Sidney Powell SPECIAL SUMMER ENCORE

Sidney Powell SPECIAL SUMMER ENCORE

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Thanks for listening to our upcoming podcast on Erskine Radio.
We have Sidney Pals now. Sidney Pals served in Justice
Department of Justice for ten years. The last twenty years
has devoted private practice to federal appeals. She led League
Council for over five hundred five hundred federal appeals. She

(00:28):
was the youngest assistant US attorney. Later became chief of
the appellate sections of the Western and Northern Districts of Texas.
She's recognized by her peers as a super lawyer. That's
not an accident. That is very few super lawyers. Named
one of the best lawyers in America. Her Amazon best
selling book, Licensed to Lie reads like a legal thriller.

(00:51):
Now her latest book, Conviction Machine, Standing Up to Prosecutorial Abuse.
To fund Sydney's work, please make a tax deductible donation
to the London Center for Policy Research and Market for
Sydney Pal's Fellowship. Her website License to Lie dot com,
Seeking Justice dot com, Creeps on a mission dot Com, Sydney,

(01:15):
I gotta ask you a couple of questions. Start west,
what about Roger Stone? Sending him to prison for nothing?
Giving him a death sentence? Basically This is sick, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yes? I have been very concerned about Roger Stone's case
from the get go. I have not read the transcript.
I'm not familiar with the particular facts and charges, but
I do know that they rushed to indict him, and
the way they arrested him and everything was just an
egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. He would have reported voluntarily

(01:50):
he was no risk of flight. That was during the shutdown,
and here they go with twenty eight agents. I think
I forgot how many vehicles of both frag men, helicopter,
the whole business. And don't forget it was complaining that
they didn't have enough money to do what they needed
to do for real crimes and cases. And don't forget
they also had reason he ought to be fired.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
CNN was there too.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
Oh yes, yeah, I'm sure, and your wifeman leaked out
to CNN.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Now, well, any of the FBI liars struck Page call
me McCabe. Any of them ever come to justice? What
about Hillary? What about Brennan? What about the guy who
was in charge of the NSA? How about those people?
Are they ever going to go to trial? They've been
caught lying there's no question about it. And the Brady

(02:41):
real there's no question about that. The Brady reel basically
says that you can't hide evidence, doesn't it?

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yes, it does, But they do that more than they
would ever admit. It happens in so many cases. My
friends who practice regularly in the criminal defense world tell
me it happens all all the time.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Yeah, and when you're looking at that, are they ever
gonna come to justice in there? Or we have a
two tier justice system?

Speaker 2 (03:09):
I wish I knew the answer to that. I hope
we're going to find them within the next few weeks
that they are going to be brought to justice. If
we're not, then we've lost the rule of law in
this country and we might as well bend over and
kiss a goodbye.

Speaker 1 (03:22):
In your book, Conviction Machine, you talk about the abuse
of power, the massive control that's gonna that the federal
prosecutors have. They could do about anything, They could just
about do anything. Is there no oversight to these people.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
No, there's virtually no oversight at all, and they have
absolute ammenity from civil suit.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
So yeah, there's spiritually nothing that can be done. They
can make up facts against you like they did against
General Flynn. They can make up a crime like they
did against General Flynn because there was no crime, and
they can send you to prison for the red of
your life and there's no remedy for that. It's absolutely appalling,
and that's got to change criminal justice reform.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
A lot of medicent people city in prison, aren't they.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yes, one is too many, but I've venture to guess
it's up to ten percent. Judge jed Rakoff reade an
article several years ago, why the innocent plead guilty? That
I would commend to everyone's reading. And the problem is
that the machine is so crushing that innocent people see
no other way out. The beating they're going to take

(04:34):
is not as bad as the beating they would take
if they continued to fight and tried to go to trial,
which they can't afford to do most of the time.
So they're just screwed.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
It is the United States government versus fill in the blank.
It's a state of filling the blank versus filling the
black person. You've got the whole weight and power of
the governmental system coming upon one person and make cases,
don't you.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Yes, that's usually the way it works, and virtually no
individual can survive that.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
Now, the law, as you understand it, I understood a
few things. Number one that there's no such thing as
the law depends on where you are. And another thing
that fairness is not necessarily a part of it. It
is what's legal and illegal. Those are two things that
you learn. If you don't learn that in your first
year of law school, you've got problem.

