August 19, 2025 • 16 mins
Brian talks with Editor in Chief of Breitbart News Alex Marlow about his new book "Breaking the Law"
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
When it happened. We are coming to you live. You're
gonna want to listen to this fifty five KRC the
talk station.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Ato five. Here at fifty five KRC detalk station on
a Tuesday, that means one thing for certain, time to
talk with breit Bart News and get the inside scoop
from Breitbart, as I always start the segment out book
mark Breitbart b R E I T B A RT
dot com outstanding reporting. And welcome back to the fifty
five Karssey Morning Show. The editor in chief at Breitbart,
Alex Marlow. Alex, welcome back. It's always great to have
(00:33):
you on the program, Brian.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Always shame for me being on your show.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Well, and congratulations number three in your books, you've written
a new book, Breaking the Law, exposing the weaponization of
America's legal system against Donald Trump. You know, Alex, I
practice law for as a litigation attorney for sixteen years
and I'm still licensed. I haven't practiced since I've been
on radio, and this is my nineteenth year in radio.
So a little rusty am I, but having practiced law
(00:57):
for at least eight years in Cook County, Chicago, that
was like number one for forum shopping with plaintiff lawyers.
They loved to sue defendants in Cook County for you know,
product liability violations, autobile accidents, because you're gonna get some
really pro plaintiff judge, You're gonna have some really friendly
environment in terms of the makeup of the juris. That
(01:20):
was all pro plaintiff. You're almost guaranteed a victory filing
a Cook County. So that was the magnet for a
lot of plaintiff lawyers, and they manufacture reasons to get
jurisdiction in Cook County. A lot of that went on
against Trump in this law fare that you write about
in your book, breaking the law. So you have forum shopping.
But I want to caveat that because that's been going
on forever. They know where the liberal judges are, they
(01:42):
know where the liberal juries are or the anti Trump folks.
But litigation myth number seven, which here was a Saturday
night live routine, Alex, your claim must have merit. You know,
we have a rule eleven. You have to have you
have to have a good faith belief that the lawsuit
you are filing as an attorney actually has merit. Now,
(02:03):
a lot of the file, the suits that were fought
against Trump had no merit like the real estate case, Alex.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Yeah, well, actually none of them had any merit. They
were all ridiculous. And this is what's interesting, And I'm
glad you brought up the forum shopping. I haven't had
a lot of time to talk about it since I've
been promoting the book because it's one where there doesn't
seem to be a good solution. It's one of these
things where the left wing apparatus was able to spot
something and then over time they've just made things so
much worse. It really was Mark Elias, who's probably familiar
(02:31):
to a lot of people in your audience, who is
one of the main attorneys who has been pushing law
here and probably got on the radar of a lot
of your audience during the Perkins Cooy stuff where he
was involved with the manufacturing the fake Steal dossier and
the Russian collusion. Oaks was very much involved in the
(02:51):
case ended up in the in those alleged criminal criminal
convictions for President Trump. None of my case would have
gotten started without the fake Rush solution hoax. And I'll
ties together because Elias has really been the architect of
this strategy of the left using the forum shopping opportunity
that has been afforded by the current rules on the books,
(03:12):
that has allowed for the left to really harash Donald Trump.
It's really what it's been. And every one of the
major cases against him, and I go through all six
of them in the book, I don't think any of
them a merit. The most egregious was the to Jack
Smith cases where he was an unconstitutionally appointed special Council.
But it just took eighteen months for people to draw
(03:33):
back conclusion, and it was he was always unconstitutional. He's
unconstitutional the whole time. And that's old nature of these
things is that they're all coming out of nowhere and
are specifically targeted, which violates the due process clause of
the Constitution. And thus all of them aren't.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Illegal illegal And I guess that goes to my point
litigation mid number seven. Your collect your claim must have merit.
