Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Sam.
[00:00:30] Speaker B: Jeff Childers, welcome back to another coffee and Covid episode. Where's your coffee at today?
[00:00:35] Speaker A: Where is my coffee at?
[00:00:36] Speaker B: I know we gotta hook you up.
Thankfully, we're dealing with more coffee than Covid these days, at least face to face. We've in the, in the news, however, Covid has kind of popped back up recently.
[00:00:53] Speaker A: And it's going to keep popping back up. I say all the time the pandemic isn't over.
Right. But you're probably talking about our beloved paragon of the medical institution, Dr. Anthony
[00:01:06] Speaker B: Fauci, the man who protected the world, who saved us all.
[00:01:10] Speaker A: You got your bobblehead, don't you?
[00:01:11] Speaker B: Gave you a career in the midst of it. A second, third, fourth career in the midst of it.
So as Tulsi has been moving out of her office, she had a final disclosure day. And so from our research, that's been your leading topic.
Hundreds and hundreds of people are interested in engaging and commenting on in this dump. I think it was like 1600 documents, if I remember right. Somewhere in that department, Spolte's taking over.
They had Fauci lined up to testify in front of the congressional panel.
As he was about to do, that disclosure day happens. He pulls out. Why?
[00:01:56] Speaker A: Well, he didn't say why, but I think it's obvious.
For the benefit of anybody who's watching that isn't up on it.
Tulsi Gabbard was the Director of National Intelligence, which is the agency that oversees all of our 17 different intelligence agencies. It was created after 9, 11 to try to organize them better.
So it's a very powerful position.
She has been working on high profile cases like the 2020 election. She had a big Russiagate disclosure.
She was spotted in Fulton county taking boxes out of the Supervisor of Elections storage warehouse for the 2020 election.
And recently she announced that she was stepping down because her husband's got cancer and she wants to take care of them.
She gave about 30 days notice. During the 30 days, she started rolling things out.
The very last thing that she gave us before she left on her last day in office. And think about how significant that is.
You know, you're. Imagine you have a high profile job like that and you know, everybody's watching every tiny little thing that you do and you want to make your mark and you're on your way out. So choosing that last moment, you probably chose it pretty carefully. I think she did.
And as you said, she dumped 1600 pages of documents. And not just any documents. These documents are remarkable, maybe historic.
It was 1600 pages of internal intelligence community correspondence and internal reporting that they prepared during the first two or three months of the pandemic.
Almost all of it talking about the origins of the virus, whether it came from the lab or the wet market.
So right away you've got something that's never happened before. We have never had that kind of visibility into the intelligence community. I looked at, I did searches. I mean, we certainly had, you know, periods of time where, for example, the Congress investigated the intelligence community. And you know, they talked about MK Ultra and some things like that, but we never got a batch of disclosure where we could actually see them talking to each other and what they were talking about.
[00:04:34] Speaker B: Did you peruse the documents? Were they emails? Were they just briefings? What sort of things were in the documents?
[00:04:40] Speaker A: Yeah, from what I saw, they were mainly emails, letters and internal reports that had been all declassified. Now, they were still substantially redacted in places. I don't want to give anybody the impression that it was just, you know, opening the kimono completely or anything like that. But we've never, even in their redacted condition, we've never seen anything like this before. And again, unlike previous times, when Congress pushed the intelligence community to make disclosures, they this was voluntary.
So this is the head of the top supervising intelligence agency coming forward and saying, here we're declassifying and disclosing all of this information.
[00:05:28] Speaker B: Had Fauci at that point been subpoenaed? Had he voluntarily agreed to testify? Do you know where in the calendar that fell?
[00:05:37] Speaker A: Yeah. So the tip of the spear in the Senate is Senator Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, who's a well known libertarian, and he's been on the pandemic and Fauci thing for years.
[00:05:56] Speaker B: Also a doctor.
[00:05:57] Speaker A: Also a doctor. And he has grilled Fauci any number of times in hearings before.
I've spoken on panels where Senator Paul either spoke right before or right after us. And from what I could tell, he was talking off the cuff. He doesn't work from notes and I mean, he is as fluid and as familiar with the subject matter as any conspiracy theorist that you could find on the Internet, any credible one.
So he's all in on this. So he has been on a separate track unrelated to what Tulsi was doing over here. Rand Paul was negotiating with Fauci's lawyers for another visit to the Senate to testify again.
Now, as I'm sure you know, and probably most of the people watching the show know, Fauci got another historic pardon from Biden's auto pen machine that basically forgave him of all crimes.
[00:07:06] Speaker B: Second only to the gospel itself.
[00:07:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, you can't make anything. You might do the salvation from the auto pen.
And as far as anybody knows, that's a first. I mean, that's not really how it works.
Usually you're under indictment or you're being prosecuted or you've been convicted, and then you get a pardon. Not ahead of time, not prospectively.
And there are rumors about how it happened and there's, you know, some chatter about how Fauci himself was lobbying for that and that staff did it using the auto pen. And Biden didn't even know. Of course, he probably didn't know most of what was going on anyway.
It doesn't matter. But Fauci's got this historic pardon in his pocket. There's one limitation to the pardon, which is it doesn't forgive him for any crimes that he might commit after the date of the pardon.
Can't go in the future. So he can be, and it still has never been tested as to whether something so broad as any crime, you know, he murdered somebody, you know, doesn't matter.