Speaker 2 (05:29):
Yeah. Yes, life is not fair, and the legal system
is certainly far from it. But we could do a
number of things to help restore that, not the least
of which is requiring prosecutors to produce evidence's favorable to
the defense and some penalty to attach.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
To them if they do not do it, and a
penalty that's a key. Now, what are some of the
major defects of the criminal justice system that you see?
And because you know you've dedicated your life doing what's right,
you've decand your life to the law, and when you're
looking at some of these things that you've seen, it

(06:06):
has to be very discouraging to you.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
It's been really discouraging the last ten years, and especially
seeing what happened to the President and General Flynn in
this absolute atrocity.

Speaker 1 (06:19):
Right they have politicized the law. They really have, haven't they.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
Yeah, they've turned it into a weapons to achieve their
social and political ends as opposed to a tool to
write injustices.

Speaker 1 (06:34):
It's become a gotcha system. This is not the way
it was designed. Is designed to uphold and protect, and
it's become a gotcha system. And this is backfiring because
we are really close to anarchy in this country with
what's been going on lately. I mean, we are very
very close to police are afraid to rest, and we're

(06:54):
very close to anarchy in this country, aren't we. Well.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
I think the middle class is really way up and
realizing the ends that people have gone to to destroy them.
And I'm actually pleased to see some of the protests
that have been happening to open the country back up,
because the governors are just dragging their feet, and the

(07:18):
ramifications of the shutdown are going to be far greater
than the deaths from the.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Virus destroying businesses. You've in homes, You've got places where
you're having domestic abuse. You've also got children being abused,
You've got businesses being closed out. People absolutely desperate, they've
worked all their lives and they're watching. And the other
thing that got me, I'm sure you noticed this how
fast this happened. I never thought we'd see any thing

(07:45):
like this, from a booby economy to a depression era economy,
and it happened so rapidly, and the people just were like, sheep, sure,
we've got to stay in place, all of these ads
on TV. Stay in place, don't move, do this, do that?
I mean, it's absolutely I never thought i'd see this

(08:07):
in our country. Neither did you.

Speaker 2 (08:09):
No, I didn't. I mean, in a free society, we're
supposed to tell people what the real problems are, how
serious it is, which they've certainly done, but then give
them guidelines to go about their own business and make
whatever modifications they need to make well, but let them
have the decision of how to protect themselves from.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
It, right, which I get.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
The two weeks thing. I mean that, given the seriousness
of everything and how rapidly it was escalating, to encourage
people to strongly to stay at home for two weeks
it makes sense. But beyond that and giving the system
a chance to catch up with the personal protective equipment
and everything, ventilators and all that, it's just causing more

(08:52):
harm than good.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Right, And the other thing is shutting down the traffic
from Wuhan was certainly good and from China, and it
gives us pause to think we really do need borders
in this country. Mister Trump was absolutely right about that.
President Trump was one hundred percent correct. We're seeing that
more and more every day, aren't we.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
Oh yes, I mean, he was right about all of it.
And thank god he closed the flight from Luhan when
he did, or we would be in far worse shape.

Speaker 1 (09:23):
They quit flying people to where their.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
Problems now or a result of businesses owned by the Chinese.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
They quit flying people to Beijing and Shanghai, but let
them travel around the world. We'll be right back, and
thank you all for going up to Twitter. At Urskin Radio,
we're talking with Sidney Poll and there are two books.
One is Licensed to Lie and the other one had
to come out. You had to write a conviction machine
because after License to Lie, you saw the proscatorial overstretched,

(09:52):
didn't you.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
Oh yes, I mean watching. I mean I've been screaming
about this, as you know, because you had me on
early in my whole work on this.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
Y six six years. You've been talking about this the prosecutors,
and you've talked about Wiseman, you talked about Mueller, and
it all was in License to Lie that you wrote
six years ago. This has called back ten years that
you've been understanding what was going on. And when you
wrote the book, people are saying, this can't be You're
just writing this. It's more of a fictional book. And

(10:23):
then when all this came out with the Mueller investigation,
people say, oh, duh, these are the same people, and yes, yes,
they are the same people, and you couldn't get them
put away.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
Then yep, that's what I've been screaming about all this time.
And let's see it happened to General flann and the
president just absolutely stunning the prosecutors.

