I remember I used to use this thing called YouTube and it worked actually really well except for the fact that there are a bunch of Communist running it and they just ran around deleting things and banning people and suppressing videos But technologically it actually worked like you just basically started your stream. Hey there. I am my mom rumble Isn't that fantastic and it only took me three minutes to get it up up and running so fantastic. Thanks rumble Thanks a lot guys. Okay, so ladies and gentlemen. It's real politics and it's time to get started So let's place some intro music Charlie I Welcome to real politics The 65th episode of stage one July 1st, 2024 being the current year. It's already July. Are you kidding me? Independence day right around the corner and There's a lot going on today ladies and gentlemen fine members of the gender binary. That's all of you I sent out the the blog post for the show today Which I'll get to it a minute but right before airtime I get this message That Nathan Domingo posts to telegram I just received news right now that the fourth circuit has issued a ruling on my appeal from my attorney This is pertains to the science decaisler case You're ruling from the fourth circuit. We lose on joint and several liability on Punitives you got a split decision the cap does apply but on a per plaintiff basis so punitive still reduced Still reduced still a few million now That's the quote from the lawyer Nathan continues So while everything we had challenged was not ruled on in our favor We did obtain a substantial victory. I will provide further updates once I have a better grasp of the ruling its entirety And this is infuriating to me Because that's not a victory What happened at the end of the science decaisler trial was that Virginia has a statute that says Punitive damages are limited to 350,000 dollars per action So if you bring an action with nine plaintiffs and six counts That's one action and punitive damages are limited to 350,000 Even if you sue a dozen people with a dozen plaintiffs And so the judge ruled correctly on that and then the plaintiffs turned around and said well first off the the Black letter law here shouldn't apply because what they did is just so outrageous So there should be no cap on the punitive damages and if the punitive damages cap stands it should be limited per plaintiff otherwise plaintiffs won't join together to sue jointly And that's a fine thing to discuss with the Virginia legislature if you want to tell the Virginia legislature that they passed a dumb law that they should repeal it because this Disadvantages you know group lawsuits. Okay. Well, that's a that's a sensible thing for you to talk to your legislator about But that's not what the law says And yet the forest circuit ruled that you know, we're just gonna do it this way anyway because screw you guys More to the point You know, I don't care if they tell me I owe these people one dollar or or a trillion dollars as a matter of fact like it's the same exact problem It should made me not the same exact problem if it was one dollar I might pay them just to get out of my hair But anybody who thinks that I'm gonna be like working my ass off to to pay a bunch of people who lied in court for Roberta Kaplan, you know Well, I shouldn't get into that frankly, but like it's an unpleasant prospect for sure So I didn't argue any of that crap in my appeal. I didn't argue that you know, I didn't argue about dollar amounts are you crazy like They sued us for racially motivated violent conspiracy as Evidence by the jury deadlocking on counts one and two that is not what we were found liable for we were still found liable on counts three and four and Counts three and four include a harassment theory of liability Since we were not sued for harassment We cannot be found liable for that therefore the verdict is invalid That's a perfectly sensible Valid and by the way obvious argument and it's incredibly suspicious that the lawyers didn't make it they didn't even argue that point at all And so when they split the appeals they said okay all the lawyers You're on this docket and Christopher Cantwell and Jeff scoop you're on this docket I don't think scoop's done anything with his appeal I Put in my opening brief. I'm waiting to hear back. I don't know what else I'm supposed to do But when we were talking about Roberta Kaplan getting kicked out of her own law firm I went and I read the wiki pd article about the signs of decessor trial and they said in the wiki pd article that my appeal Says that the verdict should be overturned because uh the my trial preparations were interfered with by my incarceration Well, that is one aspect of the appeal, but as a matter of fact the appeal begin the the opening brief of the appeal begins with The thrust of this argument is and I talk about the idea that we can't be found liable for something we weren't sued for That's that's what I open it up with saying is that that's the thrust of it The issues of my trial preparations being sabotaged by the United United States government or something I bring up later in the document More is a way to like illustrate how corrupt the entire thing was like I'm in jail these people are not serving me with documents 14 months goes by I find out that you haven't kept me in the loop you drop a two terabyte hard drive on me in a county jail And then take it away