Does that work? I mean, is that what the founders intended when they confirmed it? Universal pardon, the pardon. Right. And so that hasn't been tested. Then there's the auto pen issue, which has never been tested. So a lot of conservatives are just.
They are hot am bothered about somebody. The DOJ needs to test these theories and see if Fauci's pardon holds up.
It's. But here's the thing about that. It's not clear to me what crime Fauci could be prosecuted under. I mean, as soon as you go down this road, everybody's going to get excited and they're going to talk about Nuremberg and, you know, human rights and all that kind of stuff. But one thing about Fauci, I mean, I call him the human cockroach for a reason. And the reason I use that metaphor is because he reminds me of, you know, how they always told you that the only thing that would survive a nuclear war was the cockroaches. Right.
Like Fauci.
[00:09:14] Speaker B: It's a convenient metaphor.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: Yeah, well, and so, you know, there's certainly the implication that the man is a bureaucratic insect and that he's not like us and he doesn't share our human values and everything. That's all part of the cockroach metaphor and kind of gross and disgusting, but it's hard to kill is what I was really going for when I coined that.
And so he has carefully covered his tracks every step along the way. And you take his pardon, that goes all the way back to 2014.
Why would it go back to 2014?
Well, there's a good reason why it would go back to 2014, which is that's when they started moving the bio labs into Ukraine. Wow.
Obama, under pressure like 80 scientists, signed a letter saying the US needed to stop doing gain of function research, otherwise they were going to kill everybody by letting something leak out of a lab.
This is in 2012.
And so Obama signs an executive order saying that our agencies can't have anything to do with gain of function and they can't fund it and blah, blah, blah. And that caused Fauci, and we don't know who else he might have been working with.
I assume he wasn't doing it just by himself, but they started moving all the gain of function research out of the country, and it went into Ukraine.
Not just Ukraine, but if you picked countries that were third world, you know what holes, and that had, like, low oversight, no government enforcement, and easily bribed officials. Those are all the countries where the US Started setting up these bio research labs. And Ukraine was a big one.
The Russians have not made any secret about it. They've actually presented to the UN Security Council alleging that the US Was developing bioweapons to send them into Russia. And the Russians actually claim that the US did it. And they have things like, I mean, you would be shocked if you saw the evidence they've got.
They've mapped out all the connections between US Pharma companies, the US Agencies, and the Ukrainian biolabs. You can't even argue with that.
But the Russians found things like purchase orders where the Ukrainians were trying to buy drones that could carry a 20 kilogram payload that could be sprayed using an aerosol.
Military drones. Well, what would they put in that?
And so the Russians connected those dots. And anyway, that's why Fauci's pardons go back to 2014. But he was carefully working within the boundaries of the executive orders and the federal laws and everything. Because he's a cockroach. He's that kind of bureaucrat. Look how long he stayed in that position.
He made more than the president. Right.
But he's not protected from crimes that happen after the date of the pardon, which is, you know, whatever. February of last year. 25.
So he testifies and he lies. Then they can pursue him for perjury.
Now, in her disclosures, Tulsi Gabbard pointed out several times where Fauci clearly lied, and she included helpfully in her 1600 pages the documents that proved that what Fauci had said was a lie. And to give you a general idea, it had to do with the Congress. Folks were asking Fauci under oath whether he had anything to do with manipulating the intelligence community's findings on lab origin. And Fauci said he didn't have anything to do with it. He didn't even know they were working on it.
Well, the emails are full of his name. I mean, and even say he visits and doesn't sign the visitor's lock, stuff like that.
So Tulsi caught him in lies. Those lies would be covered under the pardon, so they would be under that period of time.
But you could ask him those same questions, right? As a lawyer, I do a lot of depositions.
I've had people ask me, jeff, you know, don't you hate doing depositions because people always lie to you? And I was like, no, you don't understand. Depositions are my favorite part of my job, because people lie so much.
The worst witnesses are the ones that only tell the truth, which is like 20% of witnesses.
And those are just difficult witnesses because their story's always the same.
They don't say things that allow you to get a little wedge in and then crack open the whole thing. I mean, the story's consistent. It checks out. If you later find documents, they line up with what the person said in their deposition and not contradict it. And so there's just not a lot for you to work with as a litigator with an honest person. But you give me a liar, and I'm having a field day.
That's my favorite. Yeah, that's where I get to use all that.
[00:14:28] Speaker B: Unless they've got a pardon, they have a blanket, universal pardon, and then you're kind of screwed at that point.
[00:14:33] Speaker A: So I was talking to a lawyer this week, and he was taking some deposition, and, you know, he was asking me some advice. It was an important deposition in his lawsuit. And I said, well, you know, you really only have one job. Just get him to lie in a way that you can prove it that they lied, and then you take them off the table. Because in the legal system, if a person, if you can show a witness lied, then the judge or jury are directed not to give any credit to anything else that they said. So if they lied once, that's fascinating. That takes them off the chessboard.
[00:15:07] Speaker B: There's a lot of ethical, moral, spiritual truth that could be bound up in that as well.
Just for the.
Speak as the oracles of God, you know?
[00:15:16] Speaker A: Yeah, I think. I don't know. What does Leviticus or Deuteronomy tell us about lying witnesses?
How they were supposed to be handled? I don't think this is anything new, particularly.
[00:15:27] Speaker B: It's an important statute principle.
[00:15:29] Speaker A: Yeah, but that's how core of an issue it is for, you know, our legal system.