Speaker 1 (10:47):
One of their problems is they don't care enough about justice.
Without justice, it's just us. We have to have justice.
They prized convictions. Their conviction rate is so important to
them that they'll throw everything else away. They'll lie, cheat, steele,
do whatever it takes to get a conviction because that's

(11:09):
the way they get promoted up.

Speaker 2 (11:12):
And that's not the way I was raised as a
prosecutor at all, not at all. We were told to
seek justice and if that meant standing in the courtroom
and doing a better job of representing the defendant when
his own lawyer was doing. That's what we did. And
we were supposed to keep judges from going overboard to

(11:33):
punish a defendant because we had some judges that were
so pro government they would they would just they would
take CRUs and favor the government. Which that's not the
worst postle out of this.

Speaker 1 (11:44):
They're officers of the court. That means that they have
to follow the judicial rulings of the judicial parliament. And
that doesn't mean that they have to bend over the government.
They have to be impartial. While this is probably one
of the reasons that a third of Americans have criminal records,
is that right, Sydney, a third of all Americans. You've

(12:07):
lined three people up, and one of those people at
least has a criminal record.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
And those are the statistics we found in our research.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
Did that blow you away, Sydney.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
It includes the rest and not necessarily convictions. But yes,
a third of Americans who had a close encounter of
a law enforcement kind.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
Are we that bad a country where a third of
the people have had arrest? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (12:36):
I think we are. I mean, we certainly leave the
world in incarceration. They call us the incarceration nation.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
Oh, that's not right. Some of it has to be
has to be changed. We've got over zealous prosecutors and
you're talking about limits on self defense. We've got a
right to defend ourselves and our property in this country, life,
liberty and the person suit of happiness, and originally was
John Locke said, pursuit of property. We're not learning about

(13:05):
civics in school. That's why the problems, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (13:09):
Yes, it's a huge problem. People don't have even a
fundamental understanding of separation of powers, the three branches of
the federal government, the role of the states, federalism, basic
concepts that anyone needs to understand and understand how this
country works and why it's so important to keep it
the way it is.

Speaker 1 (13:27):
In your book, while the chapters in your book, which
is incredible, it's called your chapter is you start with
catch twenty two. What's the catch twenty two?

Speaker 2 (13:42):
You're going to have to refresh well, talking.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
To the FBI, what can they do to you? That's
a catch twenty.

Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yes, okay, the very first chapter and setting up people
in interviews. Yes, the problem is that the FBI doesn't
record its interviews, and they can show up at your
house ask you a few questions. Most everybody was raised
to respect and cooperate with law enforcements, and if that happens,

(14:10):
you are essentially screwed because they can write up whatever
they want to write up in their report of the interview.
They only take notes, they don't record it.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
Now, what's that report called?

Speaker 2 (14:22):
It called the three O two.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Three to two right, And they can write whatever they
want to down there, and it doesn't really matter. So
you have no protection.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
No. In fact, in General Flynn's case, it was repeatedly
altered until it was finally approved by none other than
Andrew McCabe.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Now you couldn't even get the four o twos from
General Flinn's case for a long time, could you.

Speaker 2 (14:46):
Oh, we're still missing the original three O two. And
as best I can tell, one other draft as well,
they said it was not available or words to that effect.
And that's impossible because they're logged into the FBI sentinel
system and the draft is referred to in Paige Struck
text messages that we don't have. So it's out there

(15:09):
and it can't be disappeared if it was. Then there's
a trail in the sentinel system of how that happened.

Speaker 1 (15:15):
Now, let me ask you one simple question. In General
Flynn's case, who's the judge?