from me and send me to a federal prison and in the federal prison not all the time my documents and then you just ship me off a trial Like that's completely insane and It evinces a design that the government's interfering in the legislation And so when we're talking about Roberta Kaplan getting kicked out of her law firm I said like she's getting me to like Andrew Cuomo style like as a matter of fact That's not what she she's not being kicked out because She said insensitive politically incorrect things obviously Everybody knew that she was working for Andrew Cuomo and like defaming his sex assault victims, right? Everybody knew all that Roberta Kaplan is the law fair lawyer, okay? She's the one who runs around she supports perjury for a living and somebody wanted to go put her on a judge ship list And then they took her off and they're like as soon as somebody with an ounce of power gets in front of her and gets ruled against They're gonna expose what she's been doing. No, we can't allow that So rather than allow her to continue doing what she's been doing they me to her They said yeah, you know, you're not living up to our feminist standards and so we're gonna kick out a law firm The argument that I make in that appeal is obvious If you sue us for violent conspiracy You don't find a violent conspiracy you can't find as liable for something else throw the whole thing out Why didn't the lawyers go after that? Well nobody's actually provided me with a satisfactory answer of that And I don't want accused people of things, but like it's suspicious frankly, right? Like it there's actually not a reasonable explanation for the lawyers not mentioning that in their brief There's not a good explanation for that Hence one has not been provided and so then they come back and they're like yeah, guess what you know um We're still limiting the damages to 350,000, but we're just gonna do that, you know, nine or a dozen times however many plaintiffs there are So you still owe these people millions of dollars But it could have been a lot worse. It could have been like billions of dollars But I'm not only what they're saying. I mean not literally, but Well, no like The idea that these people are gonna extract millions of dollars for me is preposterous Ha ha I don't have a million dollars to give them first of all And the idea that I'm gonna work my ass off to try to get it is completely nuts The only way that justice can prevail in the case is that the verdict is overturned That's the only thing that can be called victory And so there's that that's the update on the signs of e-cassal trial in any case. We'll see what happens 217 688 1433 if you'd like to be on the program and the more you took the less I have to so please do give us a call um Libertary out since 14 dollars 33 cents on Odyssey said news Chris, but at least Roberta got fired from her own firm. Yes I won it doesn't matter how many shekels they try to shake out of me, you know, it's it's a matter of three extra shekels Go ahead get you got you that's what you got your that's your that's your victory on appeal three extra shekels enjoy them, you know but The Situation is such that like so they split the lawyers off and they say okay the lawyers are on this docket and you're over here with Jeff scoop Yeah, what are they gonna do? Here's my guess. I'll be out lawyer. Okay, some paperwork snafu will prevent them from ruling on the issue and you know At this point I don't have the energy to fight them anymore like I'm I'm really like I'm I'm spent so We'll see what happens. I'll keep it posted of course. I haven't heard from the court on my appeal in a very long time I have no idea what's going on so We'll see what transpires But the supreme court of the United States handed down some very significant rulings today Most notably one regarding Donald Trump's claims of immunity from prosecution There is some nuance to to the decision and I'll read actually an article about it briefly uh momentarily But ultimately the court ruled that Trump cannot be held liable for things he did in his capacity as president Moreover anything connected to those duties cannot be used as evidence against him in a proceeding for conduct not viewed as part of his presidential duties So like the way I understood it as it was explained on fox News today by Andy McCarthy was like Okay, say the fake electors scheme as it's been called Well if he goes and he discusses that with attorney general bill bar that conversation can't be used as evidence And as a matter of fact like the prosecutor cannot try to infer his intent Okay, so part of what jack smith has been doing is basically being like well You know if Donald Trump had this state of mind then it was this but he had this state of mind and that's what we intend to show But the ruling my understanding says that jack smith actually can't do that like if the president United States has powers you're actually like an inferior port part of the executive branch like you can't come in and Go after him in a subsequent presidency And just like say no, I know what what was in his heart at that time because that's preposterous And so I'll read that in a little more detail later on we'll we'll try to get a better grip on it And As you might have guessed the left is in hysterics the party of race riots and replacement level illegal immigration is fervently reminding everyone