And truthfulness is that just this week I was telling a lawyer, just get them to lie. And that's where Fauci's sitting. And he knows it.
Is that the only job Congress has at this point is to get that man to lie under oath.
So what happens when you sit Fauci down? And now they've got the 1600 pages and they have the Director of National Intelligence. Not some crank on Twitter or Instagram, but the Director of National. The sitting Director of National Intelligence. The peak of the US intelligence community is saying Dr. Fauci lied here, here, and here.
So you sit him down for the new one. The post pardon testimony at Congress under oath. And you say, Dr. Fauci, in the last time you were here, back when you were covered under the pardon, you. We asked you this and you said this. Was that true?
And what's he going to say?
[00:16:38] Speaker B: He's got to tell the truth at that point.
[00:16:40] Speaker A: If he lies, then they can get him for perjury. And that's five years for every lie.
[00:16:45] Speaker B: Okay, help me with this. Connect these dots for me.
Tulsi's a brilliant lady. She works with brilliant people. They knew that Fauci had agreed to come in.
If my goal was to get Fauci to lie under oath, I probably would have released those documents 10 minutes before the deposition.
Why did she give him time to back out?
Was that part of the plan? Is there something I'm not seeing there or was it just, you know, that the two. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing or.
What would you expect?
[00:17:22] Speaker A: You're asking really good and very interesting questions for which we have no ability to determine the answer.
[00:17:27] Speaker B: Speculation.
[00:17:27] Speaker A: And never will know.
There are so many wheels and wheels turning right now that it's even hard to speculate. But if I just take using Occam's razor. Okay, what's the simplest explanation for why she did it? Well, maybe she didn't trust whoever her replacement would be to get that stuff out. So she was holding it for the best possible time and she waited as long as she possibly could. But she was forced. Dang sure gonna get it in the record before she left that office. That would be Occam's razor.
[00:18:01] Speaker B: Would another possibility be that it implies guilt and gives them the ability to subpoena him, force him to testify at that point? Could the fact that she's released the documented sources, he refused to testify of his own free accord, could they subpoena him at that point?
[00:18:26] Speaker A: Rand Paul has. Rand Paul said he subpoenaed Fauci.
[00:18:29] Speaker B: Okay. I was thinking that it was more of a voluntary type appearance. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
[00:18:38] Speaker A: So let me tell you how all that works. That's kind of interesting, too. And I learned this because this is not my normal area of practice.
I'm just a poor, small town commercial litigation attorney.
But through a series of absurd coincidences, I represented one of the highest profile targets of Biden's January 6th committee, who was a billionaire that had donated a whole bunch of money to build the stage and the sound system and the security and the buses and all the infrastructure for Trump's speech, which right before.
[00:19:17] Speaker B: I didn't realize you represented him.
[00:19:18] Speaker A: Well, it was never made the papers.
And the reason is because.
So I'll just give you a little bit of the background so you can understand.
This person can get the best lawyers in the world, and did and hired tall building Lawyers from Washington, D.C. who are in Congress every day and represent people, you know, giving testimony up on the Hill every single day.
And they were all telling my client, you don't have anything to worry about. Just give them everything they're asking for. And what they were asking for was like 10 years of bank statements for every one of hundreds of this person's bank accounts. You can imagine how complex a billionaire's finances are. And they wanted to see everything.
They wanted all communications and everything else. And so this person got nervous, talked to a friend. The friend knew about coffee and Covid and had met me before, connected me and just, you know, said, hey, Jeff, what do you think I'm getting this advice. What do you think about that advice? And I said, that's the worst advice I ever heard of. I mean, these guys, you might be paying them $5,000 an hour, but that's terrible advice, you know? Well, they say, you know, it could get ugly. They could send me a subpoena. They could, you know, whatever, unless I do this voluntarily. And I'm like, no, well, if you're ever going to give that stuff, then do it on the other end of a court ordering you to do it. Don't do it voluntarily.
[00:20:39] Speaker B: That seems common sense, doesn't it?
[00:20:40] Speaker A: It does seem common sense. So, anyway, wound up. That's not my wheelhouse. I hired specialist lawyers to help, but this VIP wanted me to remain in, just supervising everything. So I learned how the whole process works.
And the way they start is they start the easy way. They ask nicely, and they say, hey, instead of us subpoenaing you, how about you come down here, testify, and give us some documents, and then you have a decision to make.
Historically, congressional subpoenas didn't have a lot of teeth because it requires the executive branch to enforce the subpoenas. If you like, don't show, like, then what happens? Well, you got to send the FBI or somebody in the DOJ over, and if it's a different party, then nothing happens.
Well, during the January 6th period, you'll probably remember, like, Steve Bannon went to jail for refusing to comply with his subpoena.
And there were a couple others, I think, Peter Navarro and some other high Trump administration folks, so that the Democrats set the new standard. The new standard is, you know, you go to jail for not complying. Now, before whatever it was, 20, 22 or whenever they started doing this, the rule was that a congressional subpoena was toothless anyway.
If you don't. If you say, here's as a lawyer, your next step is, well, we want to negotiate. We don't want. I don't want my client under the cameras up on the Hill testifying in public.
So we'll give a voluntary statement in private that y' all can record, but it's not for the news, and it's not sworn.
We just try to help. We'll testify, but not under oath. And then you begin the whole kabuki dance of negotiating.
Only when the negotiation stops does the subpoena come.
And then you start negotiating over the subpoena.