Speaker 2 (15:24):
Yeah, the judicial hero of my book License to Line right,
jam Sullivan is the judge in the Flynn case. But
the rulings have been completely different. I do not understand what.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
Did they do? Did they run somebody else and look
like in on you? Because this is a totally different person.
His language is everything is demeanor. It's totally changed, been
totally anti General Flynn. Whereas before he was a very
reasonable person who listened and he said we can't have this,
we can't have this overstretch of power. He did the
same thing with Eric Holder. He did that with you.

(15:57):
He said you that the prosecution can't have this over
stretch of power. Mueller, he excoriated these people, didn't he.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
Yes, he did in the Ted Stephens case. But in
our case, he's not every single request for exculpatory evidence,
even the actual documents the government itself had identified as exculpatory,
but only given us summaries of incredible.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
When you look at this that you're in court, you
and he wouldn't even give you. He didn't even order
the three oh twos, did he?

Speaker 2 (16:29):
No? No, he didn't order them to produce the original
three O two, which I found particularly troubling.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
Every day you had to go in there and said,
I want I want Emmitt Sullivan back. Not not this
guy who's seeing with the dress on today. You want
Emmitt Sullivan there, right, because you knew Emmitt Slivan to
be a good, honorable person.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
Yes, I was stunned when he did not grant her
request for Brady information.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
Uh, and Brady information. Tell again what that is. That's
just that they can't hide evidence. God produce the evidence.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Let you see, it's evidence. It's favorable to the defendant, right,
and they know either undercuts their case or mitigates the punishment,
impeaches one of their witnesses, or defeats their theory of
the prosecution.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
Now, one of your chapters, chapter five, I've got to
talk about this because it's so important in your book.
It's one of the crux. Dancing with the devil. That's
plea bargaining. That's dancing with the devil. I love the
underscore of that. You're dancing with the devil. Plea bargaining
You're not a big favor of some of that, are you,

(17:39):
Because they'll offer you the best, the worst and everything
and take this. Yeah, it's not a good thing necessarily,
is it.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
No, it's usually a result of charges being stacked against somebody.
They'll find any number of things to indicte you on
that overlap, and it's all based on the same conduct.
But as long as there's a different essential element in
each of the legal offenses charged, it's permissible to do that.

Speaker 1 (18:06):
So it's a got you once they start.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
Please margin against somebody and virtually force them to plead
guilty because they can't run the risk of going to trial. Right,
there's too many things to defend against.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
So we'll drop these charges. If you plead guilty on
these other charges, then they get what they want. Right. Wow.
Now you're saying the grand jury, and we'll talk about
that when we get back. The grand jury, you say,
ain't so grand? And I always thought that that was
the chance where the people had a chance to speak.
But no, they're more or less told what to do

(18:43):
in the grand jury, am I? Right?

Speaker 2 (18:46):
Yes, the prosecutors run the grand jury very strongly.

Speaker 1 (18:50):
Oh wow, But the people could stand up in the
grand jury and question the prosecutors. We'll talk about that
a little bit more when we get back. I want
you to get a copy of this book. It is
going to wake you up. It is called Conviction Machine.
And you've had a lot of people like Nuke Gingrich
who said it's a must read, and Walter also the

(19:13):
Kter Institute said read this book before you talk to
the FEDS and an investigation. If it doesn't terrify you,
read it again. Must have. We'll be right back with
Sidney Powell. We're talking to Sidney Palell. And when we're
talking about the grand jury and the prosecutor controls and
runs the grand jury, can they not ask the prosecutor questions?

Speaker 2 (19:37):
They can? I don't know that they're usually active enough
to do that. They tend to be rather led by
the prosecutor. And that's not bad if the prosecutor is
honorable and fair, but if the prosecutor's running a railroad,
it's terrible.

Speaker 1 (19:55):
Now, jury duty, and also on a grand jury, which
counts as jury duty, people have more The individual has
more power than they think, don't they.

Speaker 2 (20:06):
Yes, a single juror can stop an unjust conviction.

Speaker 1 (20:10):
Have you seen that happen very often.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Not very often, but it happens sometimes, and it'll it's
called a hung jury when they can't all agree on
all the charges. If they do convict on any single charge, however,
you can bet defendants going to jail, especially in the
federal system, because of the sentencing guidelines and how ridiculous

(20:36):
they are. That's another thing I'm vehemently opposed. Again.