as you've heard them say a million times that nobody is above the law And prior to the announcement today of course news coverage had remained saturated with talk of whether or not Joe Biden will remain the Democrat nominee a Democrat party's nominee for the upcoming presidential election if you look at that like It's disgusting what its family is doing who wants him to stay in the race. It's Joe Biden. It's Hunter Biden of all people I read an article today that said that Hunter Biden wants Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race so that His reputation can be repaired so that Hunter Biden's reputation will be repaired What I got news for you like that's not gonna happen if your if your father was King of America for the next century your reputation would not be restored by that The idea that Joe Biden stays in the race and then Hunter Biden becomes you know Somebody that you can build a monument to and not be mocked for it. That's preposterous Hunter Biden's a crackhead criminal Who Was laundering money to his father from foreign interests that Joe Biden now serves There's no restoring your reputation crackhead kid like you you completely destroyed it and So why are you doing this your father actually? I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for Joe Biden, but like you know I'm not a fan of elder abuse like you you have a bunch of people who are fundamentally don't have to deal with this problem Putting this guy through something that he's not equipped to deal with because they want things And actually that really pisses me off like probably as much as anything Joe Biden does But as I said on a prior broadcast like it defies belief to think that any of these people Fainting shock at Biden's cognitive decline are nearly so surprised as they would have his belief Everyone who knows anything knew that Joe was a mess and the people who lied about this for the last five years had to know that they were lying And while Democrats may want to throw Trump in prison They certainly would make the exact same arguments as he is making if Joe Biden were to end up on the business and of an indictment So the idea that they are so surprised by the immunity ruling is equally preposterous But arguably there could be another dimension to the phenomenon This would not really be so uncommon either particularly in the realm of politics I've seen this pathology emerge in every facet of the human condition Specifically the stubborn refusal to accept that one is incorrect about a given subject matter how much evidence is presented Most often emerging in response to some animus against the person or group providing the correct answer Oh, well, he said it was right that it must be wrong, right? What do they say about Donald Trump at the end of that debate? Well, Jill Biden she goes out and she says oh Joe Congratulations Joe you answered all the questions that your presidential debate you knew all the answers Very good son, you know like he's a kindergartner Congratulations for not skipping half the test like what are you talking about And then she comes out and she says what is Donald Trump to Donald Trump lies And they're all saying that Donald Trump is lying at the debate. Okay, so like so what does it matter? So what if he was what does that make him any different from anybody who's ever run for president Why are you freaking out about the lies if you were so upset by lying you want to be a Democrat? So what is this about People dig into their positions When challenged to admit the other side was right in this mindset would be to forfeit all other arguments Trump joked during his presidency That if he wanted to get the wall built he should just announce that he was opposed to the wall and the Democrats would promptly build it just to defy him And the crowd laughed at that. It was kind of a funny joke, but there was actually a great deal of truth to this You know the left I think the left more broadly, but the left particularly in this country Seems to have just traded in anything resembling an ideology for oppositional defiance disorder All they have left is to be disagreeable, right? They have no positions just opposition And to the extent that they you know impute positions. It's just to fuel the opposition, right? Take take socialized medicine all their health care nonsense, okay What they're doing is they're saying capitalism is evil because you don't have health care and then they're saying well Then people say well, what are you gonna do? Oh, we'll just have the government take it over And then you ask them about this day. I have no idea how that's going to work They just say yeah, you know Bernie Sanders is like oh well these other countries do it. We have all this money Yeah, we can do it That's Bernie Sanders answer to how we can we do it? He has no idea how to do this He hasn't considered the prospects of what happens when a single entity pays for everything and there's no price competition in a marketplace He acts like he's never been exposed to that question So when the left comes in they say like oh, you know, we're for a cap and trade or whatever. We're for socialized medicine Don't mistake that for them having positions on issues what it is is that they're just opposed to this thing they call capitalism They're like oh the market economy is just wicked we hate it and so we're gonna do these things