If you don't have sufficient facts or information supporting your claim,
then I guess you make them up. Steele dossier, which
served as the predative for so many unconstitutional violations of
the law.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, of course, and that's why we're investigating that. But
the investigations need to continue because if you think about
the case, the Stormy Daniel's case they called the hush
money case, Brian, you know, hush money's not illegal and
no it and it doesn't mean that you're guilty. Also,
and I cite a crystal clear example of Trump paying
quote unquote hush money when Trump was clearly innocent. He
(04:28):
just didn't want to get harassed because he's a busy
public person and not everyone wants to spend a bunch
of their life in the courtroom. But that case was
one where allegedly records were falsified and some sort of
a strained campaign violation. All of it was brought with
the express purpose of trying to harm Donald Trump politically
(04:49):
again and never should have originated to begin with because
of the Russian collusion hoax, and it ended in what
was obviously absurd penalties. Every inch of that case was ridiculous.
That was the one that was most effective. And that's
what's the scariest part is that the law fair apparatus
has been able to figure out ways to use the
system to isolate a political target in the spirit of
(05:12):
Solensky and try to ruin their lives and jail them
so that you and I we the people. We can't
choose who we want for president. That was the whole point.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
That was the whole point. And then you know, you
can't talk about this as it relates to Donald Trump
without the there but for the grace of God go
I kind of thought, because you know who among us
could have afford to fight the legal fight. They literally
tried to bankrupt Donald Trump. They have every form of
litigation known demand being waged against them. Every single case
(05:40):
they file in any jurisdiction is going to require a
team of lawyers that Trump has to retain. We're talking
legal bills probably north of four figures an hour, because
that's what real high falutant lawyers pay these days. He's
lucky he was a multi multi millionaire because if they'd
just sued you or me, we'd have been dead. We
couldn't have fought this fight.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
You just create instincts. Because I write that this was
one of Trump's secret weapons is that he was just
so wealthy. It's the obvious one is that he's got
this otherworldly rhinocera skin, or his ability to take a
punch is We've never seen anything like that. We'll never
see anything like it again. I think a lot of
people in public life are born with that gift, but
he's just at an absurd level. But the other one
(06:19):
that you write about is the other one that you
say is covered in detail, is that he's the only president.
Not only not he's there's real few people on earth.
He's the only president history that could have survived this.
From a financial perspective, the fact that they still have
in Tiss James's absurd kangaroo court one hundred and seventy
(06:42):
five million dollars of his money up on bond to
day while he's serving as president wouldn't distract you. Brian.
If someone who aid your guts had one hundred and
seventy five million your money tied up, kind of brokeer
peace in Ukraine and Russia. Just got one hundred seventy
five meal of your come's the only guy ever who
could survive that. And that's not okay with me. I'm
not okay with that.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
I am not either. And you know this idea of
legal expenses and the way prosecutors work, because I know
you're right about prosecutors and the abuse of the legal system.
Prosecutors not willing to even enforce the law. This is
that whole woke criminal justice system that is reaped so much,
so much negative and problems for our city in terms
of increasing crime. But you know, a lot of my listeners,
including me Second Amendment fans, we own firearms and we
(07:25):
know and understand how to use them when it's appropriate
legally to use them. But what we see is when
someone uses their firearm in self defense legitimately and reasonably
has a legitimate anticipation of grievous bodily harm or death,
so they use their self defense rights properly, people express
a concern because quite often that individual ends up getting prosecuted.
(07:48):
And therein lies the challenge I'm going to go to jail.
I mean, people think about this before excising the Second
Amendment right. It's reasonable and appropriate as it is for
me to use that right. I'm afraid that these left
wing prosecutors are going to come down hard on me,
and I'm going to have the lawyer up and defend myself.
I might go to jail.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
You got it, And this is a this is there's
a digression that's about part of the book. But noize, no, no,
no no, But I want to tell you my personal shower.
I came to firearms late. I grew up in LA
so not not big gun gun culture out here, but
I came to firearms later. You know, I took a
shooting lesson or two, but less than three is what
to do if you shoot someone? Like how to lawyer
up and how to go through the legal process, right,
(08:29):
I mean, you got to come up with that real fast.