Speaker 1 (20:40):
Tell a little bit about sentencing guidelines.

Speaker 2 (20:43):
Well, it's this huge complex set of regulations and calculations
that are supposed to help even out the sentencing process,
but it doesn't. What happens is it gives the prosecutors
far more power to control the sendence. Somebody's going to

(21:04):
get by the charges they choose to bring against them,
and how many they choose to bring against them, and
what dollar amounts they allege, whether they can prove it
or not. For example, in the Merrill Lynch case, they
accused the Merrill Lynch defendants of the downfall of Ron,
and I think it was a forty two million dollar
loss when the truth was that Inron had made money
off the Meryl transaction. It was a valid transaction. But

(21:28):
they tried to send the Meroral defendants to prison for
I think it was up to twenty four years.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
They didn't try. They were in prison for a year
most of the more.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
They yeah, they were in prison for up to a year.
But fortunately the judge did not buy the sentencing range
that the government wanted, except as to Jeff Skilling who
and they did originally send him to twenty four years
and he didn't steal a dime from ron.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
Now you have another chapter six, use the immunity statutes,
not backroom deals to compel testimony. How of what are
these backroom deals? In other words, if you ret this
person out, you won't be charged that type of thing.
So it's an offer you can't refuse.

Speaker 2 (22:13):
Yes, the yeah, it really is an offer you can't refuse.
You're looking at twenty years in prison or possibly two
years if you cooperate with the government. You know what
is what are most people going to take? Right of
the convictions are achieved a virtue of guilty police in
general Flynn's case, they've threatened to indict his son the

(22:34):
next day if he didn't go ahead and inter aplea
of guilty right And that agreement came as a result
of a secret side deal that wasn't revealed to the
district judge. I mean, there's so many problems with the
Flynn case. Actually, there are only problems with the Flynn case.
There was absolutely nothing ever done right by the FBI
or the DOJ in the Flynn case.

Speaker 1 (22:56):
They had to get rid of General Flynn because he
knew where the boss were, he understood the deep state.
He would have protected the president, so they had to
get rid of him. He was a danger to them.

Speaker 2 (23:08):
And he was going to audit the Intel agencies, downsize
the bloated National Security Council that Obama had pumped up
to like four hundred people, which is ridiculous. Shouldn't even
be that many people with that access to that information.

Speaker 1 (23:22):
And he did the same thing John F. Kennedy did.
He was going after the CIA.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
He was going to audit all of.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
Them, right, and that would have certainly been something that
these people didn't want. If you go after the CIA,
they've sold They even told the President, they warned him,
Brendan said, you're going after the wrong people. If you're
going after the CIA, they have a lot of control, don't.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
They They do, and a superior insidious.

Speaker 1 (23:50):
There's enough evidence to prove that they were partially partially
behind the assassination of President Kennedy. And so these these
people run their their own government. This is the deep state.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
It's beyond the deep state, deep and wide and pervasive
and very dangerous.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
They've got to get the.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
Power and control of this country back to the people.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Prosecutors proudly say we can convict indict a ham Sandwich.
They're proud of that. Now this means that they can
run rough shot over anybody. This much power should be
in no person's hands.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
It's very troubling, particularly if the prosecutor does not have
the scruples and principles that he or she ought to have.

Speaker 1 (24:47):
Now it's so.

Speaker 2 (24:47):
Important that prosecutors have the highest integrity and be held
accountable when they do not follow the rules, that accountability
is completely missing.

Speaker 1 (24:57):
I haven't talked with you very often since you started
the Flynn case. But how's it looking? What can you
say about it? How much can you say because they
start putting gag orders on what you can say about
any case if it looks like you're gonna.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
Win, yes, it's well, we're not under a gag order
per se in the Flynn case. But General Flynn himself
has chosen to exercise discretion as the better part of
valor and not speak on any of the charges. I
have been more vocal about it than prior counsel because

(25:34):
I'm just focal about it just in general, and don't
talk about it until I put it in the brief.
So I haven't said anything that isn't in the brief,
which by the way, can be read on my website
at Sydney Fall dot com. We've got a Flynn page
there so people can see the exhibits particularly or interesting

(25:56):
attached to our different motion.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Don't ever change now. What is the most egregious error
they committed against General Flynn?

