September 5, 2025 • 51 mins
In a decisive and historic measure, President Trump orders the U.S. Military to strike a drug vessel operated by the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua.
Guests:
John Vick | Executive Director, Concerned Veterans for America
Sam Mirejovsky | Legal Analyst & Radio Host, What's Right Show
Davis Younts | Military Defense Attorney, Younts Law
John Leake | Bestselling Author, Independent Investigative Journalist
Barry Todd | Author, Stand Your Ground
Guests:
John Vick | Executive Director, Concerned Veterans for America
Sam Mirejovsky | Legal Analyst & Radio Host, What's Right Show
Davis Younts | Military Defense Attorney, Younts Law
John Leake | Bestselling Author, Independent Investigative Journalist
Barry Todd | Author, Stand Your Ground
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Welcome to the real Story. I'm your host, Riley Lewis.
Thank you for joining us. Is the US government heading
toward a direct confrontation with the Venezuelan government? And if so,
what exactly would that look like? And how could it
possibly impact the American people, if at all. These are
just a few of the questions at the center of
(00:31):
today's top story, and that brings us to the relations
between the US and Venezuela. So tensions are actively running
rapidly high between the Trump administration and that of Nicholas Maduro,
the leader and president of Venezuela, whose socialist regime has
sparked a mass exodus out of the Latin American country.
(00:52):
And those tensions are rising to historic levels. And there
are several reasons for the heightened tension right now, with
one of them being the from Madureau's arrest and conviction.
So on that note, Florida Senator Rick Scott reiterated his
previous calls to raise the reward for information leading to
his arrest to one hundred million dollars in an ex
(01:13):
post on Tuesday, while also calling for his legislation against
Maduro to be passed introduced in September of twenty twenty four.
The Stop Madureau Act would raise that bounty from fifteen
million dollars to one hundred million dollars. And it's all
premised on the belief that Maduro's regime has worked with
the notorious gang Trendy Arragua to flood America's streets with drugs. Now,
(01:39):
that point of view also set the stage for a
historic action on Tuesday of this week, when US military
forces conducted a targeted strike in the Southern Caribbean, destroying
a vessel that was carrying illegal narcotics from Venezuela and
killing eleven members of the transnational criminal organization Trende Arragua. Now,
(01:59):
the operation, carried out in international waters, targeted a boat
allegedly operated by the gang under the influence of Maduro's regime,
and President Trump announced the strike on Tuesday afternoon.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Take a look when you come out, and when you
leave the room, you'll see that we just over the
last few minutes literally shot out a boat, a drug
carrying boat, a lot of drugs in that boat. And
you'll be seeing that, and you'll be reading about that.
It just tappened moments ago, and our great General, head
(02:34):
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been so incredible,
including what took place in Iran, knocking out potential nuclear
power for a long time to come. I think within
a month they would have had it. We didn't do
what we did, but he gave us a little bit
of a briefing and you'll see, and there's more where
(02:56):
that came from. We have a lot of drugs pouring
in to a country, coming in for a long time,
and we just these came out of Venezuela and coming
out very heavily from venezuel lot of things are coming
out of Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So the operation captured in a video that President Trump
also shared on truth Social showing a multi engine speedboat
erupting into flames, underscores the lethal risks posed by these
criminal networks that are flooding america streets with poison and
following that strategic strike prisident. Trump elaborated on the situation
in a post on truth Social as well, writing this
(03:32):
in part. TDA is a designated foreign terrorist organization operating
under the control of Nicholas Maduro, responsible for mass murder,
drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror
across the United States and Western Hemisphere. The strike occurred
while the terrorists were at sea in international waters, transporting
(03:53):
illegal narcotics heading to the United States. The strike resulted
in eleven terrorist kure action. No US forces were harmed
in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to
anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States
of America.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Beware.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Thank you for your attention to this matter. There it is,
They've all been warned unequivocally. But with that being said,
that brings us to Maduro's response to this measure.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
Now.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Interestingly, Maduro didn't directly address these specifics of the strike. However,
he accused the US of using the situation to set
the stage to target the country's resources, including oil and
natural gas. He also invoked God in a statement to
his own supporters, saying that God is with us in
the face of what he labeled to be imperialist threats. Additionally,
(04:50):
Venezuela's communications minister questioned the authenticity of the video, saying
it resembled some sort of potentially AI generated cartoonish animation,
raising a very critical inquiry. Could Maduro's outright denials and
troop deployments along Venezuela's coast signal a readiness for escalation.
That much is currently unclear, but with lives hanging in
(05:14):
the balance from the brave service members executing these missions
to innocent Americans who've been ravaged by drug addiction, one
can't help but wonder what exactly is Trend de Arragua,
and more importantly, how did this gang become such a
notorious force on the world stage. Well, here's just a
little bit of background about the organization itself, originating over
(05:38):
a decade ago in a chaotic prison in Venezuela's Arragua State,
Trend de Aragua is a transnational gang that's widely seen
as one of the most powerful gangs in the entire
country and broadly the entire hemisphere. They're also implicated in
violence and drug distribution in multiple US cities, and their
reach has actually expanded amid the mass exodus of millions
(06:00):
and millions of Venezuelans fleeing economic collapse under Maduro's policies,
and since its formation, the group has grown into a
sophisticated network involved in a range of illegal activities, some
of which President Trump highlighted in his Truth social post
including drug trafficking, human smuggling, extortion, kidnapping, and violent crimes
(06:23):
like murders and robberies. However, despite its origins, Venezuelan officials
have denied allegations of having direct ties between the gang
and the Madureau government. A declassified report, though from the
National Intelligence Council, made public in April, also found there
was no connection between the two. But then again, the
intelligence community can't always be trusted at face value, can it.
(06:47):
In either case, the gang's expansion and activities pose major
security challenges to the US very clearly, and that brings
us back to the question that we started with, do
these recent events at the stage for a confrontation between
the US government and the Venezuelan government. Now Here with
his thoughts to that question is John vic a veteran
(07:07):
of the United States Marine Corps an intel officer in
the US Navy Reserve. John, thank you for being here today.
Speaker 5 (07:14):
Thanks Chriley, It's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
So I have a lot of questions for you. Let's
start with this first one that I just wrapped with.
Do you think we might see a confrontation between the
US government and that of Venezuela?
Speaker 6 (07:29):
Well, I think that's a long leap from where we're
at right now. I mean the shooting the boat out
of the water filled with drugs headed to kill Americans.
I think that there's three fundamental things that we all
should take into account. One, dead drug traffickers is a
good thing, right, Those drugs and the people that transport
that poison no longer a threat. The second is that
(07:50):
this is a real lethal national problem that does fuel murder, rape,
in many other forms of human exploitation.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
We all need to fundamentally.
Speaker 6 (07:58):
Agree that that is what happens when boats like that
don't get caught. And the third thing that I think
is important is most of the controversy controversy about this
is revolving around legal authorities to take these kinds of actions,
and I think Congress should really be stepping up in
the same with the same gusto as the military and
as the Trump administration in this regard to stop this
(08:19):
problem the right way. I don't think that our president
should have to use things like the two thousand and
one AUMF or outdated war powers authorities, right. It is
Congress's responsibility to step up, acknowledge the problem, and work
with the administration to give us the right tools to
stop stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Like this, completely agreed.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
So to follow up, then, what do you make of
the sort of lack of action from congressional lawmakers on
an issue that is so pertinent to millions of Americans.
Speaker 6 (08:49):
I think it's like put in your head in the sand, right,
I mean things like fentanyl, right, all of the opioid
crisis that has been affecting this country for at least
half my life. Yes, the death toll is higher than
any war. And not just that, it's the lives that
are lost, the lives that are wrecked, the human wreckage
among families as well, not to mention the immense human cost.
(09:13):
And it's not just American too, right, I mean, this
spoils lives all over the world, And the fact that
it is a wicked problem doesn't mean that it's not
a problem that can be solved or at least mitigated. Right,
It has to be attacked, and we need resources to
do that.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
One thing that really sticks out to me, and I
want to get your thoughts about this too, John, is
so the tactics from President Trump, because at this point
we have a long pattern of him giving people warnings
before taking action that is very necessary, but clearly he
doesn't want to take it. So, for example, look at
these strikes on those nuclear sites in Iran. For weeks
and months, he gave them warnings saying, come to the table,
(09:52):
make a deal with us about your nuclear program.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
Work with us, or else we're.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Going to have to strike, but we don't want to,
so please deal with the situation diplomatically.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
They refused.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
They gave him the run around, and so we saw
a historic strike in which we dropped thirty thousand pound
bombs bunker busters on nuclear sites in Iran. I think
that's very similar to the situation here where he comes
into office. He says, we're going to clean up the streets,
secure the borders, no more drugs, designate groups like Trende, ARRAGUA,
foreign terrorist organizations, but they still don't change their ways.
(10:23):
So I would argue he was all but forced to
take this measure. What do you think about that analogy.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
John, No, I think it's great. I mean, I also in.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
The Naval War College officer, and he always goes back
to DIN, an acronym that means diplomatic, informational, military, and
economic right, and so often in our recent foreign policy history,
we've leaned exclusively first and foremost into the military. I'm
a I believe in realism and restraint when it comes
to how we deal with other countries. And if you're
the richest, most powerful country in the world, you should
(10:55):
be able to leverage diplomacy, diplomacy effectively, lean on information
where the biggest export or rather of culture in the world,
and of course economic tools as well. And so yes,
whereas the military was used in this regard, yes, it
was used at the nuclear facilities in Iran, it was
to your point, preceded by diplomacy and then directly afterward
(11:18):
trying to get people back to the table. That is
dime in action, right, that that is using the tools
of national power to achieve the results that you want
in this case, and it should be in every case,
to protect American interests, protect American lives. This is one
of those nuances about in particular this president, the Trump administration,
that oftentimes gets lost because it's like, oh, well, Trump
(11:39):
didn't take anything off the table. The point in the
precedent that this administration has said is you should come
to the table, you should talk, you should take us seriously, right,
and then there's consequences when you don't, and I think
that the sort of the strategic ambiguity in that is
ultimately very effective.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Now to bring it back to Iran as well, and
to a point that you just made. When those strikes
first happened, there were a lot of critics of the
move and they said, well, this could lead us into
a direct war with the Ayahtola, so you should not
do this. After it happened, though we didn't see any
kind of direct conflict. No s US forces were harmed,
there was no boots on the ground. It was a
very clean and precise measure. I think we're seeing something
(12:20):
very similar here where there are some people out there,
not myself though, who were saying, well, you can't do
something like this because you could end up starting a
full scale war with either Venezuela or with the cartels.