Like you got to be prepared that if you're shooting someone,
then it's a you're going to be tied up in
court for a while, I know, even if you're justified.
So keep that in mind if you're going to pull
trigger at someone. But this is but this is it.
I mean, this is the whole thing, is how much
of our lives are supposed to be wasted in the
courtrooms for bogus reasons, particularly if we're campaigning for the presidency,
(08:51):
which is what Trump was doing. And yet they ken't
throw in cases at him because they thought they had him.
They didn't know if they had them at the polls.
They thought they probably didn't, but they did think that
he could maybe be in jail or if not, just
harass him and just bother him so that no one
follows in his footsteps, and Trump was so otherworldly resilient
that he beat them. But I'm afraid, in fact, I
(09:14):
know they will try this again. They will try it
with more intensity. And if we don't hold the people
that brought these bogus lawsuits accountable, then it's on us too,
because we need to have that accountability or they will
continue this process.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Alex Marlow, let me ask you this though, considering Donald
Trump won and won the popular vote as well, I
know the left was just huh. They were so hopeful
that he wouldn't have won the electoral or they just
only won the electoral college but not the popular vote,
but fortunately the popular vote as well. Don't you think
that might be a reflection of the American people getting
what you're writing about in breaking the law, that we
(09:50):
understood and could see very clearly that this was law fair,
that this was not justified, that it was designed to
keep Trump back on his heels and bankrupt him or
otherwise take away any ability for him to get his
policies and acted or move forward during his administration. We
saw through it.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
I think a lot of people did, and I think
it's very encouraging. There's a huge optimism to this book.
I had much more pessimism when I wrote my last book,
Breaking Biden, because I was convinced people were sleepwalking about
some of the Biden family crimes and the fact that
we were vulnerable to get beat by Joe Biden, which
we did. But now with this book, I do feel
(10:28):
a lot of optimism that I think most people do
get it, and I think there is a lot of
potential to actually get some investigations and get some accountability.
But then I offered that Russigate warning as well. If
we had gone through Russigate and I actually had the
people who were responsible that they didn't just get MSNBC
and CNN contributorships, but they actually were prevented from doing
(10:49):
their work there, their security appearances pulled early, maybe some
of them even went to jail. Then there wouldn't have
been the law Fair hoax. The Lawfair hoax was born
in the Russigate hoax and US not holding anyone accountable
when we had the chance during the first Trump administration.
So we can't do that again unless we want them
to try the Lawfair again, which they will. Maybe it
(11:10):
won't work, but it will certainly harass a lot of
people who aren't as rich or as powerful as Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Yeah, now this well, in your book, you said you
write around all the different lawfare cases that's breaking the law,
exposing the weaponization of America's legal system against Donald Trump.
And I guess Alex Morrilow today, is there one that
stands out as the most egregious among all these different cases?
Because again I go back to the real estate thing.
We have two sophisticated parties on either side of the table,
(11:38):
both negotiated the terms of cognitions of alone agreement, and
Donald Trump paid it off. No one was damaged. There's
no just diiciable controversy there. So for me from a
legal perspective, that's like the worst of the worst.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
They're all. They're also horrible. It's really hard, it's really
hard to pick. I mean the Letitia James case, which
is the one where he apparently had built banks who
have super sophisticated ways of selecting what type of you know,
billionaires they want to loan money to. Not one of
them had to complaint against Trump, and then she got
(12:14):
him assassed a nearly half a billion dollar penalty for
a victimless crime that wasn't even a crime. It was
a civil court. That's going to be high up there.