You raise objections to it. You file something in court, sometimes it goes all the way and you get a Steve Bannon type case. But those are very rare. Usually it gets worked out along the way.
[00:23:01] Speaker B: When you're testifying under Congress, you can't plead the Fifth at that point. Is that correct?
[00:23:05] Speaker A: That's a really good question, and it's very applicable to the Fauci situation.
So, coincidentally, this week, I also spoke to a group of tax protesters who are under investigation by the IRS right now, and they've been subpoenaed for testimony to the grand jury, which is not the same as Congress, but it's similar. Again, this isn't my wheelhouse, but. But what was interesting was that the doj gave peremptory pardons, immunity. They gave immunity to the two most junior of the group, the two youngest
[00:23:45] Speaker B: at the least, that are most likely to.
[00:23:48] Speaker A: And those are the ones who are getting subpoenaed first.
Okay. They didn't ask for immunity. Dogs did it.
Why? To take the Fifth Amendment off the table.
So the rule is that you can raise. You're not under the Constitution, you have a constitutional right not to incriminate yourself.
That's inviolable.
But over the years, they found little ways to get around that. And one way is if you can't possibly incriminate yourself because you have immunity or because you have a pardon.
[00:24:19] Speaker B: Gotcha.
[00:24:20] Speaker A: Then the Fifth Amendment isn't even on the table.
[00:24:22] Speaker B: Right.
[00:24:24] Speaker A: So that's why everybody's excited about the possibility of Fauci testifying.
[00:24:28] Speaker B: And do you predict that a subpoena is coming to force him to testify, or what do you predict will happen?
[00:24:33] Speaker A: Well, Rand Paul tweeted that he had already sent the subpoena to Fauci's lawyers.
[00:24:38] Speaker B: And within the 1600 documents, it's my understanding that the storyline that they seem to affirm shows that there was some coordination directly with Fauci to Wuhan prior to the COVID outbreak. And all these things happening, funding, of course, happening there. We know that was happening, but it might have been more broad than that. I'm trying to understand, I guess, what Tulsi believes happened. And we can't get inside. She's not on the show, sadly.
But I'm trying to figure out what is she suspicious of. Does she believe that this was a manufactured Cris that allowed for vaccine mandates?
What is the storyline that you are hearing her not explicitly saying, but sitting on the table?
[00:25:33] Speaker A: So what she advanced that is what I believe I could prove to a jury. From the documents that she produced in her relatively short statement, five or ten minutes about them, is the following.
And let me just right away qualify this. This might be a little bit of the lighter side of how you could interpret these facts. The most generous to Fauci, because that's the safest to prove it, because it still indicts him.
Now, whether there's an iceberg of even worse stuff below that there might be, I'm not saying there isn't, but this is. What the documents and Tulsi's statements show is that Fauci was up to his dirty little pencil neck in the Wuhan lab.
He was directly involved with EcoHealth alliance, who was the group that was partnering with the Chinese Communist Party. Over there to do all that stuff.
The research was explicitly gain of function. I mean, back then they weren't playing word games with it. Now they are right, they've redefined it 10 different ways. But back then they all understood they were enhancing coronaviruses to make them more infectious to humans and more deadly to humans.
And Fauci was like, signing off on the grants and the research and everything else.
His motives are not at issue. But the fact that he did it has now been, I think, more or less conclusively proven, at least to the point where I could convince any reasonable jury.
So then the pandemic happened.
And there is a brief moment, maybe a couple days at the most, where Fauci's communications show honest scientific curiosity about the origin.
But he was also concerned.
He was concerned because he knew they had been doing coronavirus research within a mile of where it might have occurred naturally.
And you have to be mentally specially abled not to connect the dots to that lab where they were doing research on sars, research on coronaviruses, adding spikes, adding fury cleavage.
Alternatively, they want us to believe that coincidentally, it just arose naturally in the wet market. Yes, or the pangolins or whatever.
Whatever the Chinese people were doing in that wet market, whatever sketchy stuff they were up to, somehow, just totally coincidentally, from the entire earth, the whole solar of the galaxy, the. The one place it naturally occurred was one mile from that Wuhan lab. Now, nobody believes that. That is a talking point. Man, that is a stupid narrative.
[00:28:34] Speaker B: I don't know how. You see, you're gifted in order. You should have brought in the quote from Alanis Morissette. Isn't it ironic the two things. I'm just expecting you to go there.
[00:28:45] Speaker A: Oh, my gosh, I'm just like, so tired of fighting that narrative. But anyway, so there was that brief little period where Fauci seemed to be like.
Like he hadn't made up his mind what he was going to do about it yet. But he was clearlyi mean, from the first instant, he already knew this was politically problematic. And then he went full out. He and Francis Collins, his boss, they went full force to control the narrative. And I mean, he, like I said before, he was going down to the CIA, going in there, meeting with people, not signing visitors logs, establishing himself as the primary expert on the lab origins, and then getting every intelligence agency to rely on his opinion but not name him. And then he worked to round up a bunch of scientists, all of whom were getting lucrative NIH grants, that he and Francis Collins were the approvers for. And he got that group to be the front folks. The beard for the official opinions that the intelligence community relied on.
That's what the documents show.
It was like one of those movies, right? How many movies have we seen where there's some rogue agency gone wrong because some bureaucrat wants to cover his butt for a bad decision that he made? It is like the cliche that that's what the documents show. Again, I'm not saying there isn't a deeper storyline, a deeper story there, but. But we can at least prove that much that Fauci was protecting his own butt. And so he. Now, this is not a small thing, right?