But as it stands right now, Maduro doesn't seem to
be interested in that whatsoever, and it might not ever happen.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
So what do you think about that? John?
Speaker 7 (12:40):
Right?
Speaker 6 (12:40):
Yeah, No, I think one thing that this president is
very good at so far in this administration and in
his first administration for that matter. But I'd say, especially
in his second one, is leveraging those tools of national power.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (12:52):
Right.
Speaker 6 (12:54):
All of our actions in foreign policy, or his actions
rather up until this, encouraged that sense of seriousness. And
so I'm really intrigued to see, especially with regard to
the threat of the poison coming into our country, the
illegal drugs, with the President turning his attention in that direction,
what will the difference be relative to previous presidents.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
Yes, that's what I'm excited for.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Absolutely.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
So.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Then a final question for you today, John, what do
you think should happen next? Do you want to see
more strikes on Trende Ragua or other groups that are
poisoning Americans, like say MS thirteen, or do you think
that there should be another course of action that we
move forward with.
Speaker 6 (13:34):
I think, ultimately the best thing for the country, especially
in terms of look, you know, we have three more
years with President Trump, right, I think the best thing
is for Congress to follow that lead, step up and
address these problems head on, to develop enduring solutions where
there is no ambiguity about war powers, what the legal
authority is, that sort of thing. I think that Congress
(13:57):
needs to find its courage work with this president to
develop solutions that will address these issues.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Completely agreed, and I just want to say thank you
for your time and your analysis. This is such an
important issue and it's a really pivotal moment for relations
between the US and Venezuela. So all eyes are on
the Trump administration right now, and I just I appreciate
your time today.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
John, Thanks, Hlie, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Coming up next, two expert legal minds joins us to
discuss President Trump's attempts to get the case against him
regarding Egen Carroll dismissed once and for all.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
More details after the.
Speaker 8 (14:29):
Break, watch OM Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
one America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv
dot com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Welcome back to the real story.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
There can be no truer principle than this, that every
individual of the community at large has an equal right
to the protection of government. Those are the words of
Alexander Hamilton, speaking at the Constitutional Convention in seventeen ninety eight. He,
along with the other great minds of his generation, understood
that the government must never ever be weaponized against its
(15:21):
own citizens. They all foresaw the dangers of a bloated
governmental bureaucracy, and that, in fact, is why we have
a constitution in the first place, to keep them in
check and to protect us the people. However, given that
the modern day establishment Republicans and liberals alike, basically treat
the Constitution like a build your own pizza menu. Here
(15:43):
we are nearly two hundred and fifty years after the
signing of the Declaration of Independence, with lawfare schemes having
been waged against the former and now current president of
the United States. President Trump, fresh off dodging endless legal traps,
bogus and artisan impeachment, and not one but two mysterious
(16:03):
assassination attempts, is now charging straight to the US Supreme
Court to spike the infamous five million dollar verdict against
him in the Egen Carol case, arguing that the whole
thing was rigged from the start in a Manhattan courtroom
that was stacked against him. Now, for those who were
tuning in without the backstory on this case, it was
(16:24):
back in twenty nineteen when advice columnist Egene Carroll dropped
a bombshell in her memoir claiming that President Trump sexually
abused her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the
spring of nineteen ninety six. Trump immediately fired right back,
calling the claim a hoax, and that sparked her defamation
(16:44):
lawsuit against him. Now fast forward to twenty twenty three,
and in New York jury found him liable for the
abuse and defamation, slapping him with five million dollars in damages.
No criminal charges, mind you, just civil. But it didn't
even stop there, because in twenty twenty four, a second
trial nailed him for more defamation over his twenty nineteen denials,
(17:09):
ballooning the tab to a staggering eighty three point three
million dollars, so the total hit eighty eight point three
million dollars. Now President Trump ponied up the initial five
mil into escrow, but he's battling appeals ever since. And
the key players in the smear campaign masquerading as some
(17:29):
sort of legitimate legal proceeding include Carrol, who's backed by
powerhouse lawyer ROBERTA. Kaplan, who happens to have no relation
to the presiding judge Lewis A.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Kaplan, who Trump's team blasts.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
For significant errors like, for example, letting two other accusers
from the nineteen seventies and two thousand and five pileon testimony.
Now appeals courts though weren't buying. In fact, a second
circuit panel upheld a verdict in December twenty twenty four,
and in June twenty twenty five they shot down a
full review.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
But now, as of this.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Recording, President Trump's legal team obtained an extension to November
eleventh to file with the US Supreme Court, calling it
a fight against unjust judgments and look, folks, to be
very clear, this isn't just about one alleged dressing room
dust up. It's the real story of a system weaponized
against a guy who simply.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Won't back down.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Critics call it accountability, which is really quite hilarious. Our
establishment calling for accountability, irony, overload and all, while those
with objectivity and a set of eyeballs see it as
another witch hunt, draining resources from making America great once again,
Yet just another distraction to draw focus away from the
(18:45):
amazing things this man has accomplished in the White House.
That's really the truth of it all. The fact that
President Trump is winning the mainstream media and the ruling
class just can't stand it. They are beside themselves at it,
and they will do nearly whatever they can just to
muddy the waters and to make him look bad. It's
(19:07):
yet another shiny object designed to distract from their terrible
policy decisions and the erosion of our republic, a move
designed to destroy President Trump's reputation, cast doubt among his supporters,
and derail his presidency. However, if there's one thing we
all know about President Trump, it's that he will never
(19:27):
ever back down from a fight. Now Here with Reaction
is Davis Hughes, a US Army veteran and a military
defense attorney with Hunt's Law, and Samir Jowski, a legal
analyst and host of the What's Right Show. Gentlemen, thank
you for being here.
Speaker 8 (19:44):
Good to be with you.
Speaker 9 (19:45):
It's an Honoriley.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
So it is hard to think of a more ridiculous
and absurd case than this one. And I really hope
we can get this thing dismissed, but I'm not so sure.
So that's my first question to you, Sam today, what
do you think do you think there is a chance
the Supreme Court we'll finally dismiss this case once and
for all.
Speaker 10 (20:03):
Yeah, Riley, I think it's possible. I think there were
a lot of things let into evidence that are are
not in accordance with the federal rules of evidence. So
I think there's some technical fault here. You mentioned the
two witnesses, the two prior accusers. I would also add
that there were things that Trump's side wanted to enter
(20:25):
into evidence, for example, the insane interview that Egen Carroll
gave to Anderson Cooper where she claimed that rape was sexy,
and that was denied. So the thing was, you know,
the rules of evidence were stretched beyond their limits to
accommodate the plaintiff, and then then they were really we'll
(20:47):
put right back into a very narrow focus when it
came to Trump. So I think there's some some good
issues here for his side in his case.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Now to you, Davis, what are your thoughts about the
same question.
Speaker 9 (20:59):
You know what, it's interesting when we're dealing with the
Supreme Court, particularly the Roberts Supreme Court, there's a balance
of trying to be pragmatic and actually take legal issues
that the Supreme Court is going to be willing to take,
and just a recognition of the unique nature of the
lawfare that was waged against President Trump. I mean, this
campaign of lawfare against him was essentially broke the societal compact.
(21:23):
So my hope, in part is that the Supreme Court
is willing to recognize that because our laws, our system
is designed for a moral people, and if people are
just going to use it for political assassination, it can
break the system. So I agree with a lot of
what Sam had to say. I will add I think
there's a really interesting issue the Supreme Court may want
to sink their teeth into, which is under Times b. Sullivan,
(21:45):
which is an older case that talks about the standards
for a public figure and a defamation case where there
has to be actual malice. So I think it's really
interesting because Judge Kaplan in this case really gutted that
and gave very very poor jury instructions on that issue.
But it also raises the question of can a public figure.
Can someone who's running for office defend themselves publicly without
(22:08):
being sued and then forced to pay tens of millions
of dollars for a defamation case. So if there is
a hook for the Supreme Court under law, I think
clarifying Times to be Sullivan potentially and looking into the
issue of jury instructions in addition to the key evidence
your issues Sam talked about will be that would be
interesting to see if the Supreme Court will take that up.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
That's interesting to follow up with you than Davis for
a moment. So, the bigger picture of problem here is
the corruption of America's criminal justice system. It's really sad
to see the level that we're at right now, and
I'm wondering what can realistically be done to repair America's
criminal justice system, or even just the justice system beyond criminality,
even in civil cases like this one. So what do
(22:51):
you think, Davis.
Speaker 9 (22:53):
Well, one of the things simply is Barack Obama and
George Soros understood the playbook when it came to Sorel's
funded DA's as well as these judicial elections. So the
American people need to pay very, very careful attention to
these local county, city level elections and be engaged and
stay involved. You need to know who your district attorneys are,
(23:15):
you need to know who your local judges are so
you can have an impact on that process. Because the
progressive left has engaged in a well funded campaign to
do these things, and that's what makes lawfair like this possible.
That's what gives them the ability to target political enemies
and use you know, kangaroo courts to go after good people.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
That's really interesting.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Now, then to you, Sam, what do you think about
this bigger issue of I mean, we talked about das
and of course even judges as well, but it's become
such a monumental problem and I'm just not sure how
to address it.
Speaker 9 (23:49):
Well.
Speaker 10 (23:50):
I mean, look, you're absolutely right about the elections that
they matter. I've always talked about these das on my
show that you know, you don't have to go and
buy an entire legislature.
Speaker 8 (23:59):
You can just by one DA and the DA can.
Speaker 10 (24:02):
Through selective prosecution or lack of prosecution. Uh, you know,
basically overwrite the laws of the land. So this is
you know, absolutely correct on that point. What can be done, well,
you can you can vote number one, number two. This
is an opportunity, in my view, for the Supreme Court
(24:23):
to step in and write write things because this, you know,
there's even i mean a very idea that New York
came in here and reopened the statue of limitations narrowly
essentially to.
Speaker 8 (24:36):
Allow this case to move forward.
Speaker 10 (24:38):
It was such a deliberate targeting of Trump, you can't
even you really can't even deny that it just was.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
It was so.