How about Jack Smith, whose appointment was unconstitutional and got
to harass Trump during an election for eighteen months and
leaked stuff to the Washington Post. His job didn't exist,
and yet he was allowed to operate. It's almost like
(12:35):
an office space sketch where it's he's not even supposed
to be here, like he doesn't have a real job,
and yet he kept getting a paycheck and subpoena power
and was able to just harass them when in Trump's
orbit until but dawned on people, Oh yeah, this is
not a real job. This is cooked. Those are pretty
high up there. But still, Brian, I think my answer
is the lead the case with the lowest stakes. The
(12:57):
Egen Carrol case is another sise where this woman spun
this completely absurd web that was almost exactly the plot
of a Law and Order episode about Trump that never
would have happened in a million years, at least according
to my logic. I want to be careful there so
I don't get sued for defamation by the great Egene Carol.
It was cooked up by George Conway, who the anti
(13:21):
Trump legal pundit and funded by Reed Hoffman, the Lincoln billionaire,
and Biden Crowney, who was at the White House five
times in twenty twenty two alone. It was their idea
to push her to do this. Her story is just
not only absurd, it's also X rated, and it makes
you feel like by the end that she probably needs
(13:42):
maybe to be institutionalized. And yet with no witnesses, they
got assessed damages six x what Trump even whatever what
she asked for, she asked her fifteen million. They end
up with a ninety million dollars judgment against Trump. Even
though the story was completely ridiculous. The judge was intervening
in the case, trying to make it seem even more
(14:02):
severe than than the witness and that to me was
actually maybe the worst of it all, just in terms
of pure we're going to get this guy, We're going
to conspire to get him. That one might even be
the worst in the.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Other ones, well, you know, especially, I mean when you're
talking about a judge actively getting involved in going after Trump,
that is that's a broken legal system right there.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Exactly right. That's the title of the book, and that
he really does. And I have a Tease View and
then a Braper dot Com if you guys go to
my byline, but I go through Judge Luis A. Kampelin
there where he really goes out of his way to
be just incredibly mean to Trump, and it's just so
mean spirited. In his attorneys he is threatening to throw
(14:45):
Alena Habba in a dungeon like not just a jail,
like an underground jail. I mean, that's what he was
doing during that case. It's just completely ridiculous this is
allowed to go on.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
It is and you r read all about it and
breaking law from I guess Alex Marlow, who is the
editor in chief of Breitbart real Quick before he part
the company. One final question, Alex, is there any possibility
of accountability for those responsible for well violating the law
by going after Trump?
Speaker 1 (15:09):
A perfect way to wind up because it's going to
be on your audience, my audience to get this done.
But yes, and we're starting to see it. Jacksmith on an investigation,
Latitia James on investigation. Those would probably be my first two.
I lay out maybe half a dozen to a dozen
essential investigations and need to take place, but the first
two already happening. So we're getting results here, and the
(15:30):
investigations will serve a purpose because it will make life
very difficult for some of the bad guys, but hopefully
some of them actually bear some fruit. But I go
through and I have a teasy again at Bryper dot com,
so you guys can get a little bit there. Hopefully
you all pick up the book. You will like it.
But we need to have those investigations and that accountability,
and we can. We've got the power to do it.
We get another three and a half years minimum of
(15:52):
run away to do it, So let's go do it.
Let's go get this accountability that Trump and Trump's voters deserve.