What's the main theme of every horror movie about a pandemic that you've ever seen? What are the officials always looking for?
[00:30:34] Speaker B: Smoking guns.
[00:30:35] Speaker A: What saves the day?
[00:30:36] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, the vaccine they find.
[00:30:38] Speaker A: Well, to get. To make the vaccine, what do they need?
Patient Zero.
[00:30:42] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, the original. Where did it begin?
[00:30:45] Speaker A: They're searching for Patient Zero. The whole movie. I mean, that's practically World War Z. The script, right? Outbreak with Dustin Hoffman, remember that one? And they had to find that little girl in the backyard that got bit by the monkey and all that stuff. So Fauci hid Patient Zero.
How different would things have been if had we known from day one?
[00:31:06] Speaker B: And that's in the documents?
[00:31:09] Speaker A: Well, yes, I would say that's. I could absolutely prove that to any reasonable jury.
[00:31:14] Speaker B: Wow.
[00:31:14] Speaker A: Beyond. At least beyond a preponderance of the evidence. So where does that leave us again?
And I want to just, you know, throw this out there too. I mean, on one level, putting. What does putting Fauci in prison at this point actually accomplish?
He's. He lost his job.
Now, yeah, that guy's 80 something years old, but, I mean, he looks like a 60 year old. He's on some kind of secret juice that they have down at the. Nah, I can't explain, but roaches do
[00:31:48] Speaker B: that, you know, they age well.
[00:31:50] Speaker A: I don't think they ever die. I think they just keep growing.
And he lost his security detail. He still has his pension, which is like huge because it's based on his outsized salary. He could lose that.
But again, I mean, how much longer has that guy got? So let's say we put him in prison for 10 years. That's a life sentence.
And what did we accomplish? Well, arguing against myself, we've sent a message to the rest of the community, the rest of the intelligence community and the public health community is that, hey, you could go to jail for this stuff. So that's important, and I'm not downplaying that.
But the trick now, I think, let me put it this way. We're better positioned to nail Fauci now than I think we ever have been before thanks to Tulsi's disclosures. Again, even without the pardon. If you could nuke that pardon somehow. If the DOJ spent 10 years litigating that stupid pardon, and finally the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do it like that, and Fauci's exposed, he's 93 now, then you still have to start looking for the crime. What did he do? Yeah, he did all this bad gain of function stuff, but where was he doing it? He was doing it in foreign countries that aren't subject to our laws.
[00:33:07] Speaker B: It's complicated.
[00:33:07] Speaker A: Yes. And he's probably got documents that have signatures from the president of Ukraine himself saying it was fine.
[00:33:15] Speaker B: He's not a dumb insect. Somebody has somewhere planned it pretty well for his benefit to protect himself through the nuclear bomb explosion.
[00:33:25] Speaker A: Right. And that's a very complicated case to make, even if you can find it. But now, thanks to Tulsi Gabbard, all we have to do is get him to lie under oath once. And that's how they got Al Capone and that's how they got a bunch of Communists during the McCarthy era.
[00:33:39] Speaker B: Well, you know, the only thing, maybe a different way of using the cockroach metaphor would be to compare it to some of the Mafioso, the Teflon don't, you know, to look back and things just wouldn't stick. I mean, whether it's, you know, the head of the mob or whether it's Clinton or whoever, it's just. It would not stick. They couldn't get the cases to stick.
And that segues. Do you want to speculate at all about Tulsi's future?
Do you think that she went out with a bang to position herself for a future run, or would that just be fruitless at this point?
[00:34:19] Speaker A: I mean, I would just observe that she's one of the most popular figures in the Trump administration.
[00:34:24] Speaker B: Bipartisan in a lot of ways.
[00:34:26] Speaker A: She's been in both parties.
So, yeah, I think she has a solid political future if that's what she wants.
[00:34:33] Speaker B: So the Antifa designation, 450 years. Just an idea. I'm looking. Your Law Order Men in Black article was your second leading, most commented on post in recent days.
And they're basically using those old RICO statutes to go after antifa as a group, is that correct? Am I understanding that Correctly rather than one by one.
[00:35:05] Speaker A: So I think you're compressing a couple different things into one. Not unfairly, but it's, we're missing some really juicy nuance doing it that way.
There's several things going on there that, all of which are remarkable and historic. For the first time ever, these are the first convictions. Now again, for readers who aren't familiar and I wouldn't be surprised because the corporate media hates this story. I mean, they, it's one of these stories that they love and hate because they're trying toit offends them on a visceral level. It's kind of like how we felt about the January 6th people. They feel the same way about antifa people.
[00:35:47] Speaker B: So the idea is Trump has designated them a terrorist organization. Is that accurate?
[00:35:51] Speaker A: That's correct. Last year he did that. And that said it triggered all the libs back then.
[00:35:56] Speaker B: And so in doing that, that gives him the right to prosecute.
How do you, and I think, I guess this is the other argument would be how do you prosecute someone? Is there an organization called Antifa where you could go to the website and see who's participating partners?
How do you prosecute that?
[00:36:17] Speaker A: So that's the one distinction that the corporate media has focused relentlessly on. They're obsessed with it. And that is the fact that Antifa is not a traditional top down like Al Qaeda where it's got a boss in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere. It's flatter in its organization. It's in cells. The cells are designed to, if one cell folds or gets caught, then they can't rat out any other cells. They can't rat out the people above them or below them. It's a horizontal structure, not a vertical structure. You with me? Yeah.