that damage it because we're oppositional to All that is decent and good frankly Their fragile coalition of the other ganging up against the white heterosexual male required this kind of narrow-mindedness Trying to convince gay men white women black folks illegal immigrants and gender freaks that they were all in the same boat Despite having so little in common Required that they focus all of their attention on a unifying enemy And to be sure this can reduce one's cognitive burdens not much thought is required when you simply oppose Everything someone else says or does At all the thinking is done for you by the opponent He goes through the trouble of thinking things through and you know Creating processes and trying to accomplish goals and you just come in and wreck everything right It's a lot easier to destroy things than to build them you've heard me say that a few times And we see the pathology emerge in other contexts notably with anti-semitism or fact While there are plenty among them who are like respectable intellectuals who put in a lot of prudent thought The louder voices are almost invariably Those who dismiss everything is a Jewish trick and latch onto any Real or imagine signifier of Jewish influence as an excuse to declare an effort or individual all part of the Jew world order or whatever stupid catchphrase They're using in the moment And so this pathology it's common enough But it's particularly insidious with the political left because they've essentially decided that truth itself is the enemy Anyone who dares to say that there are only two genders that congressional spending might have a meaningful impact on inflation Is condemned as a moral outcast by people who tell you there's no such thing as morality It's not just that they lie as a matter of convenience for them. It's actually become a matter of duty Their mission today is to be in perpetual defiance of all that is Two on seven six eight one four three three like to be on the program and the more you took the less I have to Just to please to give us a call. Let's go read let's go read about this supreme court decision Most of what I have from this today honestly I caught watching Fox News today. I haven't read the decision in its totality Um, here's a piece of bright bar Trump wins supreme court says presidents covered by immunity for official acts The US supreme court ruled in favor of former president Donald Trump on monday holding in a six three decision that presidents are covered By limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office The court held according to the summary of the decision quote under our constitutional structure of separated powers The night the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts There is no immunity for unofficial acts The court also ruled that a president is entitled to a pretrial hearing on immunity that can be appealed all the way to supreme court before trial begins This means that any trial of the former president will take place after the november 5th 2024 election Chief justice John Roberts riding the opinion for the courts conservative majority said quote This case poses a question of lasting significance when may a former president be prosecuted for official acts taken during his presidency Our nation has never before needed an answer But in addressing that question today unlike the political branches and the public at large We cannot afford to fixate exclusively or even primarily on present exigencies In a case like this one focusing on the transient results may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our republic The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts and not everything the president does is official The president is not above the law But congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution And the system of separated powers designed by the framers has always demanded an energetic independent executive The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers And he is entitled at a minimum to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the oval office regardless of politics policy or party In a footnote justice Roberts refers to last week's decision in Fisher V United States limiting federal prosecutors use of 18 USC 1512 C2 to pursue January 6th defend and saying that the trial court should also quote Determine in the first instance whether the 1512 C2 charges may proceed In a concurring opinion justice Clarence Thomas question the constitutionality of some disappointment Quote I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure In this case the attorney general purported to appoint a private citizen as a special counsel to prosecutor for president on behalf of the United States But I am not sure that any office for the special counsel has been established by law as the constitution requires By requiring that Congress create federal offices by law The constitution imposes an important check against the president He cannot create offices at his pleasure If there is no law establishing the office that the special counsel occupies then he cannot proceed with his prosecution A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone let alone a former president No former president is face criminal prosecution for his act sullen office in more than 200 years since the founding of our country And that is so despite numerous past presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people The lower court should thus answer these questions these essential questions Concerting the special counsel's appointment before proceeding we must respect the constitution separation of powers in all its forms Else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the courts three liberals in descent riding Never in the history of our republic as a president had reason to believe who would be immune from criminal prosecution If he is the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law moving forward. However all presidents will be soaked and cloaked in such immunity if the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal game the criminal law That the rest of us must abide by will not provide a backstop with fear for our democracy. I descent. I'm sure you do The case will now be remanded and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president and federal court in Washington DC relating to the capital riot of January 6th cases trump v united states number two three dash nine three nine in the supreme court of the United States now Couple things to go over in there The question of official versus unofficial acts There's obviously some room for debate there has talked to somebody just before the show Who felt like this is sort of a cop out on the part of the supreme court I'm like I don't know like if the if the president goes in order is the military to go kill somebody you can question whether or not That was wise, but it was certainly an exercise of his powers because the reason that the military kills people is because They are obligated by their oath to the constitution to obey the orders of the president of the United States not the orders of some other guy If Donald Trump goes down to queens And says hey, you know malania is being a b-word and I want you to whack my wife and I'll give you a million dollars into the table Just make sure you don't tell them the york times Or he's now he's just like higher in a hitman off the street that's not an official act, right And so it's an obvious distinction as a matter of fact to have that difference there I don't think anybody reason of any reasonable person thought that the the the supreme court of the United States was gonna say As long as you're elected to the office of the president of the United States you can do whatever to F you want I don't think anybody was I don't think the I don't even think the trump defense team was saying that You know It's just a question of Are your official experts and of course they are You know when police officers are sued for any number of things the cases get thrown out generally speaking You can sue the department but not the cop why because the cop is qualified immunity Why does he have qualified immunity because he can't do his job if he doesn't if he's in a lawsuit every time you upset somebody Right like you can't do this job. It's crazy I don't know this thing about the you know the appointment. It's That's into the weeds as far as I'm concerned Um, I'm trying to pick up a part give me a second You Never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution If he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law as a matter of fact. Yeah, that's that's completely fake What it Richard Nixon famously say When the president does it. It's not illegal, right? Like this is that this is absolutely not the first time that that's happened And you know and the idea that the cut that the president is supposed to operate within some constitutional confinement is preposterous on its face Right, so like the entire government of the United States is We were living in a post-constitutional order and they just invoked the constitution Basically for vanity at this point. They're like what other Claim to legitimacy can our government have But the average citizen doesn't have the biggest idea what the constitution means And so they vote for anybody who tells them the things that they want to hear Well, like nothing that a voter wants to hear is guaranteed by the constitution right I'm gonna make sure that you're happy and you have a good job and you know And that your your your sex life is approved of by religious people or whatever stupid promise somebody's gonna make right You You go out and you tell those people that they vote for you you get elected you do whatever you want That's actually what the president does There's some limits on his power. Yeah, but those limits are basically defined by what the bureaucracy will do And we found that out during the jump presidency probably more than any other time right Rogobomic could do whatever he wanted All right, I've got a pen and a phone he famously said And Bill Clinton stroked a pen law of the land pretty cool a Donald Trump comes in there. He's got like a law from Congress to go Do a specific thing He's citing his constitutional power to do it just the bureaucracy won't move because they're like screw you guy where the resistance So like you've got a situation How is the president supposed to stay within his constitutional boundaries When there's the FDA and the HHS and the Department of Education all the stuff and none of its authorized by the Constitution How is the president supposed to manage federal agencies that Congress authorized That are not part of the Constitution Well, he obviously can't do that right