They tried to rig the election to steal it from you,
you and the audience listening right now. They try to
steal the lesson from you. And they're still out there
working against you. And I think that we need to
move quickly and show some accountability and we can do it.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Ending on a note of optimism, much like the book
Breaking the Law by my guest here today, Alex Marlow
from Breitbart, thank you for all that you do all
the time at Breitbart. Alex Marlow, look forward to having
you back on the program. Really soon, and I'll encourage
my listeners to go to fifty five krs dot com
to get a copy of your book as well as
Breitbart dot com. Get your comments right.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
You do such an excellent job and thanks are always.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Graving us on my distinct pleasure, my friend. Look for
to next Tuesday in another segment with breit Bard eight
twenty one. Right now fifty five krsite talk station. Another
segment with Daniel Davis, retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis with
a deep dive coming up next fifty five car the
talk station and that is a US
When it happened. We are coming to you live. You're
gonna want to listen to this fifty five KRC the
talk station.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Ato five. Here at fifty five KRC detalk station on
a Tuesday, that means one thing for certain, time to
talk with breit Bart News and get the inside scoop
from Breitbart, as I always start the segment out book
mark Breitbart b R E I T B A RT
dot com outstanding reporting. And welcome back to the fifty
five Karssey Morning Show. The editor in chief at Breitbart,
Alex Marlow. Alex, welcome back. It's always great to have
(00:33):
you on the program, Brian.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Always shame for me being on your show.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Well, and congratulations number three in your books, you've written
a new book, Breaking the Law, exposing the weaponization of
America's legal system against Donald Trump. You know, Alex, I
practice law for as a litigation attorney for sixteen years
and I'm still licensed. I haven't practiced since I've been
on radio, and this is my nineteenth year in radio.
So a little rusty am I, but having practiced law
(00:57):
for at least eight years in Cook County, Chicago, that
was like number one for forum shopping with plaintiff lawyers.
They loved to sue defendants in Cook County for you know,
product liability violations, autobile accidents, because you're gonna get some
really pro plaintiff judge, You're gonna have some really friendly
environment in terms of the makeup of the juris. That
(01:20):
was all pro plaintiff. You're almost guaranteed a victory filing
a Cook County. So that was the magnet for a
lot of plaintiff lawyers, and they manufacture reasons to get
jurisdiction in Cook County. A lot of that went on
against Trump in this law fare that you write about
in your book, breaking the law. So you have forum shopping.
But I want to caveat that because that's been going
on forever. They know where the liberal judges are, they
(01:42):
know where the liberal juries are or the anti Trump folks.
But litigation myth number seven, which here was a Saturday
night live routine, Alex, your claim must have merit. You know,
we have a rule eleven. You have to have you
have to have a good faith belief that the lawsuit
you are filing as an attorney actually has merit. Now,
(02:03):
a lot of the file, the suits that were fought
against Trump had no merit like the real estate case, Alex.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Yeah, well, actually none of them had any merit. They
were all ridiculous. And this is what's interesting, And I'm
glad you brought up the forum shopping. I haven't had
a lot of time to talk about it since I've
been promoting the book because it's one where there doesn't
seem to be a good solution. It's one of these
things where the left wing apparatus was able to spot
something and then over time they've just made things so
much worse. It really was Mark Elias, who's probably familiar
(02:31):
to a lot of people in your audience, who is
one of the main attorneys who has been pushing law
here and probably got on the radar of a lot
of your audience during the Perkins Cooy stuff where he
was involved with the manufacturing the fake Steal dossier and
the Russian collusion. Oaks was very much involved in the
(02:51):
case ended up in the in those alleged criminal criminal
convictions for President Trump. None of my case would have
gotten started without the fake Rush solution hoax. And I'll
ties together because Elias has really been the architect of
this strategy of the left using the forum shopping opportunity
that has been afforded by the current rules on the books,
(03:12):
that has allowed for the left to really harash Donald Trump.
It's really what it's been. And every one of the
major cases against him, and I go through all six
of them in the book, I don't think any of
them a merit. The most egregious was the to Jack
Smith cases where he was an unconstitutionally appointed special Council.
But it just took eighteen months for people to draw
(03:33):
back conclusion, and it was he was always unconstitutional. He's
unconstitutional the whole time. And that's old nature of these
things is that they're all coming out of nowhere and
are specifically targeted, which violates the due process clause of
the Constitution. And thus all of them aren't.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Illegal illegal And I guess that goes to my point
litigation mid number seven. Your collect your claim must have merit.
