this is you can
hear them on MSNBC Kendlanian and the CI mouthpieces.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
We'll talk about.
Speaker 6 (20:36):
How, oh well, even if no matter what happens, think
about the legal fees, think about the legal fees. This
is going to take them out politically because they're going
to be in debt for the rest of their lives
to the legal fees. And that is what they did
to my friends when I was in the White House.
That was what they did to almost every Trump ally.
And I believe that the FBI, frankly, it's you know,
(20:59):
I believe Cash Battel's initial plans around turning the FBI
into a deep state museum. I actually think that can
be best achieved through effectively bankrupting the FBI with a
cascade of plaintiffs filing suits against the FBI for targeting them.
(21:20):
If the FBI's budget was constrained every year by the
legal defense fund, I should say, really the legal restitution
fund they have to set aside for all the people
they wrongly target. That will force the FBI to picket
spots it cannot go. If it wants to do these
fishing expeditions, well, it's going to lose. It's going to
(21:41):
pry fire five ten thousand people because if when those
plaintiffs strike back, when those defendants become plaintiffs, the FBI
is going to be slammed in its budget because it
won't be able to afford all of its other core functions,
because it will be forced to defend itself in court
(22:02):
constantly for wrongly opening predicates. And so I think that
sort of measure would be a huge It would level
the playing field between the sharks and the minnows.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Well, no worries, Mike. The GOP Senate was kind enough
to give itself its senators a nice little carve out
in the recent cr so they can certainly sue and
bring in tons of money. Now I've combed through my records,
I didn't see any carveouts at all for someone like you,
someone like me, one of those poor innocent January six ers.
(22:36):
They got no carve outs. They got nothing, but boy,
you offend a GOP senator, They've got some. They've found
a way to make sure they've got some cash coming
the way. I'm susteemed about it. If you can't tell, Mike,
I'm just freaking steamed about bull thing.
Speaker 6 (22:48):
Well, right, I mean, you want institutional reforms, not a
one time payout to themselves. I mean, this is frankly,
it looks a little gross. Is there has been no
reforms yet. There's a lot of bark and there's no bite.
As I showed on x and a post that got
(23:10):
over a million views, and I know folks in Congress
saw it.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
There's been no attempt.
Speaker 6 (23:18):
For the Justice Department to seek redress against Jack Smith,
against Judge Boseburg. Judges are not above the law. Prosecutors
are not above the law. And frankly, I think that
the entire relationship between the US federal government and the
American Bar Association, which is at the root of the
American legal profession, has to be profoundly and entirely renegotiated.
(23:40):
The American Bar Association led the charge against Trump in
the indictments. The American Bar Association still has a legal
monopoly from the Department of Education to credential American law schools.
The American Bar Association has gotten hundreds of millions of
dollars from USAID to work with courts and prosecutors and
(24:03):
judges all over the world to build this global blob
network that they can tap into for favors. It's effectively
a bribery and judicial promotion network. If you want to
get in good to graduate to chief justice of your
district court section, or or move your way up the
(24:25):
Appellate court or on the Supreme Court shortlist, you move
through these American Bar Association World Justice Project networks. The
World Justice Project is a spin out of the American
Bar Association. It too has gotten tens of millions of
dollars from USAID to build up these worldwide networks. There
are four former Supreme Court justices on its board, as
well as the CEO, as well as the CEOs of
(24:48):
major multinational corporations and hedge funds. But the entire legal
profession has to be reconceived in terms of the institutions
who are put in charge of it with a federal
government monopoly. Given the corruption within our judiciary, and this
is the best time in human history to go after
(25:10):
that when you have a republican president who was directly
targeted by it, a Republican majority House that was targeted
by it, a Republican majority Senate that was targeted by it,
and a Republican majority Supreme Court that we'll be hearing
(25:31):
challenges to these reforms. So you know, it's, as Elvis said,
it's now or never. Don't wait too late.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Mike, I don't want to divert away from all this stuff,
and I have to keep I have to ask this
question Russia. And I know this is more of a
broad question. It's not just about Arctic frost. Why so
much centered around Russia seems to be used by these
communists as a justification for everything Russia. He's linked to Russia. Russia,
(26:02):
maybe this, Russia, maybe that? What is this? What is
this relentless obsession with Russia? What is that? Mike? What
(26:32):
is that?