And the corporate media has seized on that to say, well, you know, in that case, it's not a real organization, which is baloney.
Horizontal terrorist cells have existed since probably before the Civil war.
Maybe they're more ancient than that. That is a well known way to structure your subversive organization to minimize damage from your losses. So that does mean Antifa is not quote, unquote real.
It also doesn't mean like the New York Times. Oh my gosh, those guys drive me crazy. They refuse to capitalize Antifa.
Now what is Antifa if not a proper name?
[00:37:38] Speaker B: Right?
[00:37:38] Speaker A: It's not a noun or a verb. I mean, it's not in the dictionary.
So come on. But they won't capitalize it. And that's their way of refusing to recognize that it's a reality organization, whatever.
They put MAGA in all caps and there's no MAGA headquarters or bank account. Boys, Oath Keepers, you name it. They don't have any problem with any of that stuff anyways. I digress.
So a bunch an antifa cell and within this cell, they were a paramilitary organization. They had encrypted communications, they had, you know, drop protocols. They had military grade medical kits and body armor and hundreds of firearms.
You know, so this is not just some First Amendment protestors.
[00:38:34] Speaker B: This is the July 4th. Are we talking about the same.
[00:38:37] Speaker A: That's right. The attack at Prairie Land in Alvarado, Texas. Okay, the Prairie. Prairie Land Detention Center.
[00:38:43] Speaker B: An ice center. They're attacking. They're planning the attack there. They were caught, prosecuted, and they were prosecuted under, is it correct to say under the RICO statutes or in a similar approach?
[00:38:56] Speaker A: Now they were prosecuted for all the common law crimes that you would imagine. Attempted murder, assault, blah, blah, blah. Then they were prosecuted for terrorism.
Now everybody wants to get caught up in, is it domestic terrorism or foreign test? Well, it's just terrorism, right? There's terrorism statutes that stand alone and conspiracy. So they didn't need RICO. The group's not that big. There was only 10 of them.
There's probably 50 people involved. And there's more that could be still be sentenced. But of the ones that participated directly in the attack, there was 10. Two of them turned state's evidence and cooperated. So it was eight that got sentenced and a collective total sentence of 450 years. The guy who was the ringleader who shot a police officer, who responded, just a beat cop that responded to the 911 call, they shot him in the neck. He survived by a miracle.
Anyway, that guy, the shooter got 100 years in prison. I think he's in his 30s, so that's a life sentence and that's fine. Attempted murder justifies that. Attempted murder gets sentenced the same as murder. You could get a life sentence for murder. So you should be able to get a life sentence for attempted murder.
Still, the New York Times spent all of its column inches comparing that to the sentences that they, the January 6th tourist got for walking and not shooting anybody.
Ridiculous. Ridiculous. The New York Times is trying to reduce this to a First Amendment issue that they were just. And they call them a gang of protesters. That's how the New York Times in the second paragraph described it, a gang of protesters.
[00:40:47] Speaker B: When you look at the designation as a terrorist organization, same thing.
Is it the same thing as what happened with the foreign drug runners that Gave us the right to, rather than board a vessel where they can throw the drugs overboard, just drop a missile on them. Is it the same? Is it the same designation from your understanding?
[00:41:11] Speaker A: So I think let's be careful to distinguish between foreign criminals and militants and US Citizens. US Citizens have constitutional rights.
[00:41:26] Speaker B: Foreign soil in international waters.
[00:41:29] Speaker A: Right. Apples and oranges. So let's not get too caught up in that. But there is another way where that is a really interesting point, and that is that the effect of Trump's executive order was not to create any new crimes. He can't. That's Congress's job.
But there are already statutes on the book that for designated terrorist organizations, the government gets a whole bunch of new powers, such as the ability to trace their bank accounts without warrants, to seize assets and do all kinds of nasty stuff to handle a domestic terrorist threat. And that was the significance of Trump's executive order, is that it just switched on this whole control board of tools that they can use to find out who's really, I mean, where does Antifa get its money from?
Who paid for that attack?
[00:42:17] Speaker B: This is what I'm observing. Like when I watch the comments on your post, it seems like there's a concern, and I'm not saying a devil's advocate concern, but a real concern, that if we can just designate an unnamed group or a named group, but an unorganized group or a horizontally organized group, as you said, as a terrorist organization, what's to keep that from happening as a double edged sword used against us in the future?
Could that come back and then just say, well, you know, there are these Christian nationalists now as a terrorist organization and if we identify them as such, all we have to prove is that they've done the acts that we've defined terrorist organization by. What would keep that from happening to us?
[00:43:00] Speaker A: So you mean like how the Biden administration, DOJ in 2021 issued its annual game plan and it identified domestic terrorism as the number one most important threat facing America. And then it was soccer moms, abortion protesters, orthodox Catholics, pretty much been down that road January 6th, tourists.
[00:43:26] Speaker B: Did he, and I think he did, if I'm not. Did he designate a particular group, like Proud Boys? Were they ever designated as a terrorist organization?
[00:43:36] Speaker A: Not in by the executive order, okay,
[00:43:39] Speaker B: Because I know they were prosecuted or the leader was prosecuted.