If you don't have sufficient facts or information supporting your claim,
then I guess you make them up. Steele dossier, which
served as the predative for so many unconstitutional violations of
the law.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Yeah, of course, and that's why we're investigating that. But
the investigations need to continue because if you think about
the case, the Stormy Daniel's case they called the hush
money case, Brian, you know, hush money's not illegal and
no it and it doesn't mean that you're guilty. Also,
and I cite a crystal clear example of Trump paying
quote unquote hush money when Trump was clearly innocent. He
(04:28):
just didn't want to get harassed because he's a busy
public person and not everyone wants to spend a bunch
of their life in the courtroom. But that case was
one where allegedly records were falsified and some sort of
a strained campaign violation. All of it was brought with
the express purpose of trying to harm Donald Trump politically
(04:49):
again and never should have originated to begin with because
of the Russian collusion hoax, and it ended in what
was obviously absurd penalties. Every inch of that case was ridiculous.
That was the one that was most effective. And that's
what's the scariest part is that the law fair apparatus
has been able to figure out ways to use the
system to isolate a political target in the spirit of
(05:12):
Solensky and try to ruin their lives and jail them
so that you and I we the people. We can't
choose who we want for president. That was the whole point.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
That was the whole point. And then you know, you
can't talk about this as it relates to Donald Trump
without the there but for the grace of God go
I kind of thought, because you know who among us
could have afford to fight the legal fight. They literally
tried to bankrupt Donald Trump. They have every form of
litigation known demand being waged against them. Every single case
(05:40):
they file in any jurisdiction is going to require a
team of lawyers that Trump has to retain. We're talking
legal bills probably north of four figures an hour, because
that's what real high falutant lawyers pay these days. He's
lucky he was a multi multi millionaire because if they'd
just sued you or me, we'd have been dead. We
couldn't have fought this fight.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
You just create instincts. Because I write that this was
one of Trump's secret weapons is that he was just
so wealthy. It's the obvious one is that he's got
this otherworldly rhinocera skin, or his ability to take a
punch is We've never seen anything like that. We'll never
see anything like it again. I think a lot of
people in public life are born with that gift, but
he's just at an absurd level. But the other one
(06:19):
that you write about is the other one that you
say is covered in detail, is that he's the only president.
Not only not he's there's real few people on earth.
He's the only president history that could have survived this.
From a financial perspective, the fact that they still have
in Tiss James's absurd kangaroo court one hundred and seventy
(06:42):
five million dollars of his money up on bond to
day while he's serving as president wouldn't distract you. Brian.
If someone who aid your guts had one hundred and
seventy five million your money tied up, kind of brokeer
peace in Ukraine and Russia. Just got one hundred seventy
five meal of your come's the only guy ever who
could survive that. And that's not okay with me. I'm
not okay with that.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
I am not either. And you know this idea of
legal expenses and the way prosecutors work, because I know
you're right about prosecutors and the abuse of the legal system.
Prosecutors not willing to even enforce the law. This is
that whole woke criminal justice system that is reaped so much,
so much negative and problems for our city in terms
of increasing crime. But you know, a lot of my listeners,
including me Second Amendment fans, we own firearms and we
(07:25):
know and understand how to use them when it's appropriate
legally to use them. But what we see is when
someone uses their firearm in self defense legitimately and reasonably
has a legitimate anticipation of grievous bodily harm or death,
so they use their self defense rights properly, people express
a concern because quite often that individual ends up getting prosecuted.
(07:48):
And therein lies the challenge I'm going to go to jail.
I mean, people think about this before excising the Second
Amendment right. It's reasonable and appropriate as it is for
me to use that right. I'm afraid that these left
wing prosecutors are going to come down hard on me,
and I'm going to have the lawyer up and defend myself.
I might go to jail.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
You got it, And this is a this is there's
a digression that's about part of the book. But noize, no, no,
no no, But I want to tell you my personal shower.
I came to firearms late. I grew up in LA
so not not big gun gun culture out here, but
I came to firearms later. You know, I took a
shooting lesson or two, but less than three is what
to do if you shoot someone? Like how to lawyer
up and how to go through the legal process, right,
(08:29):
I mean, you got to come up with that real fast.