Speaker 10 (24:46):
Specifically orchestrated here by the state legislature, by by the judge, here,
by the lawyers, all designed to get Trump and I,
as you know, the equities have to be balanced. And
if we're to have justice prevail in our in our
beautiful country and our are the faith in our justice
system UH to remain intact, and then this has to
(25:09):
be corrected. It's imperative.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
It is you know, some of the founders of this country,
we're lawyers themselves, people like say Thomas Jefferson, and I
have to look at this case and I wonder what
would someone like Thomas Jefferson or any of the founding
fathers have to say about the state of America's justice
system today. I want to get your thoughts to that question.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
Sam Well.
Speaker 10 (25:30):
I think they would be heartbroken. And I think, you know,
if you go back to the to the to the
very foundation you know, founding principles of our law, the
idea of a of a blinded lady justice, this is
the exact opposite. This is lady justice with you know,
with with laser focused binoculars night vision, going after you know,
(25:52):
politically targeting individuals here Trump, who is you know in
New York and in that particular or jurisdiction not a
well liked person and singling him out this this punishment.
I mean that the eighty three plus five million dollars
here is an absurd you know, I mean this should
(26:12):
have been struck. You know, the judge should have limited
this and cut it way down to begin with. This
lady is nuts. She has no reputational damage on every level.
I'm just looking at as a lawyer, at every level,
in every way, this case is a farce. So are
you know our founders would would be sick to their
stomachs over this and would be crying out for this
(26:33):
to be corrected.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I completely agree, and I want to hear from Davis too.
So Davis, what do you think the founding fathers would
say about a case like this one?
Speaker 7 (26:42):
I think we know.
Speaker 9 (26:43):
Thomas Jefferson said that the jury was the only anchor
yet imagined by the mind of man through which a
government could be held to the principles of its constitution.
So they recognize very clearly a system that was based
on citizens actively participating in the process. But one of
the things we see, and it's revealed in cases like this,
is we have limited jury's abilities to actually hear cases.
(27:07):
We have limited what's called jury nullification. It used to
be when our nation was founded, a jury could look
at a case and say, maybe there was some sort
of a technical violation of the law here, but justice
demands an acquittal or justice demands a different outcome. And
most states now have outlawed during nullification. They even prevent
lawyers like Samurai from making those arguments on behalf of
(27:29):
our clients that this law is unjustice applied in this case.
Speaker 7 (27:32):
So I think they.
Speaker 9 (27:33):
Would be very, very disappointed that we have taken so
much authority away from citizens and we've put it in
the hands of these bureaucrats. And I think they would
just be saddened that we don't have a recognized moral
worldview anymore. And that's part of the problem here. If
we don't have a shared social compact, shared values, then
(27:53):
there are people who will manipulate the judicial system to
try to take out their political enemies.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
That is the core of the problem.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
You know, President Trump talks about making America great again
and I love that, and what I think he really
means in part, is making America moral again, returning to
those first principles that this country was built on, the
ideas that made this place exceptional and great, that attracted
millions of people from all over the world and inspired
democratic revolutions all over the world. So we'll have to
(28:20):
see what happens with the Supreme Court, but I think
this case should be absolutely dismissed. And I thank you
both today for your expert legal analysis.
Speaker 10 (28:28):
Thanks for having us.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Thank you, God bless.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Coming up next as Health and Human Service. As Secretary,
RFK Junior spearheads the effort to make America healthy again.
The concerted effort to stop him intensifies, so stay with
us for a deep dive into it with an independent
investigative journalist.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
More details after the break.
Speaker 8 (28:53):
Watch AM Live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch One
America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Welcome back to the real Story. Today's next topic brings
us to a major development in Washington. So RFK Junior,
head of the Department of Health and Human Services testified
before the Senate Finance Committee today, and what was supposed
to be a discussion about his role in the Trump administration.
President Trump's health agenda and the recent shakeups at the
(29:34):
CDC quickly turned into an unbecoming standoff. In fact, multiple
lawmakers spoke over Kennedy, grilling him and expressing their frustrations
instead of just letting him answer their questions. And the
testimony itself comes after a flurry of new developments in
the world of healthcare. So, for example, then CDC Director
Susan Monterrez and other high level officials departed the agency
(29:58):
just last week, with those other officials leaving in protest.
And that's not all that brings us then to Tuesday
of this week. In a move that reeks of bureaucratic
backlash against bold reforms, over one thousand current and former
employees from the Department of Health and Human Services called
for Secretary Kennedy's resignation on Wednesday, claiming his leadership endangers
(30:22):
the nation's health in an open letter. But let's really
scrutinize this for just a moment. Kennedy, appointed by President
Trump to tackle the chronic disease epidemic and restore the
integrity of agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and NIH
has faced nothing but resistance since day one, offered daring
to challenge the status quo at his decisive actions such
(30:45):
as replacing the entire seventeen member Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices with eight fresh voices, including well respected experts like
doctor Robert Malone, aimed to inject evidence based scrutiny into
vaccine policies that have been long criticized for lacking transparency.
Far from violating oaths, as the letter alleges, Secretary Kennedy's
(31:07):
push to check assumptions at the door aligns directly with
an ethos of accountability. But now, as we all watch
this attack against him unfold, one must ask, is this
outcry truly about protecting Americans or is it just a
desperate attempt by the deep state holdouts to derail President
Trump's mandate to make America healthy again? And with the
(31:31):
letter now before congressional committees, will lawmakers stand by Keed
Kennedy's evidence driven changes or cave to pressure from unelected bureaucrats.
Only time will tell, But here with his thoughts about
it is John Leake, an independent investigative journalist and best
selling author. He's also the co author of the book Vaccines, Mythology, Ideology,
(31:53):
and Reality, which he wrote with doctor Peter McCullough.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
John, thank you for being here, Thanks for having us.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
So I want to get your thoughts about the testimony
today because it was just they treated Secretary Kennedy with
nothing but hostility and contempt. Actually not all of them,
but many of the lawmakers on that committee treated him
with so much hostility, and I just want to know why.
Speaker 11 (32:17):
I mean, Secretary Kennedy is challenging along held orthodoxy. The
orthodoxy is really not founded in unfettered scientific discussion and debate.
It's the assertion, and the assertion is mostly coming down
from very interested parties the pharmaceutical industry, saying that the
(32:43):
vaccines are absolutely safe and effective.
Speaker 7 (32:46):
There's no difference between any of them.
Speaker 11 (32:48):
They're all equally safe and effective, and anyone who even
questions that proposition is guilty of I see this as
having a strong run religious parallel is guilty of heresy
and must be cast out, excommunicated, censored, banned. And I
(33:10):
think the American people are not really falling for this
orthodoxy versus heresy construct. I think people see that HHS
Secretary Kennedy is actually trying to take this debate away
from the realm of orthodoxy and heresy and to put
(33:31):
it squarely back into the realm of evaluation, discussion, debate,
listening to perceptive observers, doctors in the field. I mean,
this is how science has always advanced.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Yes, And I think one thing that's interesting to your point,
it's not about the credentials. I can't stand the appeal
to credentials. They would sit there in this testimony and say, well,
all of these doctors and scientists are calling your ex
ortisse into question. Even if fifty million people say something ridiculous,
it's still ridiculous. The credentials doesn't matter. What matters is
the results. Look at what's going on in modern America,
(34:10):
millions and millions of people living with at least one,
if not more than one, chronic illness. That's the whole
ethos and problem that Kennedy is trying to address. And
he called out some of these lawmakers today for not
doing anything about it over the course of many years.
I actually want to play this clip of his and
then get your thoughts about it.
Speaker 12 (34:28):
John, You've said in that chair for how long, twenty
twenty five years while the chronic disease and our children
went up to seventy six percent, and you said nothing.
You never asked the question, why is it happened? Why
is this happening? Infant mortality has increased in our country?
It's not because I came in here, is because of
(34:48):
what happened during the Biden administration that we're going to end.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
What do you think about that? John?
Speaker 5 (34:53):
I really, I'm sorry.
Speaker 11 (34:55):
I hope I don't flog this force too hard.
Speaker 7 (34:57):
But to me, this is like Jordana.
Speaker 11 (35:00):
Or Galileo Galilei. He's he's appearing before this chamber of
inquisitors and they just they're just speaking reason, and these
guys are just doubling down on this pharmaceutical industry erected orthodoxy.
I don't think it's more complex than that. I mean,
(35:23):
if we stick with just the COVID nineteen Messenger RNA
vaccine platform, there aren't thousands of papers now in the
peer reviewed literature that have identified harms, some of which
have actually been acknowledged by the CDC. I'm a notable
one that we see because my co author, Peter McCullough
(35:45):
is a cardiologist. Is vaccine induced myocarditis, particularly in young
adolescent and adolescent males. Well, even the CDC acknowledges that
it's an adverse side effect. So he's not even saying
anything controversial. The CDC itself, prior to his arrival in
(36:08):
the AHHS, was already acknowledging that adverse side effect. So
this is just a charade.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
You know.
Speaker 11 (36:16):
The problem with the US federal government now is it's
just become this particularly Congress, It's just become this kobuki theater.
I mean, no one other than the most brandwashed citizen
even believes this anymore.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
I agree with that, and I just I want to
ask you one final question then, because you say it's
about just adhering to the orthodoxy blindly, Maybe it is.
I think it speaks more so to the influence of
big pharma in Washington working with lawmakers to protect itself.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
But I don't know. So let's just say you're right.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
If the things that RFK Junior are saying are totally reasonable,
and I think they are, then why is he treated
with so much contempt at hostility?
Speaker 11 (37:00):
Well, he's challenging longstanding interests. I mean, then we have
to note that this whole vaccine program, going back to
nineteen eighty six, the Congress passed the nineteen eighty six
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting blanket liability protection to the
(37:20):
vaccine manufacturers. The other thing that the US government does
is it purchases all of the product. When people take
their children to the pediatrician to get the shots. Uncle
Sam has paid for that. So, I mean, this is
the ultimate rackets. It's no liability protection. Excuse me, no
(37:42):
liability for our products. Uncle Sam pre purchases all of
our product. It's just a perfect bonanza. So it really
shouldn't come as a surprise that these guys feel that
their interests are threatened.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
Very well said.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
Unfortunately, we are out of time for today, but John,
I want to thank you for your time and thank
you for your analysis into this situation.