Speaker 6 (26:34):
That's the amount of raw resources that Russia sits on
in total. If you add up all the oil, all
of the gas, all the rare earth minerals, all of
the coal, all the copper, all the aluminum, all the lithium,
all the cobalt, all the gold, all the arable land agriculture.
(26:58):
Russia is the great untapped world home of natural resources.
They have seventy five trillion dollars worth of natural resources.
So just think about what would happen if Russia could
be regime changed and a puppet government could be put
in place, Russia could be turned into a client state.
(27:20):
And think about Wall Street hedge funds, private equity, alternative
asset investors in Wall Street in London, who would profit
if only Russia would just belly up and give its
seventy five trillion dollars worth of natural resources to them.
And everything else is subservient to that. The Ukraine War
(27:42):
will never end because it's not about Ukraine.
Speaker 7 (27:45):
It's about Eurasia.
Speaker 6 (27:46):
It's about the seventy five trillion what we are doing
in the Caspian in that region will never end. It's
about the seventy five trillion what we're doing in Kazakhstan
and Uzbekistan and Mongolia.
Speaker 7 (28:01):
What we're doing, it will never end.
Speaker 6 (28:04):
It will never end until Boris Yeltsin is resurrected from
the grave and put in given some kind of cryogenic
therapy and infused with some sort of IV drip so
that Boris Yeltzen Is from his undead throne, put back
(28:25):
in charge of Russia and giving away that seventy five
trillion to the political donor class, the donor drafter class
in New York City, in London.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
So it's all about money in the end. It's all
this relentless Russia. This in Russia, that Ukraine. It's all
about wanting what Russia has and won't let us have.
Speaker 6 (28:51):
Yeah, now you have to understand there's in addition to
that seventy five trillion. Russia has been the bane of
US foreign policy since about two thousand, well, two thousand
and three to two thousand and five is really when
it started. We had tried to, We had effectively taken
over Russia from nineteen ninety one to nineteen ninety eight
during the ELTs And years. The State Department even effectively
(29:14):
rigged the nineteen ninety six election in Russia to ensure
that Boris Eltson won despite having less than ten percent approval.
There's a Hollywood movie about this called Spinning, Spinning Boris
that I think is worth watching for folks who want
to see an entertaining kind of take on what was done.
(29:35):
I mean, we sent Hollywood over there. We sent tens
of millions of dollars of USAID money to prop Boris
Eltson up. I mean, it was a real weekend at
Bernie's that was done. And at the end of the day,
Russia lost ninety percent of its stock market, the life
expectancy went down about a decade for the average Russian citizen,
all under US vassal state control.
Speaker 7 (29:59):
Putin rowe out of.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
The ashes of that, and the Russian people felt completely
betrayed by the US guiding hand to towards private market capitalism,
because they're all the publicly held wealth by the Soviet
Union that was in a communist government, held at least
(30:21):
nominally for the people. Of course, it was completely corrupt state,
but it didn't at the end of the day that
those assets were sold off to Western firms in large
part other than a few handful of industries like oil.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
And oil and gas.
Speaker 6 (30:38):
And then when Putin came to power, he began to
use the oil and gas. You know, as John McCain said,
there a gas station with an army, and he began
to use that to reassert political control over central eastern Europe.
He began to reverse the gains of the post Cold
War NATO and EU expansion at you know his as
(31:01):
the history tells it, invaded Russia. I'm sorry, invaded Georgia.
Of course, Georgia actually attacked Russia first, but story for
another time, and in doing so undermined Republican oil and
gas interests in the Caspian This Iserbaijan to Georgia pathway
that the Bush family and the Romney family were invested in,
(31:27):
but hadn't hit the Democrats yet because the Democrats were
mostly concentrated in terms of their energy investments in Ukraine.