Like you got to be prepared that if you're shooting someone,
then it's a you're going to be tied up in
court for a while, I know, even if you're justified.
So keep that in mind if you're going to pull
trigger at someone. But this is but this is it.
I mean, this is the whole thing, is how much
of our lives are supposed to be wasted in the
courtrooms for bogus reasons, particularly if we're campaigning for the presidency,
(08:51):
which is what Trump was doing. And yet they ken't
throw in cases at him because they thought they had him.
They didn't know if they had them at the polls.
They thought they probably didn't, but they did think that
he could maybe be in jail or if not, just
harass him and just bother him so that no one
follows in his footsteps, and Trump was so otherworldly resilient
that he beat them. But I'm afraid, in fact, I
(09:14):
know they will try this again. They will try it
with more intensity. And if we don't hold the people
that brought these bogus lawsuits accountable, then it's on us too,
because we need to have that accountability or they will
continue this process.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Alex Marlow, let me ask you this though, considering Donald
Trump won and won the popular vote as well, I
know the left was just huh. They were so hopeful
that he wouldn't have won the electoral or they just
only won the electoral college but not the popular vote,
but fortunately the popular vote as well. Don't you think
that might be a reflection of the American people getting
what you're writing about in breaking the law, that we
(09:50):
understood and could see very clearly that this was law fair,
that this was not justified, that it was designed to
keep Trump back on his heels and bankrupt him or
otherwise take away any ability for him to get his
policies and acted or move forward during his administration. We
saw through it.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
I think a lot of people did, and I think
it's very encouraging. There's a huge optimism to this book.
I had much more pessimism when I wrote my last book,
Breaking Biden, because I was convinced people were sleepwalking about
some of the Biden family crimes and the fact that
we were vulnerable to get beat by Joe Biden, which
we did. But now with this book, I do feel
(10:28):
a lot of optimism that I think most people do
get it, and I think there is a lot of
potential to actually get some investigations and get some accountability.
But then I offered that Russigate warning as well. If
we had gone through Russigate and I actually had the
people who were responsible that they didn't just get MSNBC
and CNN contributorships, but they actually were prevented from doing
(10:49):
their work there, their security appearances pulled early, maybe some
of them even went to jail. Then there wouldn't have
been the law Fair hoax. The Lawfair hoax was born
in the Russigate hoax and US not holding anyone accountable
when we had the chance during the first Trump administration.
So we can't do that again unless we want them
to try the Lawfair again, which they will. Maybe it
(11:10):
won't work, but it will certainly harass a lot of
people who aren't as rich or as powerful as Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Yeah, now this well, in your book, you said you
write around all the different lawfare cases that's breaking the law,
exposing the weaponization of America's legal system against Donald Trump.
And I guess Alex Morrilow today, is there one that
stands out as the most egregious among all these different cases?
Because again I go back to the real estate thing.
We have two sophisticated parties on either side of the table,
(11:38):
both negotiated the terms of cognitions of alone agreement, and
Donald Trump paid it off. No one was damaged. There's
no just diiciable controversy there. So for me from a
legal perspective, that's like the worst of the worst.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
They're all. They're also horrible. It's really hard, it's really
hard to pick. I mean the Letitia James case, which
is the one where he apparently had built banks who
have super sophisticated ways of selecting what type of you know,
billionaires they want to loan money to. Not one of
them had to complaint against Trump, and then she got
(12:14):
him assassed a nearly half a billion dollar penalty for
a victimless crime that wasn't even a crime. It was
a civil court. That's going to be high up there.