Speaker 11 (38:04):
Thank you, thanks very much.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Coming up next, a retired US Army captain joins us
to share the chilling story of how he was wrongfully
thrown into the grips of the criminal justice system simply
for defending his own life from imminent danger.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
More details after the break.
Speaker 8 (38:25):
Watch AM Live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch one
America News Network. Wherever you go, visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Welcome back to the Real Story. Let's continue with today's
theme of delivering justice. So we've discussed the unjust attacks
against President Trump, which were obviously political, and the unjust
attacks against HHS Secret Terry RFK Junior, which also are
very clearly political. Now it's time to discuss whether or
not the unjust treatment of today's next guest was also political.
(39:10):
He's a retired U. S. Army Cathain who served his
country for twenty one years, and he was thrust into
Arizona's justice system in twenty fourteen, all for using his
legal firearm and self defense, a situation that turned his
and his family's life upside down. He was incarcerated without
substantial evidence, and it cost thousands of dollars just to
(39:33):
prove his innocence, although he finally did and he charges
against him were dropped. There are many critical takeaways from
his disturbing case, but the most important one is this
that the constitutional rights that are supposed to protect all
Americans can actually fail to do so under the leadership
of corrupt actors and the guidance of flawed systems. However,
(39:57):
despite it all, he made it through this ver very
disturbing situation and joins us now to discuss the case.
So here with more is Barry Todd, the man himself
and the author of Stand Your Ground. Berry, thank you
for joining me, sir, thank you.
Speaker 7 (40:13):
For having me Riley. I appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
So I want to get to your case, but first
I'd like to start with some background information about you.
So please tell us about your service in the US Army.
Speaker 7 (40:24):
I did twenty one years.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
Most of that was in the Rangers or the eighty second,
one hundred and First, it was a beautiful time in
my life and it was wonderful serving my country and
being around all my brothers. It's a great thing, and
I still serve today. I serve on the National Range
of Memorial Foundation and help other brothers for with scholarships,
(40:48):
children of decease, that's etc.
Speaker 7 (40:51):
So it's a beautiful thing serve in our country.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Well, I have to say, we really appreciate your service.
It's brave souls like you that keep this country free
and independent. So thank you for that. Now let's move
forward then to the moment that changed everything for you
and for your family. Take us back to what happened
in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Well, simply, my wife and I were out with some
friends and then we were threatened, and then I was
attacked not by one man, but by two twice, and
when the police showed up, I was the one arrested
without any due process or investigation, with a tempted murder
(41:31):
and two counts of aggravated assault.
Speaker 7 (41:33):
And what really blowed your.
Speaker 4 (41:34):
Mind is the entire incident was on video and the
prosecutor and the police never looked at it before they charged.
Speaker 7 (41:42):
You're kidding, No, it is unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
That is a little unbelievable. I just I can't understand that. Okay,
So you're coming out of a restaurant, you're attacked, and
somehow you, as the victim, are the one who's now
facing charges.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
What happened from there.
Speaker 4 (42:00):
Well, first off, I got into the police station after
they said they were taking me down there for an interview,
which later the police detective and the preliminary hearing admitted
that he came in there thinking I was guilty. But
originally I went down there and they said what happened?
I told him, and I told him it was strictly
self defense. I was licensed to carry, I had been
(42:21):
attacked twice. One of those men actually wielded a knife.
And then he comes in within thirty minutes after the
interview was over with, and it gives me a charge seat,
which of course I refused to sign. And I told
him I said it was strictly self defense, and he goes, well,
we have the whole thing on video. I said, great,
(42:42):
have you looked at it? His exact words to me, Riley,
were not yet.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
So when you heard that, what was going through your mind?
Speaker 4 (42:53):
I was angry because a system that I had believed
in and served my country to defend was corrupted.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Oh absolutely it was. So your whole life gets turned
upside down. Later you're charged, you're later incarcerated for how
long were you incarcerated?
Speaker 4 (43:16):
Five days until I posted a five hundred thousand dollars
cash only bomb?
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Wow? Half a million dollars?
Speaker 7 (43:26):
What's that?
Speaker 3 (43:26):
Half a million dollars?
Speaker 7 (43:28):
Half a million dollars?
Speaker 4 (43:29):
Never been charged with a crime, own a national business
that's headquartered here, in New Arizona. It was the most
shocking ordeal I'd ever been through.
Speaker 7 (43:40):
And I'll tell you, if it hadn't been for my
faith in.
Speaker 4 (43:43):
God, the support of my family, friends, and my clients,
and the mental discipline and determination that I gained in
the from my ranger brothers and leaders during my military career,
I would have never made it through. They were trying
to throw you under their jail. You were no longer
considered innocent in this country until proven guilty. You are
(44:07):
now presumed guilty, and you have to prove your innocence.
And what's really shocking, Riley, just to add to that, please,
is this state, ten years earlier, had reversed the laws
where we were. We became a justification defense state in Arizona.
What that means our to our viewers out there, is
(44:27):
that California, Illinois, New York their affirmative defense. That means
that they have to prove it with self defense. Not
in Arizona.
Speaker 7 (44:37):
The moment you.
Speaker 4 (44:37):
Say it's self defense, it's up there to prosecution to
prove that it wasn't self defense. You're supposed to be released,
and that didn't happen. They totally ignored the law.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Why do you think that is. I mean, it seems political,
but I want to know why you think that is.
Speaker 4 (44:57):
I think there, I think they made a a snap decision,
and that they plastered me all over the news in
the Southwest, and then they found themselves back in the corner.
Speaker 7 (45:08):
And you know you said something earlier.
Speaker 4 (45:11):
Uh and and and I'm gonna I'm gonna agree and
disagree with you partially. I agree on the on the
court system, the court works. The court's what saved me.
I had a great judge that had knowledge of and
respect for the law. What I had on the under that, though,
was a corrupt prosecutor and an inept police detective.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Okay, understood Eventually, though, despite all of the hurdles they
threw at you, you were able to prove your innocence
and and move on with your life. Tell us about
the toll that took that process on you and your family.
Speaker 7 (45:46):
You're gonna love this, Riley.
Speaker 4 (45:47):
My case never went to trial, but it went it
got stepped back to the grand jury, not once, not twice,
not three times, but four.
Speaker 7 (45:57):
Times, four times.
Speaker 4 (45:59):
And and it was all because the prosecutor refused to
show the videos that we paid for that I paid
for to have forensically enhanced by the FBI's lead investigator
and the self defense laws for Arizona, including the justification defense.
He refused to do it, and so then then it
(46:20):
went to a preliminary hearing, and then the judge looked
at the evidence.
Speaker 7 (46:23):
We didn't even have to put anything on, and he
dismissed the case.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
Wow, I just can't That is shocking to me. By
the way, I just want to take a moment thank
you for opening up about your story. I apologize that
you had to deal with any of that in the
country that you fought to defend. However, I now want
to ask you about one other thing here, Your key
takeaway from this whole process. What was the biggest and
most important lesson that you learned from that experience.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Well, Number one, I said it earlier, is that you're
no longer presumed innocent. You're not presumed guilty. Number two
got you know everybody says, you know, I feel bad
you went through this. Well I'm looking back on it now.
This is you know, eleven years later, Riley, this is
a this is a good thing. God does things and
doesn't put things in people's paths that they can't handle.
(47:15):
And so this is a wonderful thing we're we have.
I wrote this book called Stand Your Ground, One Man's
Self Defense Nightmare, so that way the proceeds from it
can go to help others that have been wrongfully indicted.
Let's help the Daniel Pennies out there that should have
never gone to try out and cost him hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
Speaker 7 (47:34):
Are the Kyle Rittenhouses, are the George Dollens. There's two.
Speaker 4 (47:38):
This lawfare that we are now calling it over the
last year or two has been going on for decades.
And it's time we as Americans start standing up, understanding
and learning our justice system.
Speaker 7 (47:49):
And let's change the narrative.
Speaker 4 (47:52):
All right, Let's let's change it and start helping our
brothers and our sisters out there.
Speaker 1 (47:57):
I completely agree with that, and as we rap, I
want to say once again, thank you for your service
to this country, and thank you for your time today,
Barry truly.
Speaker 7 (48:05):
Thank you Riley, and thank you for having me on.
Speaker 4 (48:08):
And everybody please go out get our book at Standardground
dot com.
Speaker 7 (48:12):
You can get it on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, all
of it.
Speaker 4 (48:17):
All the proceeds are going to a foundation that me
and my wife and my legal.
Speaker 7 (48:20):
Team that started to help other people.
Speaker 4 (48:23):
God bless you Riley, and thank you again for having
us on Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
Coming up next, one of the world's biggest polluters, India,
is now moving away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy.
More details about what they're doing after the break.
Speaker 8 (48:43):
Watchm Live on cloudtv dot com and see what you're missing.
Download the cloud tv app and watch One America News
Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv dot com. Today.
That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 3 (49:06):
Welcome back to the Real Story.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
On today's edition of Real Good News, we have some
fantastic news about how one of the world's largest emitters
of fossil fuel output is working to cut their emissions.
So India, being one of the top countries with the
highest carbon footprint on the entire planet. Recently, but recently,
their clean electricity production has risen by twenty percent. This
(49:29):
will allow them to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels
and energy imports for power production moving forward. Now. According
to Reuters, India is on track to provide a third
of its commercial electricity through its own clean power sources
throughout the next month or so, meaning they won't need
to import electricity to power citizens' homes and their businesses.
Speaker 7 (49:49):
Now.
Speaker 1 (49:50):
Some believe this push for clean energy is due in
part to terrace from the US and scrutiny over reliance
on sanctioned Russian oil. However, whatever the real story here is,
we're just happy to see fossil fuel emissions going down
with clean energy use going up. After all, fossil fuels
are just finite resources, but clean energy methods like say solar, hydro, wind,
(50:14):
and even geothermal energy will never go away. Heck, even
nuclear energy, another viable option, is on the rise. So
hopefully as we move forward, we can begin to transition
to a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient source of energy.
And that concludes today's broadcast. We truly hope you enjoyed it,
(50:35):
and remember we always want to hear from you, so
please email your feedback and any news stories you'd like
us to cover to the Real Story at OANN dot
com and follow us on social media at the Real
story An. So until we meet again, God bless you,
God bless our troops, and God bless America.