Speaker 2 (26:05):
Oh gosh, it would be hard to choose just one,
because they actually started planning against him at least as
early as July of twenty sixteen, when he was active
in the Trump campaign and Trump got the nomination. The
struck page text messages on August fifteen talk about the

(26:29):
insurance policy they discussed in McCabe's office. The very next
day they opened the case against General Flynn, and the
day after that they slipped the FBiH and into the
presidential briefing because Flynn is going to be there. And
they wanted to assess his mannerisms, engage his reactions, and

(26:49):
collect information on him in the event they needed to
interview him later, meaning that if Trump was elected and
Flynn wound up in the White House, agent gets sent
to interview him on January twenty fourth, just a couple
of days after the inauguration. In the ambush interview that
McCabe and the others planned deliberately to keep Flynn unguarded

(27:14):
and relaxed without even knowing he was the subject of
the interview. And then they alter the three O two.
They don't They take notes of some things but not
of other things, and then they edit the three O
two for weeks until McCabe approves it. They, of course,
you know, had a media campaign going along with it,

(27:34):
like we've learned they did with the Stele dossier and
all of that stuff. So it was a very well
planned and orchestrated effort to set him up and frame
him and destroy him and getting out of the White House,
and then to prosecute him using the Special Council. And
the reason they had to prosecute General Flynn was to

(27:55):
keep the obstruction hoax alive against the president, right.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
They were really afraid. They were really afraid of General Flynn.
He was too intelligent. He knew what was going on,
he knew what was coming down. He wove informed the
president if he didn't have his own problems.

Speaker 2 (28:12):
Well, they had cleared General Flynn of everything. We found
evidence in what the government had produced by way of
summary that they cleared him. There's an FBIDOJ memo to
that effect. On January thirtieth plus. The agents reported back
from the interview to three different groups of people in
our long sessions, each that he was honest with them

(28:32):
during the interview, even though he didn't remember some things
that they knew he had said because they had the transcripts,
which is why they shouldn't have been asking him in
the first place. That's another catch twenty two. We already
know what you've said, and they asked you a question
about it, and you're not going to remember exactly what
you said most of the time. No, I mean, I
couldn't tell you what Judge Sullivan said in any of
our particular hearings. I'd go to the transcript and read

(28:55):
it if I wanted.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
To, that, right, I mean, this is absolutely railroad him.
And you've got his son, and then they kept fighting
until he ran out money.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
Yep I had to sell his house and threatened to
indict a son who just had a new baby. It
was just and they didn't tell him what they should have.
His lawyers didn't even tell him what all the government
had told them at the last minute. And then on
top of that, the government didn't tell his lawyers a
fraction of what they should have known. But of course

(29:30):
if they had, they wouldn't have brought the case to
begin with, because there was no case. They made it
all up. There was no crime.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
General Flynn was a soldier. Soldier. General Flynn was a
military man, and they broke him. It's an absolutely miscarriage
of justice from the word go. When we get back,
I want to talk about what we can do to
promote reform and what to do if questioned by that
FBI or DOJ. There's a lot of things that we

(29:58):
need to talk about with Sidney pal Nobody knows better
than Sidney Palell would be right back on Erskine Radio.
We're talking with Sidney Palell. And if you have to
be called in by the FBI or DJ or local law,
you really do you have a right to say, no,
I don't want to be questioned right now, or do

(30:19):
you have a right to say, I'll have my here's
my attorney's number. What's the best thing to do.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
The very best thing to do is to hand them
your attorney's name and phone number on a piece of
paper and instruct them to contact your lawyer. That is
all that should be said.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
Don't say anything, because even if you say something, it's
all perfectly right. They can misconstruc it.

Speaker 2 (30:44):
Can't they exactly. General Flynn definitely told them things that
are not reflected in their notes or three oh two.
Of course, the only copies we have are heavily redacted.
And then he did not say things that they did
write down and put into three o two. Their notes
don't match the three oh twos. Never mind that Judge
Sullivan said that wasn't material.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
That wasn't material that matches three zero two.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
Yep, yep, that was another stunning ruling.