So this is what the Russian reset was about. The
Obama administration and Hillary Clinton and George Soros thought that
they could play nice with Russia and trade to get
(31:47):
access to that seventy five trillion. And this is where
you have the uranium one in Hillary Clinton green lighting
the sale of twenty percent of America's uranium to Russia
d during this period, and you had you know, Russia
oligarchs paying the Clinton Global Foundation. The Republicans were furious
about this because their donor class wasn't getting paid off
(32:08):
by the Russians. But then when we tried to go
for the whole Ancelota by overthrowing the Democrat the elected,
relatively fair government of Ukraine. In twenty fourteen, Russia struck
back by backstopping the Eastern Province breakaway state in the
don Bass and in Crimea with the Russian annexation the
(32:33):
Democrat vote within Crimea to join the Russian Federation, and
at that point the Democrat donors got hit, and so
there became this bipartisan alliance after twenty fourteen that what
we need is regime change in Russia and a full
new Cold War, and anyone who stands in the way
of that is going to get treated the same way
(32:54):
anyone was treated siding with the Soviet Union in the
Cold War. The difference is this time the opposition mostly
came from right wing populist and nationalists as opposed to
left wing communists. So that conveniently, we have an apparatus
already set up at the CIA, FBI, Department of War, USAID,
(33:15):
the NGO sphere, the media, the unions, the legal advocacy
and rule of law programs to neutralize anyone who opposes
the foreign policy establishment on the Cold War. And they
simply did it with Cold War two point zero.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
Mike awesome as always. Thank you brother, come back soon.
Speaking of Russia, Hans Monkey knows a lot about the
Russia hoax. Talk about that next. I love being in
a good mood. Kind of a dumb thing to say, right,
doesn't everybody? Well, everybody wants to be in a good mood.
You do, I do? But why do you get down? Sometimes?
(33:56):
I'm not talking about you watching old yeller? Do you
ever just get down? Sometimes? You know while you're down
because your t levels are low. It happens when you
have low testosterone. Your mood is severely affected by it.
And when you get your tea levels up twenty percent
and ninety days with a male Vitality Stack from Chalk,
(34:16):
you notice the difference. You're just in a good boot,
smile and more. You're better at home, you're better at work,
You're better everywhere when your tea levels are up where
they should be. I've got eighty year olds writing me
emails telling me their doctor told them they have the
testosterone of twenty year old men. Thank you to a
Male Vitality Stack from Chalk. Go to chalk dot com,
(34:40):
slash jessetv and get a subscription.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
The walls feel like they are closing in.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
But as the walls close in around the president, Donald
Trumpe the walls closing in.
Speaker 3 (35:01):
I think this is a guy who feels like the
walls are closing in.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
The walls are closing in on him, because the walls
are closing in.
Speaker 8 (35:07):
The walls are closing in on the president. Now the
walls appear to be closing in.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
The really kind of the walls closing in on him,
the walls are closing in, because the walls are indeed
closing in.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
I think at this point the walls are spinning.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
The legal walls are closing in. The walls are closing
in on President Trump.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
The walls are closing in on the presidency. He says,
as the walls begin to close.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Around us, the local walls closing in on him.
Speaker 5 (35:30):
As a president that fills the walls closing in.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.
Speaker 8 (35:35):
I think the walls are finally closing in.
Speaker 1 (35:37):
He's not looking forward to any of it. He's horrified.
He's just talking big. The walls are closing in. As
as has been said before. Ah, yes, that's a little
throwback to yesteryear joining me now. Author of the book
Swift boating America, Hans Monkey, Hey, Hans, whatever happened to
(36:01):
those walls that were closing in? Did they separate again?
How did all that that stuff end up panning out?
Speaker 8 (36:08):
Well, it didn't pan out too well for them in
terms of the lawfair even though now they're throwing out
this Epstein stuff again and hoping some of it will stick.
But look, I think we're going to see quite a
different set of walls closing in. And that's those are
the walls on these Russia Gate conspirators. We've had a
few cases already, brought a few indictments already out there,
(36:30):
but I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot
more coming.
Speaker 7 (36:34):
Hans.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
What were the geopolitical consequences of this Russia hoax? Because
it was far from some victimless investigation where Trump ended
up scott free and everything worked out well. And then
that was not the case at all, was it? No,
it wasn't.