Speaker 8 (51:00):
Watch o AN Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the Cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go. Visit k l
o w d tv dot com Today. That's k l
o w d tv dot com Today.
Welcome to the real Story. I'm your host, Riley Lewis.
Thank you for joining us. Is the US government heading
toward a direct confrontation with the Venezuelan government? And if so,
what exactly would that look like? And how could it
possibly impact the American people, if at all. These are
just a few of the questions at the center of
(00:31):
today's top story, and that brings us to the relations
between the US and Venezuela. So tensions are actively running
rapidly high between the Trump administration and that of Nicholas Maduro,
the leader and president of Venezuela, whose socialist regime has
sparked a mass exodus out of the Latin American country.
(00:52):
And those tensions are rising to historic levels. And there
are several reasons for the heightened tension right now, with
one of them being the from Madureau's arrest and conviction.
So on that note, Florida Senator Rick Scott reiterated his
previous calls to raise the reward for information leading to
his arrest to one hundred million dollars in an ex
(01:13):
post on Tuesday, while also calling for his legislation against
Maduro to be passed introduced in September of twenty twenty four.
The Stop Madureau Act would raise that bounty from fifteen
million dollars to one hundred million dollars. And it's all
premised on the belief that Maduro's regime has worked with
the notorious gang Trendy Arragua to flood America's streets with drugs. Now,
(01:39):
that point of view also set the stage for a
historic action on Tuesday of this week, when US military
forces conducted a targeted strike in the Southern Caribbean, destroying
a vessel that was carrying illegal narcotics from Venezuela and
killing eleven members of the transnational criminal organization Trende Arragua. Now,
(01:59):
the operation, carried out in international waters, targeted a boat
allegedly operated by the gang under the influence of Maduro's regime,
and President Trump announced the strike on Tuesday afternoon.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Take a look when you come out, and when you
leave the room, you'll see that we just over the
last few minutes literally shot out a boat, a drug
carrying boat, a lot of drugs in that boat. And
you'll be seeing that, and you'll be reading about that.
It just tappened moments ago, and our great General, head
(02:34):
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been so incredible,
including what took place in Iran, knocking out potential nuclear
power for a long time to come. I think within
a month they would have had it. We didn't do
what we did, but he gave us a little bit
of a briefing and you'll see, and there's more where
(02:56):
that came from. We have a lot of drugs pouring
in to a country, coming in for a long time,
and we just these came out of Venezuela and coming
out very heavily from venezuel lot of things are coming
out of Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So the operation captured in a video that President Trump
also shared on truth Social showing a multi engine speedboat
erupting into flames, underscores the lethal risks posed by these
criminal networks that are flooding america streets with poison and
following that strategic strike prisident. Trump elaborated on the situation
in a post on truth Social as well, writing this
(03:32):
in part. TDA is a designated foreign terrorist organization operating
under the control of Nicholas Maduro, responsible for mass murder,
drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror
across the United States and Western Hemisphere. The strike occurred
while the terrorists were at sea in international waters, transporting
(03:53):
illegal narcotics heading to the United States. The strike resulted
in eleven terrorist kure action. No US forces were harmed
in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to
anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States
of America.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Beware.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Thank you for your attention to this matter. There it is,
They've all been warned unequivocally. But with that being said,
that brings us to Maduro's response to this measure.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
Now.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
Interestingly, Maduro didn't directly address these specifics of the strike. However,
he accused the US of using the situation to set
the stage to target the country's resources, including oil and
natural gas. He also invoked God in a statement to
his own supporters, saying that God is with us in
the face of what he labeled to be imperialist threats. Additionally,
(04:50):
Venezuela's communications minister questioned the authenticity of the video, saying
it resembled some sort of potentially AI generated cartoonish animation,
raising a very critical inquiry. Could Maduro's outright denials and
troop deployments along Venezuela's coast signal a readiness for escalation.
That much is currently unclear, but with lives hanging in
(05:14):
the balance from the brave service members executing these missions
to innocent Americans who've been ravaged by drug addiction, one
can't help but wonder what exactly is Trend de Arragua,
and more importantly, how did this gang become such a
notorious force on the world stage. Well, here's just a
little bit of background about the organization itself, originating over
(05:38):
a decade ago in a chaotic prison in Venezuela's Arragua State,
Trend de Aragua is a transnational gang that's widely seen
as one of the most powerful gangs in the entire
country and broadly the entire hemisphere. They're also implicated in
violence and drug distribution in multiple US cities, and their
reach has actually expanded amid the mass exodus of millions
(06:00):
and millions of Venezuelans fleeing economic collapse under Maduro's policies,
and since its formation, the group has grown into a
sophisticated network involved in a range of illegal activities, some
of which President Trump highlighted in his Truth social post
including drug trafficking, human smuggling, extortion, kidnapping, and violent crimes
(06:23):
like murders and robberies. However, despite its origins, Venezuelan officials
have denied allegations of having direct ties between the gang
and the Madureau government. A declassified report, though from the
National Intelligence Council, made public in April, also found there
was no connection between the two. But then again, the
intelligence community can't always be trusted at face value, can it.
(06:47):
In either case, the gang's expansion and activities pose major
security challenges to the US very clearly, and that brings
us back to the question that we started with, do
these recent events at the stage for a confrontation between
the US government and the Venezuelan government. Now Here with
his thoughts to that question is John vic a veteran
(07:07):
of the United States Marine Corps an intel officer in
the US Navy Reserve. John, thank you for being here today.
Speaker 5 (07:14):
Thanks Chriley, It's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
So I have a lot of questions for you. Let's
start with this first one that I just wrapped with.
Do you think we might see a confrontation between the
US government and that of Venezuela?
Speaker 6 (07:29):
Well, I think that's a long leap from where we're
at right now. I mean the shooting the boat out
of the water filled with drugs headed to kill Americans.
I think that there's three fundamental things that we all
should take into account. One, dead drug traffickers is a
good thing, right, Those drugs and the people that transport
that poison no longer a threat. The second is that
(07:50):
this is a real lethal national problem that does fuel murder, rape,
in many other forms of human exploitation.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
We all need to fundamentally.
Speaker 6 (07:58):
Agree that that is what happens when boats like that
don't get caught. And the third thing that I think
is important is most of the controversy controversy about this
is revolving around legal authorities to take these kinds of actions,
and I think Congress should really be stepping up in
the same with the same gusto as the military and
as the Trump administration in this regard to stop this
(08:19):
problem the right way. I don't think that our president
should have to use things like the two thousand and
one AUMF or outdated war powers authorities, right. It is
Congress's responsibility to step up, acknowledge the problem, and work
with the administration to give us the right tools to
stop stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Like this, completely agreed.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
So to follow up, then, what do you make of
the sort of lack of action from congressional lawmakers on
an issue that is so pertinent to millions of Americans.
Speaker 6 (08:49):
I think it's like put in your head in the sand, right,
I mean things like fentanyl, right, all of the opioid
crisis that has been affecting this country for at least
half my life. Yes, the death toll is higher than
any war. And not just that, it's the lives that
are lost, the lives that are wrecked, the human wreckage
among families as well, not to mention the immense human cost.
(09:13):
And it's not just American too, right, I mean, this
spoils lives all over the world, And the fact that
it is a wicked problem doesn't mean that it's not
a problem that can be solved or at least mitigated. Right,
It has to be attacked, and we need resources to
do that.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
One thing that really sticks out to me, and I
want to get your thoughts about this too, John, is
so the tactics from President Trump, because at this point
we have a long pattern of him giving people warnings
before taking action that is very necessary, but clearly he
doesn't want to take it. So, for example, look at
these strikes on those nuclear sites in Iran. For weeks
and months, he gave them warnings saying, come to the table,
(09:52):
make a deal with us about your nuclear program.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
Work with us, or else we're.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Going to have to strike, but we don't want to,
so please deal with the situation diplomatically.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
They refused.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
They gave him the run around, and so we saw
a historic strike in which we dropped thirty thousand pound
bombs bunker busters on nuclear sites in Iran. I think
that's very similar to the situation here where he comes
into office. He says, we're going to clean up the streets,
secure the borders, no more drugs, designate groups like Trende, ARRAGUA,
foreign terrorist organizations, but they still don't change their ways.
(10:23):
So I would argue he was all but forced to
take this measure. What do you think about that analogy.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
John, No, I think it's great. I mean, I also in.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
The Naval War College officer, and he always goes back
to DIN, an acronym that means diplomatic, informational, military, and
economic right, and so often in our recent foreign policy history,
we've leaned exclusively first and foremost into the military. I'm
a I believe in realism and restraint when it comes
to how we deal with other countries. And if you're
the richest, most powerful country in the world, you should
(10:55):
be able to leverage diplomacy, diplomacy effectively, lean on information
where the biggest export or rather of culture in the world,
and of course economic tools as well. And so yes,
whereas the military was used in this regard, yes, it
was used at the nuclear facilities in Iran, it was
to your point, preceded by diplomacy and then directly afterward
(11:18):
trying to get people back to the table. That is
dime in action, right, that that is using the tools
of national power to achieve the results that you want
in this case, and it should be in every case,
to protect American interests, protect American lives. This is one
of those nuances about in particular this president, the Trump administration,
that oftentimes gets lost because it's like, oh, well, Trump
(11:39):
didn't take anything off the table. The point in the
precedent that this administration has said is you should come
to the table, you should talk, you should take us seriously, right,
and then there's consequences when you don't, and I think
that the sort of the strategic ambiguity in that is
ultimately very effective.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Now to bring it back to Iran as well, and
to a point that you just made. When those strikes
first happened, there were a lot of critics of the
move and they said, well, this could lead us into
a direct war with the Ayahtola, so you should not
do this. After it happened, though we didn't see any
kind of direct conflict. No s US forces were harmed,
there was no boots on the ground. It was a
very clean and precise measure. I think we're seeing something
(12:20):
very similar here where there are some people out there,
not myself though, who were saying, well, you can't do
something like this because you could end up starting a
full scale war with either Venezuela or with the cartels.
But as it stands right now, Maduro doesn't seem to
be interested in that whatsoever, and it might not ever happen.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
So what do you think about that? John?
Speaker 7 (12:40):
Right?
Speaker 6 (12:40):
Yeah, No, I think one thing that this president is
very good at so far in this administration and in
his first administration for that matter. But I'd say, especially
in his second one, is leveraging those tools of national power.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (12:52):
Right.