[00:43:43] Speaker A: The only difference was the Biden administration was too chicken to do it directly because they didn't want the political blowback and they were trying to get all this stuff over on us before we realized what was Happening.
[00:43:54] Speaker B: So is there any teeth to the argument that we might have opened a Pandora's box here by designating, don't get me wrong, I totally concur. Antifa by every shred of evidence that I've ever seen is a terrorist organization.
But by designating them that, if we can't define it down to the specifics, does it open a Pandora's box that could be used against us by future administration?
[00:44:28] Speaker A: So you're making the libertarian argument or you're describing the libertarian argument.
And I'm very sympathetic to libertarianism. I am a small government conservative.
I don't want bigger government or more powerful government. I want less powerful government and smaller government and.
But I'm not willing to go all the way libertarian and say that we, you know, people should be able to take whatever drugs they want and you know, there shouldn't be any zoning laws, eradicate laws, you know, and stuff like that. So this is where the boundary between conservatism and libertarianism lies. Conservatives are law and order.
Libertarianisms are, is more about freedom.
So freedom versus security. It's the age old thing.
We face some threats right now. Antifa is one those 764 style groups that are online that are corrupting children and getting kids to send one nude picture of themselves and then they blackmail the kid into doing the most horrifying things that you can imagine, that if you read about them you would wish you could unread it.
And these are organized groups worldwide that are trade strategies and are doing this stuff.
And they're horizontal, they're not vertical organizations. You can't drop a bomb on it.
So do we want the government to have powers sufficiently flexible to go after.
[00:46:08] Speaker B: I see what you mean. Stop.
[00:46:09] Speaker A: Okay, so that's the strong argument on the conservative side. I got you. But you describe the libertarian point of view. I think. Well, what I would.
My preference is that we continue to always have that argument because you know, pushing back and going, you know, a little too far, maybe this way, a little too far, maybe that way. But always keeping that discussion live is the only way to chart the course in between.
[00:46:37] Speaker B: Good answer.
The Iran deal. This is number three.
We were right. I think we started out with like seven to 10 conversation pieces. We're almost out of time and we've gotten through two of those.
So there's a lot to unpack here.
[00:46:53] Speaker A: It's a dense news cycle.
[00:46:54] Speaker B: It is $87.6 billion question.
It's my understanding, telling the G7 I'm the boss, birthday week, major win for Trump, but he asked for more than the Pentagon has stipulated it would be required to wrap up the war.
What's going on there? Why would he ask for more money than he needs to complete this project?
[00:47:28] Speaker A: Once again, you asked me a question that I have no way to know the real answer.
[00:47:32] Speaker B: But you are Jeff Childers, and you're on here for a reason.
[00:47:36] Speaker A: So speculating, which is all that we can do.
And let me say why. Why? Why do we have to speculate? Well, because we're in a war, and in a war, governments use propaganda.
And every time Trump tweets something about Iran, you don't know if that's what he really means or if it's a message that's aimed at the Iranians or the Europeans or the other Arab allies, or you don't know, and it could be intended to deceive them and make them think that Trump's gonna, you know. What does he always say? He says, that's it. I'm dropping bombs tonight, unless you change your mind. Well, is that true or is that posturing?
So we have no way of knowing. Every government does it. They've done it since the dawn of warfare.
There's nothing. I don't like it, but it is what it is. So we don't know my.
What I call my working hypothesis, okay? I use this in my litigation practice when I have a lawsuit. I don't really understand what the other side has been up to, and they've done some bad things, they've harmed my client, but I don't really know what their motives or incentives are. I build a working hypothesis, and then as I get more discovery, more evidence, I compare that evidence to my hypothesis and either proves it or disproves it. And I refine it, and it gets better and sharper.
So I have a working hypothesis for the Iran war. My working hypothesis is that Trump's in no hurry to end it. He doesn't want high gas prices. I think that is clear from his conduct. Just put all his words aside, because, again, we're in the propaganda war, so we can't put much at all on the words.
But whenever gas prices get up around $100 a barrel, then he does something so he wants to keep. And he's got the midterms coming up in November, so that makes total sense. It's perfectly reasonable.
And Americans don't like high gas prices.
So unless you drive an electric car, then you probably are like, yeah, well, that's Iran's. I want to fix the Iran problem, but I don't want to pay $10 a gallon either.
But as far as after that, after keeping the price of gas off $100 a barrel, then I think America is gaining huge advantages from that ongoing conflict.
The Europeans, the Chinese, and the Russians are the losers, and it's allowing Trump to have a lot more leverage in his negotiations with them.
On the other hand, what's going on inside Iran is very interesting.
There's multiple factions now. I don't think you won't see this in the corporate media, but I don't think it's debatable anymore. And so Trump is negotiating with one or more factions, and there's still one or more crazy holdout factions.
And so there was an attack in the Strait today.
Some tanker got hit by one of those little mosquito motorboats that they have, which doesn't even. Doesn't sink it or anything. It does some damage that costs, I don't know, whatever, a few $10,000 to fix. But it's, you know, it's troublesome. But who did it? Well, not the ones that Trump's negotiating with.
The other funny thing that I've noticed, just for color, is they've got this leader, Khomeini, who's the son of the previous Khomeini, who was the Ayatollah and the supreme, you know, blankety blank.
And we've never seen the son since the attack that killed his father.
So some people say the son's really dead. He was at the house when the strike Israelis hit the house and killed the Ayatollah. Others say or the irgc.