How about Jack Smith, whose appointment was unconstitutional and got
to harass Trump during an election for eighteen months and
leaked stuff to the Washington Post. His job didn't exist,
and yet he was allowed to operate. It's almost like
(12:35):
an office space sketch where it's he's not even supposed
to be here, like he doesn't have a real job,
and yet he kept getting a paycheck and subpoena power
and was able to just harass them when in Trump's
orbit until but dawned on people, Oh yeah, this is
not a real job. This is cooked. Those are pretty
high up there. But still, Brian, I think my answer
is the lead the case with the lowest stakes. The
(12:57):
Egen Carrol case is another sise where this woman spun
this completely absurd web that was almost exactly the plot
of a Law and Order episode about Trump that never
would have happened in a million years, at least according
to my logic. I want to be careful there so
I don't get sued for defamation by the great Egene Carol.
It was cooked up by George Conway, who the anti
(13:21):
Trump legal pundit and funded by Reed Hoffman, the Lincoln billionaire,
and Biden Crowney, who was at the White House five
times in twenty twenty two alone. It was their idea
to push her to do this. Her story is just
not only absurd, it's also X rated, and it makes
you feel like by the end that she probably needs
(13:42):
maybe to be institutionalized. And yet with no witnesses, they
got assessed damages six x what Trump even whatever what
she asked for, she asked her fifteen million. They end
up with a ninety million dollars judgment against Trump. Even
though the story was completely ridiculous. The judge was intervening
in the case, trying to make it seem even more
(14:02):
severe than than the witness and that to me was
actually maybe the worst of it all, just in terms
of pure we're going to get this guy, We're going
to conspire to get him. That one might even be
the worst in the.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Other ones, well, you know, especially, I mean when you're
talking about a judge actively getting involved in going after Trump,
that is that's a broken legal system right there.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Exactly right. That's the title of the book, and that
he really does. And I have a Tease View and
then a Braper dot Com if you guys go to
my byline, but I go through Judge Luis A. Kampelin
there where he really goes out of his way to
be just incredibly mean to Trump, and it's just so
mean spirited. In his attorneys he is threatening to throw
(14:45):
Alena Habba in a dungeon like not just a jail,
like an underground jail. I mean, that's what he was
doing during that case. It's just completely ridiculous this is
allowed to go on.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
It is and you r read all about it and
breaking law from I guess Alex Marlow, who is the
editor in chief of Breitbart real Quick before he part
the company. One final question, Alex, is there any possibility
of accountability for those responsible for well violating the law
by going after Trump?
Speaker 1 (15:09):
A perfect way to wind up because it's going to
be on your audience, my audience to get this done.
But yes, and we're starting to see it. Jacksmith on an investigation,
Latitia James on investigation. Those would probably be my first two.
I lay out maybe half a dozen to a dozen
essential investigations and need to take place, but the first
two already happening. So we're getting results here, and the
(15:30):
investigations will serve a purpose because it will make life
very difficult for some of the bad guys, but hopefully
some of them actually bear some fruit. But I go
through and I have a teasy again at Bryper dot com,
so you guys can get a little bit there. Hopefully
you all pick up the book. You will like it.
But we need to have those investigations and that accountability,
and we can. We've got the power to do it.
We get another three and a half years minimum of
(15:52):
run away to do it, So let's go do it.
Let's go get this accountability that Trump and Trump's voters deserve.
They tried to rig the election to steal it from you,
you and the audience listening right now. They try to
steal the lesson from you. And they're still out there
working against you. And I think that we need to
move quickly and show some accountability and we can do it.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Ending on a note of optimism, much like the book
Breaking the Law by my guest here today, Alex Marlow
from Breitbart, thank you for all that you do all
the time at Breitbart. Alex Marlow, look forward to having
you back on the program. Really soon, and I'll encourage
my listeners to go to fifty five krs dot com
to get a copy of your book as well as
Breitbart dot com. Get your comments right.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
You do such an excellent job and thanks are always.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Graving us on my distinct pleasure, my friend. Look for
to next Tuesday in another segment with breit Bard eight
twenty one. Right now fifty five krsite talk station. Another
segment with Daniel Davis, retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis with
a deep dive coming up next fifty five car the
talk station and that is a US
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.