Speaker 6 (12:54):
All of our actions in foreign policy, or his actions
rather up until this, encouraged that sense of seriousness. And
so I'm really intrigued to see, especially with regard to
the threat of the poison coming into our country, the
illegal drugs, with the President turning his attention in that direction,
what will the difference be relative to previous presidents.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
Yes, that's what I'm excited for.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Absolutely.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
So.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Then a final question for you today, John, what do
you think should happen next? Do you want to see
more strikes on Trende Ragua or other groups that are
poisoning Americans, like say MS thirteen, or do you think
that there should be another course of action that we
move forward with.
Speaker 6 (13:34):
I think, ultimately the best thing for the country, especially
in terms of look, you know, we have three more
years with President Trump, right, I think the best thing
is for Congress to follow that lead, step up and
address these problems head on, to develop enduring solutions where
there is no ambiguity about war powers, what the legal
authority is, that sort of thing. I think that Congress
(13:57):
needs to find its courage work with this president to
develop solutions that will address these issues.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Completely agreed, and I just want to say thank you
for your time and your analysis. This is such an
important issue and it's a really pivotal moment for relations
between the US and Venezuela. So all eyes are on
the Trump administration right now, and I just I appreciate
your time today.
Speaker 5 (14:15):
John, Thanks, Hlie, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Coming up next, two expert legal minds joins us to
discuss President Trump's attempts to get the case against him
regarding Egen Carroll dismissed once and for all.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
More details after the.
Speaker 8 (14:29):
Break, watch OM Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch
one America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv
dot com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Welcome back to the real story.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
There can be no truer principle than this, that every
individual of the community at large has an equal right
to the protection of government. Those are the words of
Alexander Hamilton, speaking at the Constitutional Convention in seventeen ninety eight. He,
along with the other great minds of his generation, understood
that the government must never ever be weaponized against its
(15:21):
own citizens. They all foresaw the dangers of a bloated
governmental bureaucracy, and that, in fact, is why we have
a constitution in the first place, to keep them in
check and to protect us the people. However, given that
the modern day establishment Republicans and liberals alike, basically treat
the Constitution like a build your own pizza menu. Here
(15:43):
we are nearly two hundred and fifty years after the
signing of the Declaration of Independence, with lawfare schemes having
been waged against the former and now current president of
the United States. President Trump, fresh off dodging endless legal traps,
bogus and artisan impeachment, and not one but two mysterious
(16:03):
assassination attempts, is now charging straight to the US Supreme
Court to spike the infamous five million dollar verdict against
him in the Egen Carol case, arguing that the whole
thing was rigged from the start in a Manhattan courtroom
that was stacked against him. Now, for those who were
tuning in without the backstory on this case, it was
(16:24):
back in twenty nineteen when advice columnist Egene Carroll dropped
a bombshell in her memoir claiming that President Trump sexually
abused her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the
spring of nineteen ninety six. Trump immediately fired right back,
calling the claim a hoax, and that sparked her defamation
(16:44):
lawsuit against him. Now fast forward to twenty twenty three,
and in New York jury found him liable for the
abuse and defamation, slapping him with five million dollars in damages.
No criminal charges, mind you, just civil. But it didn't
even stop there, because in twenty twenty four, a second
trial nailed him for more defamation over his twenty nineteen denials,
(17:09):
ballooning the tab to a staggering eighty three point three
million dollars, so the total hit eighty eight point three
million dollars. Now President Trump ponied up the initial five
mil into escrow, but he's battling appeals ever since. And
the key players in the smear campaign masquerading as some
(17:29):
sort of legitimate legal proceeding include Carrol, who's backed by
powerhouse lawyer ROBERTA. Kaplan, who happens to have no relation
to the presiding judge Lewis A.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Kaplan, who Trump's team blasts.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
For significant errors like, for example, letting two other accusers
from the nineteen seventies and two thousand and five pileon testimony.
Now appeals courts though weren't buying. In fact, a second
circuit panel upheld a verdict in December twenty twenty four,
and in June twenty twenty five they shot down a
full review.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
But now, as of this.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Recording, President Trump's legal team obtained an extension to November
eleventh to file with the US Supreme Court, calling it
a fight against unjust judgments and look, folks, to be
very clear, this isn't just about one alleged dressing room
dust up. It's the real story of a system weaponized
against a guy who simply.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Won't back down.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Critics call it accountability, which is really quite hilarious. Our
establishment calling for accountability, irony, overload and all, while those
with objectivity and a set of eyeballs see it as
another witch hunt, draining resources from making America great once again,
Yet just another distraction to draw focus away from the
(18:45):
amazing things this man has accomplished in the White House.
That's really the truth of it all. The fact that
President Trump is winning the mainstream media and the ruling
class just can't stand it. They are beside themselves at it,
and they will do nearly whatever they can just to
muddy the waters and to make him look bad. It's
(19:07):
yet another shiny object designed to distract from their terrible
policy decisions and the erosion of our republic, a move
designed to destroy President Trump's reputation, cast doubt among his supporters,
and derail his presidency. However, if there's one thing we
all know about President Trump, it's that he will never
(19:27):
ever back down from a fight. Now Here with Reaction
is Davis Hughes, a US Army veteran and a military
defense attorney with Hunt's Law, and Samir Jowski, a legal
analyst and host of the What's Right Show. Gentlemen, thank
you for being here.
Speaker 8 (19:44):
Good to be with you.
Speaker 9 (19:45):
It's an Honoriley.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
So it is hard to think of a more ridiculous
and absurd case than this one. And I really hope
we can get this thing dismissed, but I'm not so sure.
So that's my first question to you, Sam today, what
do you think do you think there is a chance
the Supreme Court we'll finally dismiss this case once and
for all.
Speaker 10 (20:03):
Yeah, Riley, I think it's possible. I think there were
a lot of things let into evidence that are are
not in accordance with the federal rules of evidence. So
I think there's some technical fault here. You mentioned the
two witnesses, the two prior accusers. I would also add
that there were things that Trump's side wanted to enter
(20:25):
into evidence, for example, the insane interview that Egen Carroll
gave to Anderson Cooper where she claimed that rape was sexy,
and that was denied. So the thing was, you know,
the rules of evidence were stretched beyond their limits to
accommodate the plaintiff, and then then they were really we'll
(20:47):
put right back into a very narrow focus when it
came to Trump. So I think there's some some good
issues here for his side in his case.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Now to you, Davis, what are your thoughts about the
same question.
Speaker 9 (20:59):
You know what, it's interesting when we're dealing with the
Supreme Court, particularly the Roberts Supreme Court, there's a balance
of trying to be pragmatic and actually take legal issues
that the Supreme Court is going to be willing to take,
and just a recognition of the unique nature of the
lawfare that was waged against President Trump. I mean, this
campaign of lawfare against him was essentially broke the societal compact.
(21:23):
So my hope, in part is that the Supreme Court
is willing to recognize that because our laws, our system
is designed for a moral people, and if people are
just going to use it for political assassination, it can
break the system. So I agree with a lot of
what Sam had to say. I will add I think
there's a really interesting issue the Supreme Court may want
to sink their teeth into, which is under Times b. Sullivan,
(21:45):
which is an older case that talks about the standards
for a public figure and a defamation case where there
has to be actual malice. So I think it's really
interesting because Judge Kaplan in this case really gutted that
and gave very very poor jury instructions on that issue.
But it also raises the question of can a public figure.
Can someone who's running for office defend themselves publicly without
(22:08):
being sued and then forced to pay tens of millions
of dollars for a defamation case. So if there is
a hook for the Supreme Court under law, I think
clarifying Times to be Sullivan potentially and looking into the
issue of jury instructions in addition to the key evidence
your issues Sam talked about will be that would be
interesting to see if the Supreme Court will take that up.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
That's interesting to follow up with you than Davis for
a moment. So, the bigger picture of problem here is
the corruption of America's criminal justice system. It's really sad
to see the level that we're at right now, and
I'm wondering what can realistically be done to repair America's
criminal justice system, or even just the justice system beyond criminality,
even in civil cases like this one. So what do
(22:51):
you think, Davis.
Speaker 9 (22:53):
Well, one of the things simply is Barack Obama and
George Soros understood the playbook when it came to Sorel's
funded DA's as well as these judicial elections. So the
American people need to pay very, very careful attention to
these local county, city level elections and be engaged and
stay involved. You need to know who your district attorneys are,
(23:15):
you need to know who your local judges are so
you can have an impact on that process. Because the
progressive left has engaged in a well funded campaign to
do these things, and that's what makes lawfair like this possible.
That's what gives them the ability to target political enemies
and use you know, kangaroo courts to go after good people.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
That's really interesting.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
Now, then to you, Sam, what do you think about
this bigger issue of I mean, we talked about das
and of course even judges as well, but it's become
such a monumental problem and I'm just not sure how
to address it.
Speaker 9 (23:49):
Well.
Speaker 10 (23:50):
I mean, look, you're absolutely right about the elections that
they matter. I've always talked about these das on my
show that you know, you don't have to go and
buy an entire legislature.
Speaker 8 (23:59):
You can just by one DA and the DA can.
Speaker 10 (24:02):
Through selective prosecution or lack of prosecution. Uh, you know,
basically overwrite the laws of the land. So this is
you know, absolutely correct on that point. What can be done, well,
you can you can vote number one, number two. This
is an opportunity, in my view, for the Supreme Court
(24:23):
to step in and write write things because this, you know,
there's even i mean a very idea that New York
came in here and reopened the statue of limitations narrowly
essentially to.
Speaker 8 (24:36):
Allow this case to move forward.
Speaker 10 (24:38):
It was such a deliberate targeting of Trump, you can't
even you really can't even deny that it just was.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
It was so.
Speaker 10 (24:46):
Specifically orchestrated here by the state legislature, by by the judge, here,
by the lawyers, all designed to get Trump and I,
as you know, the equities have to be balanced. And
if we're to have justice prevail in our in our
beautiful country and our are the faith in our justice
system UH to remain intact, and then this has to
(25:09):
be corrected. It's imperative.
Speaker 1 (25:11):
It is you know, some of the founders of this country,
we're lawyers themselves, people like say Thomas Jefferson, and I
have to look at this case and I wonder what
would someone like Thomas Jefferson or any of the founding
fathers have to say about the state of America's justice
system today. I want to get your thoughts to that question.