The Iranian faction that claims to now be led by him claims that he survived and he's still there. But nobody's seen him.
[00:51:39] Speaker B: Nobody's seen him. We don't even have Bigfoot video.
[00:51:40] Speaker A: I call him Schrodinger's Ayaktollah. You'll find out when you open the box if there's an ayatollah or not.
So the way the Ayatollah is communicating with the outside world is through these little letters. So he will do a little letter, and he sends it out. And that's, you know, the great words of the new Ayatollah.
And somewhere, I think it has to be the Trump administration. It might have been the Israelis, but it's just, it seems so classic Trump. Somebody else started sending ayatollah letters out that look just the same, saying the opposite things.
[00:52:15] Speaker B: It could be the auto pin. That's right.
[00:52:18] Speaker A: We've got the auto pin technology. Right. We know that and they can't. I mean, how do you disprove it if you won't show your ayatollah? How do you prove which one's the real letter? It was genius propaganda.
But again, I think it just illustrates that there's multiple factions.
The negotiation.
Imagine that kind of multiparty negotiation when you have a bunch of crazy Arabs who all have different incentives and you're trying to get them all on the same page.
I mean, Lord bless those negotiators.
[00:52:53] Speaker B: Let's end with this one.
It seems the case is being dropped against the MyPillow guy.
What was the motive behind the case in the first place? I'm talking 1.3 billion. Is that accurate information?
[00:53:11] Speaker A: That was the demand.
Although as a lawyer, I'm skeptical of those damages. I think.
Clearly you're talking about Dominion Voting system.
[00:53:22] Speaker B: Yeah. So Lindell has, on his own private channels, been preaching for years, since, I guess, the first Trump loss, that we've got a faulty voting system, that paper ballots are really the only way that we could, you know, keep election integrity rather than touchscreen type approach and that sort of thing.
Big, big agreement across conservatives with that.
He was sued for defamation. Was it by Dominion or was it a.
[00:53:55] Speaker A: He was sued both by Dominion and Smartmatic, and they sued a whole bunch of conservatives around the same time, including Fox News.
[00:54:03] Speaker B: So he's been battling that.
Why did they drop the case?
[00:54:09] Speaker A: So the two big, and I would say probably anybody watching this show, knows the names Dominion and smartmatic because we've been talking about them endlessly since the elections. Those are the two big electronic voting machine manufacturers who provided the machines in all the counties where we had problems.
And so people have been highly skeptical of both of those. Well, both companies have had sudden reversals of fortune since Trump got elected.
Dominion, they claim, because of all the defamation that occurred, which I'm very skeptical of, because they sell to blue counties.
And conservatives complaining that voting machines are tilting elections toward Democrats. Seems like a sales feature, not a bug.
I don't understand.
Now, I could see Red County's canceling their contracts with Dominion and smartmatic, but there are two others manufacturers that are more likely to be in a red county. So anyway, Dominion claimed financial problems and sold to a former Republican elected election official who has renamed it to Liberty Vote.
And so it's under new management, in other words. And new management has decided to drop the case against Mike Lindell.
[00:55:37] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Okay.
I didn't connect those dots.
[00:55:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:55:42] Speaker B: So are they going to change or are the blue counties going to change their contracts now or what's going to happen?
[00:55:48] Speaker A: Well, they're in a pickle because. Because I can't see any Democrat election supervisor signing a contract with a company called Liberty Vote.
Just the name.
[00:55:59] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:56:00] Speaker A: Really forget about anything else. Never mind the fact that it's run by a Republican and, you know, all those other things. And he says he's going to, you know, we're going to restore trust by redesigning the system from the ground up. So if there was any.
And of course, all the Democrats think they're Republicans are doing exactly what the Republicans make using the Democrats are doing this whole time. Right. Gaming the system somehow. Meanwhile, smartmatic is under indictment by the doj.
And I think it's got real problems. So I'm going to, you know, go out on a limb. If I had to make a prediction, I predict that smartmatic isn't going to survive the DOJ prosecution.
[00:56:39] Speaker B: I sat down today at the challenge of a friend.
We're coming up on the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country. And we're coming up on for us locally, for those who don't know, because viewers are scattered all over the world, but all across the United States, Christian Heritage Weekend here in Fernandina Beach, Florida. We're going to have the parade tomorrow at 5pm we're going to parade red, white and blue and the Gospel, the word of God down the streets of Fernandina beach.
And then we're going to have a big festival at the end where people will be speaking and praying and worshiping all evening. And so someone made the challenge. They said, well, why don't we have someone read the Declaration of Independence during that? So I thought, okay, well how long would that take to read? So we're making sure we could fit it into the schedule. It's about a 10 minute read. It's a pretty quick read.
It's kind of heady in some ways that I don't know that the average fourth grader could comprehend some of the arguments within it.
The charges at least would be kind of heady. But just in reading through that, I was reminded that these conversations are important, that we were founded on a few guys sitting around and saying, you know, this isn't fair the way it's operating and eventually deciding to declare themselves independent from a foreign power.
And so let me just say that to say as we enter into this time of celebration, thank you for the work that you do on Coffee and Covid. Thank you for coming on shows like this. Keeping the conversation active and keeping them honest. I appreciate what you're doing.
[00:58:22] Speaker A: You're welcome. Thank you for saying that.
[00:58:24] Speaker B: Thanks for being on Code Red today.
[00:58:25] Speaker A: It was a great pleasure.