Speaker 8 (36:51):
Unfortunately. What happened is that Russia as a country was
of course vilified. And you know, in part there's bad
people here like this, bad people everywhere, and there's problems
and so on. But the thing is the entire country
was vilified. And we saw it with you know, even
hockey players and you know, tennis players, whatever, you know,
everyone was any Russian was vilified. But unfortunately that had
(37:13):
the sort of extra effect of criminalizing diplomacy. So when
Trump in his first term tried to do diplomacy of
any kind with Russia, immediately, you know, there was a
giant meltdown with the media and he just wasn't able
to get any traction to get anything going. And then
of course Russia said, well, if we can't talk to you,
we'll talk to China. And now we see what's happened
with that. You know, they're they're not only your new
(37:35):
best friends, but there's a huge economic partnership that grew
out of that. And of course you got Ukraine as well,
which wouldn't have happened. You know, Trump says it wouldn't
have happened if he'd had a second term in twenty twenty,
twenty twenty one and so on. That's probably true, but
it wouldn't have happened at all had it not been
for the Russia hoax. So there's a lot of shifting
that happened because of that hoax.
Speaker 1 (37:58):
So what is this new Russia China relationship. How intertwined
are they?
Speaker 8 (38:04):
I'm getting more and more so. And you know, the
media and the sort of the establishment and the think
tank people will make you think, well, it's always been
like that or was always inevitable and so, and that's
absolutely not true. These countries had a war not that
long ago, something like fifty years ago. They still haven't
solved some of their border problems. Putin when he was
the I think it was deputy Mayor Saint Petersburger Mayor
(38:29):
Saint Petersburg's late nineties before he became president, he was
really good friends with Taiwanese Taiwanese president. They had established
new flights and new trade and they were doing space
exploration together projects and so there was a lot going on.
So this idea that you know, China and Russia always
kind of we're going to be together is absolutely not true.
(38:49):
And unfortunately the fact that Trump, who ran in twenty
fifteen sixteen on this platform of yeah, not being best
friends in the whole world, but at least trying to
normalize things with Russia, the fact that that was not
allowed to happen made Russia pivot to China. Now you've
got huge explosion in their trade volume. If you just
look at the numbers there, you know, we're talking hundreds
(39:10):
of extra percent as to compared to a few years ago.
We've got China obviously cooperating on the Ukraine War. We've
got energy, so you know, Russia gives China energy and
China gives Russia, you know, advanced technology things they need
for their drones and you know, all that kind of stuff. So,
I mean, it's happening on all fronts. It's a very
(39:31):
deep relationship now within just a few years. I mean,
Putin was in Beijing a couple of times. He was
there for the big anniversary back in October's a lot
going on. My point is it wouldn't have happened, and
it didn't need to be this way had it not
been for these Russia Gate hoaxers.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Who were the Russia Gate hoaxers, who were the names
who did this.
Speaker 8 (39:54):
Well, hopefully the people who will now be held accountable.
It started with Hillary Clinton, so her campaign had this
plan to smear Trump as a Russian agent, and it
wasn't you know, I don't think there was this huge
grand conspiracy into which it grew at the time. It
was simply about making clear that Russia was cooperating with Trump,
(40:18):
and that was supposed to be a distraction to Hillary's
own problems with their emails. So when you know, people
talked about that, everyone would say, no, look at Trump
and look at Trump and Russia.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
So that was just sort of the whole idea.
Speaker 8 (40:29):
But then it kind of grew into something, you know,
much much bigger than that, because the government jumped on board.
And when you ask about names, that's when you get
into the sort of the nitty gritty head. At the
helm of it, you had Obama. You had Obama CIA
Chief Brennan, you had his FBI Chief Comy, you had
his dn I Clapper, and so many others kind of
in the second and third level behind him. But these
(40:51):
are the people who co opted the Hillary Clinton hoax
and made it into a government law. Fair said, or
what do you want to whatever you want to call it,
to tryin ause Trump and at the very least to
cripple him in terms of doing whatever you wanted to
do in the first term. And in that unfortunately, they
were quite successful.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
Hans. Let me ask you about Obama, because his role
in this has not been talked about. Enough. Now we're
starting to understand more and more. My question for you
is the man who really wrote the book on this
is why his two terms were up. I understand he's
a tried and true communist revolutionary. I get all that,
but it's quite a step to take to sit the
(41:35):
CIA and FBI on your political opponent when you're about
to retire. Yeah.