Speaker 3 (25:28):
Sam Well.
Speaker 10 (25:30):
I think they would be heartbroken. And I think, you know,
if you go back to the to the to the
very foundation you know, founding principles of our law, the
idea of a of a blinded lady justice, this is
the exact opposite. This is lady justice with you know,
with with laser focused binoculars night vision, going after you know,
(25:52):
politically targeting individuals here Trump, who is you know in
New York and in that particular or jurisdiction not a
well liked person and singling him out this this punishment.
I mean that the eighty three plus five million dollars
here is an absurd you know, I mean this should
(26:12):
have been struck. You know, the judge should have limited
this and cut it way down to begin with. This
lady is nuts. She has no reputational damage on every level.
I'm just looking at as a lawyer, at every level,
in every way, this case is a farce. So are
you know our founders would would be sick to their
stomachs over this and would be crying out for this
(26:33):
to be corrected.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
I completely agree, and I want to hear from Davis too.
So Davis, what do you think the founding fathers would
say about a case like this one?
Speaker 7 (26:42):
I think we know.
Speaker 9 (26:43):
Thomas Jefferson said that the jury was the only anchor
yet imagined by the mind of man through which a
government could be held to the principles of its constitution.
So they recognize very clearly a system that was based
on citizens actively participating in the process. But one of
the things we see, and it's revealed in cases like this,
is we have limited jury's abilities to actually hear cases.
(27:07):
We have limited what's called jury nullification. It used to
be when our nation was founded, a jury could look
at a case and say, maybe there was some sort
of a technical violation of the law here, but justice
demands an acquittal or justice demands a different outcome. And
most states now have outlawed during nullification. They even prevent
lawyers like Samurai from making those arguments on behalf of
(27:29):
our clients that this law is unjustice applied in this case.
Speaker 7 (27:32):
So I think they.
Speaker 9 (27:33):
Would be very, very disappointed that we have taken so
much authority away from citizens and we've put it in
the hands of these bureaucrats. And I think they would
just be saddened that we don't have a recognized moral
worldview anymore. And that's part of the problem here. If
we don't have a shared social compact, shared values, then
(27:53):
there are people who will manipulate the judicial system to
try to take out their political enemies.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
That is the core of the problem.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
You know, President Trump talks about making America great again
and I love that, and what I think he really
means in part, is making America moral again, returning to
those first principles that this country was built on, the
ideas that made this place exceptional and great, that attracted
millions of people from all over the world and inspired
democratic revolutions all over the world. So we'll have to
(28:20):
see what happens with the Supreme Court, but I think
this case should be absolutely dismissed. And I thank you
both today for your expert legal analysis.
Speaker 10 (28:28):
Thanks for having us.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Thank you, God bless.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Coming up next as Health and Human Service. As Secretary,
RFK Junior spearheads the effort to make America healthy again.
The concerted effort to stop him intensifies, so stay with
us for a deep dive into it with an independent
investigative journalist.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
More details after the break.
Speaker 8 (28:53):
Watch AM Live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch One
America News Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Welcome back to the real Story. Today's next topic brings
us to a major development in Washington. So RFK Junior,
head of the Department of Health and Human Services testified
before the Senate Finance Committee today, and what was supposed
to be a discussion about his role in the Trump administration.
President Trump's health agenda and the recent shakeups at the
(29:34):
CDC quickly turned into an unbecoming standoff. In fact, multiple
lawmakers spoke over Kennedy, grilling him and expressing their frustrations
instead of just letting him answer their questions. And the
testimony itself comes after a flurry of new developments in
the world of healthcare. So, for example, then CDC Director
Susan Monterrez and other high level officials departed the agency
(29:58):
just last week, with those other officials leaving in protest.
And that's not all that brings us then to Tuesday
of this week. In a move that reeks of bureaucratic
backlash against bold reforms, over one thousand current and former
employees from the Department of Health and Human Services called
for Secretary Kennedy's resignation on Wednesday, claiming his leadership endangers
(30:22):
the nation's health in an open letter. But let's really
scrutinize this for just a moment. Kennedy, appointed by President
Trump to tackle the chronic disease epidemic and restore the
integrity of agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and NIH
has faced nothing but resistance since day one, offered daring
to challenge the status quo at his decisive actions such
(30:45):
as replacing the entire seventeen member Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices with eight fresh voices, including well respected experts like
doctor Robert Malone, aimed to inject evidence based scrutiny into
vaccine policies that have been long criticized for lacking transparency.
Far from violating oaths, as the letter alleges, Secretary Kennedy's
(31:07):
push to check assumptions at the door aligns directly with
an ethos of accountability. But now, as we all watch
this attack against him unfold, one must ask, is this
outcry truly about protecting Americans or is it just a
desperate attempt by the deep state holdouts to derail President
Trump's mandate to make America healthy again? And with the
(31:31):
letter now before congressional committees, will lawmakers stand by Keed
Kennedy's evidence driven changes or cave to pressure from unelected bureaucrats.
Only time will tell, But here with his thoughts about
it is John Leake, an independent investigative journalist and best
selling author. He's also the co author of the book Vaccines, Mythology, Ideology,
(31:53):
and Reality, which he wrote with doctor Peter McCullough.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
John, thank you for being here, Thanks for having us.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
So I want to get your thoughts about the testimony
today because it was just they treated Secretary Kennedy with
nothing but hostility and contempt. Actually not all of them,
but many of the lawmakers on that committee treated him
with so much hostility, and I just want to know why.
Speaker 11 (32:17):
I mean, Secretary Kennedy is challenging along held orthodoxy. The
orthodoxy is really not founded in unfettered scientific discussion and debate.
It's the assertion, and the assertion is mostly coming down
from very interested parties the pharmaceutical industry, saying that the
(32:43):
vaccines are absolutely safe and effective.
Speaker 7 (32:46):
There's no difference between any of them.
Speaker 11 (32:48):
They're all equally safe and effective, and anyone who even
questions that proposition is guilty of I see this as
having a strong run religious parallel is guilty of heresy
and must be cast out, excommunicated, censored, banned. And I
(33:10):
think the American people are not really falling for this
orthodoxy versus heresy construct. I think people see that HHS
Secretary Kennedy is actually trying to take this debate away
from the realm of orthodoxy and heresy and to put
(33:31):
it squarely back into the realm of evaluation, discussion, debate,
listening to perceptive observers, doctors in the field. I mean,
this is how science has always advanced.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Yes, And I think one thing that's interesting to your point,
it's not about the credentials. I can't stand the appeal
to credentials. They would sit there in this testimony and say, well,
all of these doctors and scientists are calling your ex
ortisse into question. Even if fifty million people say something ridiculous,
it's still ridiculous. The credentials doesn't matter. What matters is
the results. Look at what's going on in modern America,
(34:10):
millions and millions of people living with at least one,
if not more than one, chronic illness. That's the whole
ethos and problem that Kennedy is trying to address. And
he called out some of these lawmakers today for not
doing anything about it over the course of many years.
I actually want to play this clip of his and
then get your thoughts about it.
Speaker 12 (34:28):
John, You've said in that chair for how long, twenty
twenty five years while the chronic disease and our children
went up to seventy six percent, and you said nothing.
You never asked the question, why is it happened? Why
is this happening? Infant mortality has increased in our country?
It's not because I came in here, is because of
(34:48):
what happened during the Biden administration that we're going to end.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
What do you think about that? John?
Speaker 5 (34:53):
I really, I'm sorry.
Speaker 11 (34:55):
I hope I don't flog this force too hard.
Speaker 7 (34:57):
But to me, this is like Jordana.
Speaker 11 (35:00):
Or Galileo Galilei. He's he's appearing before this chamber of
inquisitors and they just they're just speaking reason, and these
guys are just doubling down on this pharmaceutical industry erected orthodoxy.
I don't think it's more complex than that. I mean,
(35:23):
if we stick with just the COVID nineteen Messenger RNA
vaccine platform, there aren't thousands of papers now in the
peer reviewed literature that have identified harms, some of which
have actually been acknowledged by the CDC. I'm a notable
one that we see because my co author, Peter McCullough
(35:45):
is a cardiologist. Is vaccine induced myocarditis, particularly in young
adolescent and adolescent males. Well, even the CDC acknowledges that
it's an adverse side effect. So he's not even saying
anything controversial. The CDC itself, prior to his arrival in
(36:08):
the AHHS, was already acknowledging that adverse side effect. So
this is just a charade.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
You know.
Speaker 11 (36:16):
The problem with the US federal government now is it's
just become this particularly Congress, It's just become this kobuki theater.
I mean, no one other than the most brandwashed citizen
even believes this anymore.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
I agree with that, and I just I want to
ask you one final question then, because you say it's
about just adhering to the orthodoxy blindly, Maybe it is.
I think it speaks more so to the influence of
big pharma in Washington working with lawmakers to protect itself.
Speaker 3 (36:50):
But I don't know. So let's just say you're right.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
If the things that RFK Junior are saying are totally reasonable,
and I think they are, then why is he treated
with so much contempt at hostility?
Speaker 11 (37:00):
Well, he's challenging longstanding interests. I mean, then we have
to note that this whole vaccine program, going back to
nineteen eighty six, the Congress passed the nineteen eighty six
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granting blanket liability protection to the
(37:20):
vaccine manufacturers. The other thing that the US government does
is it purchases all of the product. When people take
their children to the pediatrician to get the shots. Uncle
Sam has paid for that. So, I mean, this is
the ultimate rackets. It's no liability protection. Excuse me, no
(37:42):
liability for our products. Uncle Sam pre purchases all of
our product. It's just a perfect bonanza. So it really
shouldn't come as a surprise that these guys feel that
their interests are threatened.
Speaker 3 (37:56):
Very well said.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
Unfortunately, we are out of time for today, but John,
I want to thank you for your time and thank
you for your analysis into this situation.
Speaker 11 (38:04):
Thank you, thanks very much.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Coming up next, a retired US Army captain joins us
to share the chilling story of how he was wrongfully
thrown into the grips of the criminal justice system simply
for defending his own life from imminent danger.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
More details after the break.