Speaker 1 (31:14):
Oh my god, that's the same. Now, this is the
same hero of license July right.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
Right, the judge I've bragged on for six years all
over the country.

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Now, is mister Trump making any changes? President Trump in uh,
the way that things are going with the judicial system.
I understood they was making some change, especially to strengthen
the Brady Rule.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
I don't know what, if anything, they've done on the
Brady Rule yet. It's probably going to take legislation to
do that. Although every judge could adopt a Brady order
right now, it doesn't help if they don't enforce it,
like right Judge Sullivan. But I'm hoping that we can
get the legislation from the Fairness and Disclosure of Evidence

(32:05):
Act back on the agenda.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
What can we as individuals do to change the justice
to system? What can we do to help fight the
corruption that's endemic into the justice system right now, and
to take get the politics out of it. What can
we do as individuals? Is there anything we can really do?
Are we at their disposal?

Speaker 2 (32:29):
Well, we can first educate ourselves and each other about
what the real problems are so we can discuss them
intelligently and literally talk to all your friends about the
real issues. It's so important to get people aware of
the problem in the first place. And then in lots
of states, judges and district attorneys are elected, right.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
But everybody ignores that. Everybody looks at down the ballot
they ignore that part because we don't know who the judges.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Are, right, But that's another place it is hugely important
to educate your so off. Now the Democrats now are
all into this quote social justice warrior business, which does
not apply the rule of law by any means. No,
And sous is funding candidates for district attorney in all

(33:16):
the big cities which are letting people steal you know,
up to eight hundred and fifty dollars worth of stuff
from stores and all kinds of other ridiculous rulings.

Speaker 1 (33:25):
Right, that's in California because of the district attorneys that
they have, man, and that's a very Balan position.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
What it's in Dallas too?

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Oh oh good lord.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
Yeah, I was appalled to learn that recently. But we
have apparently a SOURUS funded DA Now.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
Soros is trying to destroy this country, is doing a
good job of.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
It, unfortunately. Yes, and that's got to be stopped.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
It really does. When you're looking at what happened, you
look at the fact that we're under Marshall law? Am
I going too far to the to describe it as
martial law? What we're under?

Speaker 2 (34:08):
That's probably a little far, because I don't think most
people are being arrested for defiance.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
Well, they've got people who are being arrested. One person
in Kentucky for just driving down the road by herself
because remember of her family had the coronavirus. People were
arrested for going outside and playing and doctor Simone said,
father with his child was going out.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
That was absolutely appalling. Right, Yeah, there have been a
few instances. They're not going to stand up in court.
I can't imagine that they're going to stand up. And
more and more people are suing now on these issues.
I know our meat Dylan in California has got a
number of lawsuits going. She tweeted that she was spending
the weekend working on lawsuits related to the abuses arising

(34:59):
from the cobD ring.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
Good for her, Good for her. But we've got these governors,
and some of them, not all of them, but some
of them, especially the Democrat governors in places like Michigan
and other places, are just putting in draconian things that
don't make any sense. They're keeping weed shops open, but
they're closing all sorts of other things. You can't buy

(35:24):
tomato seeds, but you can go into a marijuana dispensary
and get whatever you need. Some of these rules are
just insane. You can't go out fishing a boat by
yourself in Michigan. This is insane. You can't go to
your own home if you've got a second home in Michigan.
And now China is supplying twenty two states with drones

(35:46):
to make sure that people don't gather in groups. Now
this is.

Speaker 2 (35:51):
All that, And why in the hell we would be
using anything from China. No doubt it's going to transmit
data back to China. It is definitely fans is under
which that should be happening in this country at all,
much less using products from China to do it.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
Yeah, are their own spy systems they're putting into our country.

Speaker 2 (36:12):
And if some one's up buzzing over my head, it's
probably going to wind up looking like the skiat is shoot.