Speaker 8 (41:43):
No, I think there was probably a couple of reasons
for that. I mean, first of all, there was the
shock that Hillary actually lost. I don't think they expected that,
which is also why I don't think this sort of
Russia Gate hoax was planned as this huge conspiracy, which
it became. I think, as I said, initially it was
just to distract from Hillary's emails. Then she lost, they
had to do something.
Speaker 7 (42:02):
They had to do.
Speaker 8 (42:03):
Something to explain away her loss. As to Obama, obviously
that's kind of a broad topic of his, but more specifically,
what he would have been after is to protect his
own legacy, because he knew that if Trump was going
to be successful, then everything that Obama tried to do,
and you know, pushing the country leftward and all the
things he did, Obama Care and on and on and on,
(42:25):
immigration and so on that would have been erased or
you know, after eight years of Trump, there would have
been no more trace of Obama. So he wanted to
protect that by basically crippling the Trump presidency then trying
to get rid of him, which they tried to do
through Mueller, or which they then succeeded in twenty twenty.
Just get rid of him through the election, and then
(42:46):
you know, he'll never come back. And it's true, if
he had not come back in twenty twenty four, all
of his, all of Trump's initiatives would have sort of
been cast by the wayside and we would have been
stuck with, you know, back to Obama basically.
Speaker 7 (42:59):
So I think for.
Speaker 8 (43:00):
Obama it was really a matter of trying to preserve
his own legacy. What, of course, he did not plan for,
probably never expected in a million years, is that Trump
would actually mount that comeback that he did in twenty
twenty four, and so it didn't work out for him.
Speaker 1 (43:15):
Oh sure, didn't praise God for that, Hans, Thank you, brother,
I appreciate it. We have final thoughts next, gut health.
You never hear that term, now, what about your gut health?
I always mocked it to be honest with you. But
that's because my stomach, for almost all of my life,
(43:36):
can handle anything jalapenos. It doesn't matter. My stomach can
handle anything. But you notice something when you turn forty
four that you didn't notice when you turn twenty four.
There are limits. Now, what do you do to make
sure your gut is in good health? Colostrum Cowboy colostrum.
Someone told me it's a must if you want your
(43:56):
gut to feel good. It's a must.
Speaker 7 (43:58):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (43:58):
I decided to try it. Wow, and it's delicious. I
have the chocolate kind. I put two scoops in my coffee.
Every single morning. I have chocolate coffee delicious. My gut
feels good. Go get some Cowboy colostrum for your gut health.
Go to cowboycolostrum dot com slash jessetv. We'll be back.
(44:32):
We have to end the weaponization of the government, and
there is only one way to do that. You don't
have the power to do it, neither do I. We
have to find the people who use their office against
their political opponents. We have to arrest them, try them,
and send them to prison. It is the only way
to make future tyrants, future evil people too afraid to
(44:55):
do it. If these people get off scot free, if
we just let them go that, what incentive is there
for them to ever stop. This has to stop now
or it gets worse from here. It's snowballs from here.
Let's hope the Trump administration Pam Bondi as the stones
to do it, do it again.
Host
Jesse Kelly
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.
Medal of Honor: Stories of Courage
Rewarded for bravery that goes above and beyond the call of duty, the Medal of Honor is the United States’ top military decoration. The stories we tell are about the heroes who have distinguished themselves by acts of heroism and courage that have saved lives. From Judith Resnik, the second woman in space, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice, these are stories about those who have done the improbable and unexpected, who have sacrificed something in the name of something much bigger than themselves. Every Wednesday on Medal of Honor, uncover what their experiences tell us about the nature of sacrifice, why people put their lives in danger for others, and what happens after you’ve become a hero. Special thanks to series creator Dan McGinn, to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and Adam Plumpton. Medal of Honor begins on May 28. Subscribe to Pushkin+ to hear ad-free episodes one week early. Find Pushkin+ on the Medal of Honor show page in Apple or at Pushkin.fm. Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkin Subscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.fm/plus
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com