Speaker 8 (38:25):
Watch AM Live on cloudtv dot com and see what
you're missing. Download the cloud tv app and watch one
America News Network. Wherever you go, visit klowd tv dot
com Today. That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Welcome back to the Real Story. Let's continue with today's
theme of delivering justice. So we've discussed the unjust attacks
against President Trump, which were obviously political, and the unjust
attacks against HHS Secret Terry RFK Junior, which also are
very clearly political. Now it's time to discuss whether or
not the unjust treatment of today's next guest was also political.
(39:10):
He's a retired U. S. Army Cathain who served his
country for twenty one years, and he was thrust into
Arizona's justice system in twenty fourteen, all for using his
legal firearm and self defense, a situation that turned his
and his family's life upside down. He was incarcerated without
substantial evidence, and it cost thousands of dollars just to
(39:33):
prove his innocence, although he finally did and he charges
against him were dropped. There are many critical takeaways from
his disturbing case, but the most important one is this
that the constitutional rights that are supposed to protect all
Americans can actually fail to do so under the leadership
of corrupt actors and the guidance of flawed systems. However,
(39:57):
despite it all, he made it through this ver very
disturbing situation and joins us now to discuss the case.
So here with more is Barry Todd, the man himself
and the author of Stand Your Ground. Berry, thank you
for joining me, sir, thank you.
Speaker 7 (40:13):
For having me Riley. I appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
So I want to get to your case, but first
I'd like to start with some background information about you.
So please tell us about your service in the US Army.
Speaker 7 (40:24):
I did twenty one years.
Speaker 4 (40:27):
Most of that was in the Rangers or the eighty second,
one hundred and First, it was a beautiful time in
my life and it was wonderful serving my country and
being around all my brothers. It's a great thing, and
I still serve today. I serve on the National Range
of Memorial Foundation and help other brothers for with scholarships,
(40:48):
children of decease, that's etc.
Speaker 7 (40:51):
So it's a beautiful thing serve in our country.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Well, I have to say, we really appreciate your service.
It's brave souls like you that keep this country free
and independent. So thank you for that. Now let's move
forward then to the moment that changed everything for you
and for your family. Take us back to what happened
in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Well, simply, my wife and I were out with some
friends and then we were threatened, and then I was
attacked not by one man, but by two twice, and
when the police showed up, I was the one arrested
without any due process or investigation, with a tempted murder
(41:31):
and two counts of aggravated assault.
Speaker 7 (41:33):
And what really blowed your.
Speaker 4 (41:34):
Mind is the entire incident was on video and the
prosecutor and the police never looked at it before they charged.
Speaker 7 (41:42):
You're kidding, No, it is unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
That is a little unbelievable. I just I can't understand that. Okay,
So you're coming out of a restaurant, you're attacked, and
somehow you, as the victim, are the one who's now
facing charges.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
What happened from there.
Speaker 4 (42:00):
Well, first off, I got into the police station after
they said they were taking me down there for an interview,
which later the police detective and the preliminary hearing admitted
that he came in there thinking I was guilty. But
originally I went down there and they said what happened?
I told him, and I told him it was strictly
self defense. I was licensed to carry, I had been
(42:21):
attacked twice. One of those men actually wielded a knife.
And then he comes in within thirty minutes after the
interview was over with, and it gives me a charge seat,
which of course I refused to sign. And I told
him I said it was strictly self defense, and he goes, well,
we have the whole thing on video. I said, great,
(42:42):
have you looked at it? His exact words to me, Riley,
were not yet.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
So when you heard that, what was going through your mind?
Speaker 4 (42:53):
I was angry because a system that I had believed
in and served my country to defend was corrupted.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Oh absolutely it was. So your whole life gets turned
upside down. Later you're charged, you're later incarcerated for how
long were you incarcerated?
Speaker 4 (43:16):
Five days until I posted a five hundred thousand dollars
cash only bomb?
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Wow? Half a million dollars?
Speaker 7 (43:26):
What's that?
Speaker 3 (43:26):
Half a million dollars?
Speaker 7 (43:28):
Half a million dollars?
Speaker 4 (43:29):
Never been charged with a crime, own a national business
that's headquartered here, in New Arizona. It was the most
shocking ordeal I'd ever been through.
Speaker 7 (43:40):
And I'll tell you, if it hadn't been for my
faith in.
Speaker 4 (43:43):
God, the support of my family, friends, and my clients,
and the mental discipline and determination that I gained in
the from my ranger brothers and leaders during my military career,
I would have never made it through. They were trying
to throw you under their jail. You were no longer
considered innocent in this country until proven guilty. You are
(44:07):
now presumed guilty, and you have to prove your innocence.
And what's really shocking, Riley, just to add to that, please,
is this state, ten years earlier, had reversed the laws
where we were. We became a justification defense state in Arizona.
What that means our to our viewers out there, is
(44:27):
that California, Illinois, New York their affirmative defense. That means
that they have to prove it with self defense. Not
in Arizona.
Speaker 7 (44:37):
The moment you.
Speaker 4 (44:37):
Say it's self defense, it's up there to prosecution to
prove that it wasn't self defense. You're supposed to be released,
and that didn't happen. They totally ignored the law.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Why do you think that is. I mean, it seems political,
but I want to know why you think that is.
Speaker 4 (44:57):
I think there, I think they made a a snap decision,
and that they plastered me all over the news in
the Southwest, and then they found themselves back in the corner.
Speaker 7 (45:08):
And you know you said something earlier.
Speaker 4 (45:11):
Uh and and and I'm gonna I'm gonna agree and
disagree with you partially. I agree on the on the
court system, the court works. The court's what saved me.
I had a great judge that had knowledge of and
respect for the law. What I had on the under that, though,
was a corrupt prosecutor and an inept police detective.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Okay, understood Eventually, though, despite all of the hurdles they
threw at you, you were able to prove your innocence
and and move on with your life. Tell us about
the toll that took that process on you and your family.
Speaker 7 (45:46):
You're gonna love this, Riley.
Speaker 4 (45:47):
My case never went to trial, but it went it
got stepped back to the grand jury, not once, not twice,
not three times, but four.
Speaker 7 (45:57):
Times, four times.
Speaker 4 (45:59):
And and it was all because the prosecutor refused to
show the videos that we paid for that I paid
for to have forensically enhanced by the FBI's lead investigator
and the self defense laws for Arizona, including the justification defense.
He refused to do it, and so then then it
(46:20):
went to a preliminary hearing, and then the judge looked
at the evidence.
Speaker 7 (46:23):
We didn't even have to put anything on, and he
dismissed the case.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
Wow, I just can't That is shocking to me. By
the way, I just want to take a moment thank
you for opening up about your story. I apologize that
you had to deal with any of that in the
country that you fought to defend. However, I now want
to ask you about one other thing here, Your key
takeaway from this whole process. What was the biggest and
most important lesson that you learned from that experience.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Well, Number one, I said it earlier, is that you're
no longer presumed innocent. You're not presumed guilty. Number two
got you know everybody says, you know, I feel bad
you went through this. Well I'm looking back on it now.
This is you know, eleven years later, Riley, this is
a this is a good thing. God does things and
doesn't put things in people's paths that they can't handle.
(47:15):
And so this is a wonderful thing we're we have.
I wrote this book called Stand Your Ground, One Man's
Self Defense Nightmare, so that way the proceeds from it
can go to help others that have been wrongfully indicted.
Let's help the Daniel Pennies out there that should have
never gone to try out and cost him hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
Speaker 7 (47:34):
Are the Kyle Rittenhouses, are the George Dollens. There's two.
Speaker 4 (47:38):
This lawfare that we are now calling it over the
last year or two has been going on for decades.
And it's time we as Americans start standing up, understanding
and learning our justice system.
Speaker 7 (47:49):
And let's change the narrative.
Speaker 4 (47:52):
All right, Let's let's change it and start helping our
brothers and our sisters out there.
Speaker 1 (47:57):
I completely agree with that, and as we rap, I
want to say once again, thank you for your service
to this country, and thank you for your time today,
Barry truly.
Speaker 7 (48:05):
Thank you Riley, and thank you for having me on.
Speaker 4 (48:08):
And everybody please go out get our book at Standardground
dot com.
Speaker 7 (48:12):
You can get it on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, all
of it.
Speaker 4 (48:17):
All the proceeds are going to a foundation that me
and my wife and my legal.
Speaker 7 (48:20):
Team that started to help other people.
Speaker 4 (48:23):
God bless you Riley, and thank you again for having
us on Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
Coming up next, one of the world's biggest polluters, India,
is now moving away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy.
More details about what they're doing after the break.
Speaker 8 (48:43):
Watchm Live on cloudtv dot com and see what you're missing.
Download the cloud tv app and watch One America News
Network wherever you go. Visit klowd tv dot com. Today.
That's klowd tv dot com Today.
Speaker 3 (49:06):
Welcome back to the Real Story.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
On today's edition of Real Good News, we have some
fantastic news about how one of the world's largest emitters
of fossil fuel output is working to cut their emissions.
So India, being one of the top countries with the
highest carbon footprint on the entire planet. Recently, but recently,
their clean electricity production has risen by twenty percent. This
(49:29):
will allow them to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels
and energy imports for power production moving forward. Now. According
to Reuters, India is on track to provide a third
of its commercial electricity through its own clean power sources
throughout the next month or so, meaning they won't need
to import electricity to power citizens' homes and their businesses.
Speaker 7 (49:49):
Now.
Speaker 1 (49:50):
Some believe this push for clean energy is due in
part to terrace from the US and scrutiny over reliance
on sanctioned Russian oil. However, whatever the real story here is,
we're just happy to see fossil fuel emissions going down
with clean energy use going up. After all, fossil fuels
are just finite resources, but clean energy methods like say solar, hydro, wind,
(50:14):
and even geothermal energy will never go away. Heck, even
nuclear energy, another viable option, is on the rise. So
hopefully as we move forward, we can begin to transition
to a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient source of energy.
And that concludes today's broadcast. We truly hope you enjoyed it,
(50:35):
and remember we always want to hear from you, so
please email your feedback and any news stories you'd like
us to cover to the Real Story at OANN dot
com and follow us on social media at the Real
story An. So until we meet again, God bless you,
God bless our troops, and God bless America.
Speaker 8 (51:00):
Watch o AN Live on cloudtv dot com and see
what you're missing. Download the Cloud tv app and watch
One America News Network wherever you go. Visit k l
o w d tv dot com Today. That's k l
o w d tv dot com Today.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.