Speaker 1 (36:19):
Absolutely, but they're doing it. And if you turn your
television on, stay in place, stay in your house. However,
we learn from doctor Simone that sunshine kills this virus.
In other words, if sunshine kills it, when summer gets here,
it'll probably be gone.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
Yeah, I would expected to dissipate if the heat rises.
Most of them do.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
Right and sunshine makes the difference. But then to stay
in place. We also learn that it can last up
to seventy two hours on plastic, it could last twenty
four hours on cardboard. So stay in place. Is that
going to make a difference. Well, it's doing. It's throwing
Americas out of work, and it's causing so many problems.

(37:05):
I didn't think, now, how did they get this in
so fast? They used fear. They use fear. It's a
great motivator.

Speaker 2 (37:13):
That's always what they use to try to control people.

Speaker 1 (37:16):
Now, when you look at this and you're looking at
what's happening with the judicial system or any of these
cases on coronavirus, none of them hit the court yet,
have they No?

Speaker 2 (37:26):
Nothing I know of.

Speaker 1 (37:28):
When that happens, that could be very, very interesting. On
the conviction machine, I advise everyone to get a copy
of it, not that you definitely need it right now,
but it's something that you want to read. You will
need it for your own protection one time or another.
And you've got other actions for criminal justice reform, anything

(37:48):
else that you would like to suggest before we.

Speaker 2 (37:50):
Leave, I would like to encourage everybody to welcome jury service.
It's important to see how it really works and to
use your sense when you're on a jury. If you can,
you could sense if the judge or the district attorney
is trying to railroad somebody, or if the defendant is
lying and did what he's accused of doing. Of course,

(38:13):
a defendant has no obligation to testify, and that cannot
be held against them. But jurors are supposed to use
their common sense and reason and hold the government to
its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a
very important part of our system.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
We know judges have been removed from the bench for misconduct,
and one day and another how about prosecutors. Are they
ever removed?

Speaker 2 (38:36):
Virtually not No, and very few judges have been removed.
One was removed for bribery from Florida, if I recall correctly,
and he's now serving in Congress.

Speaker 1 (38:46):
Right right, So you don't you don't have very much
that has been done to prosecutors. We need to change
that to where if they are withholding evidence his exculpatory
evidence like happened in the Enron case, that happened with
General Flynn, these people need to be held accountable for
that because that's uh, that's suborning perjury.

Speaker 2 (39:12):
It really is. It should be treated as obstruction of justice,
for a subornation of.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
Perjury, and that should definitely be handled that way. And
it doesn't matter if the defendant does it. It's even
worse if the prosecutor does it, because he's destroying the
entire judicial system, and as an officer of the court,
he has to go by he or she has to
go by a higher standard, in my opinion, exactly.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
They should be held to the highest standards of all.
The FBI and the prosecutors.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
Both now did not JUDGEJIMMTT Sullivan at one point say
that he thought that General Flynn was guilty of treason.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
He didn't exactly say he was guilty of treason, but
he threw out the word treason that they hear on
December eighteen, twenty eighteen, And of course the news media
ran with that for a whole hour before he came
back on the bench and walked it back a little bit.
So that did a lot of damage.

Speaker 1 (40:13):
But to even say something about like that to General Flynn,
who has given so much to this country, that's a disgrace.
It's a disgrace to to Judge Sullivan. It's a disgrace
to his office. I don't believe in my heart he's
the sort of person who would normally do that unless
somebody or something got to him.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
I can't explain it at all. I have no explanation
for it. I was stunned, as everyone else was.

Speaker 1 (40:41):
General Flynn's very lucky to have you. He is absolutely
very lucky to have you. Anybody would be lucky to
have you defending them. Nobody's better. Sidney pal you are
a super lawyer, you best super friend. God bless you
for all the work that you're doing.

Speaker 2 (40:59):
Oh thank you Earth. Can I feel the same way
about you and appreciate all your work to you.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
Be sure to get a copy of The Conviction Machine,
co authored by Sydney Palell. It is a marvelous, marvelous book.
It's one that you need for your own protection. And
please go up to erskinradio dot com where everything is
up there twenty four to seven on the podcast and
on the regular broadcast, and remember Twitter at Erskine Radio.

(41:27):
Thank you all for doing that. We really appreciate it.
We'll see you next week. Thank you for listening. Hey,
thanks for listening to this Erskine Podcast at Erskine Radio.