So the idea that the president's supposed to be a Scholar in constitutional law or that he's supposed to ask bill bar what his powers are and then stop where bill bar Tells him to stop as ridiculous. It's fake all right. It's complete nonsense And so what they're doing is they're sending it back to the lower courts and like they're basically saying yeah what the president does is Immune and and If we want to strip you of that immunity will just say that you were not acting as president the course of that And That's big enough that you know, you can do it when you need to say but you know, you're gonna you have a reasonable Expectation say that if you're some left-wing fanatic prosecutor and you're gonna try to bring a case against the right-winger then you know You're gonna end up in front of the Supreme Court If you're prosecuting a president, you know If Joe Biden gets indicted for I don't know conspiring to destroy the United States of America with immigration He's gonna go into a court and he's gonna say I'm taking this all the way to Supreme Court like I have immunity shut up And if there's any justice in the court, I'll turn around and be like no, no, no Your obligation is to uphold the laws of the United States and if you choose not to enforce them Then you're not acting as president and therefore we're gonna we're gonna throw you in prison for the last 15 minutes of your life Because you're already dead, aren't you? These people are just sort of walking you around You know because Hunter Biden wants more crack is basically the idea Joe Biden's whole life is to be weakened at Bernie's for hunter Biden's crack habit, I think And so I think that that's pretty much it. You know, I could probably do well to read the entire decision and get a more nuanced The other thing that's not mentioned here, but that Andrew Andy McCarty was talking about on Fox News today It's the idea that like okay, what his official act you can't use against him in other proceedings, okay? So um I think I might have said this earlier in the show and I don't remember if I said it on the show if I said this to somebody else I'll repeat it one more time But like you know the fake electors thing I heard about that while I was still in jail Like Jared how told me about about that over the phone and I was like Somebody's gonna go to jail for that like that's definitely fake you You go and you just have a bunch of guys say yes We represent the state of such and such and we say that Donald Trump won the election like that You're definitely good. Whatever does that is gonna get indicted That was facially preposterous totally obvious to me And so That being the case, let's say they they indict him for the fake electors scheme and they say well That's obviously not his role as president. He doesn't work for the state government It's not his job to decide who the electors are He's trying to interfere in their election in a corrupt fashion by sending fake electors Okay If they say okay your conversations with bill bar we're gonna subpoena them No, you can't do that because that's the official access precedent right Your communications with uh, you know other white house advisors you can't have that because that's official presidential stuff And that guts a lot of the stuff that they're trying to do to them Because if they're trying to prove intent this is hugely relevant right If you if you're saying that Donald Trump knew that the fake electors scheme was a fraud And the evidence is that he had a conversation with bill bar and bill bar told him that it was crack pot nonsense Well, you're gonna have to find some way to other way to prove that intent because you can't have the conversation with bill bar You can't have the conversation with the attorney general that's presidential power and the prosecutor can interfere with it That seems sound to me frankly right You take things Spend a little time in a courtroom and you'll see what Clever people in the business of constructing narratives do is that they'll piece to together things right They'll say okay, well you did this you did this you did this and because I connected these dots You know this pattern of behavior indicates that you had this intent right And that's like jenga you like you pull those pieces out and it just doesn't work anymore And so I Think that that is actually pretty significant in terms of the ruling Let's see here Based bots sends one dollars has on with it um You see to that seven minutes ago we've been added for almost 40 minutes. I hope that everything is working Oh, we got spammers on rumble, you know No, that's not what I wanted to do. I want to bend that guy and not look at all the muted users There we go All right anyway two one seven six eight one four three three like to be on the program And I'm where you took the less I have to so please to give us a call pull up another story here Nikki Haley oh my god this idiot. I can't I shouldn't say I can't believe it because she's Nikki Haley right She still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea. Why would I be surprised at other stupid, you know Crackpot ideas that come from her head Hailey warns trump to prepare for younger rival renews calls for cognitive tests The former GOP presidential contenders as democrats should move on from Biden. Well, that's obvious Nikki Haley the runner up to Donald Trump in this year's GOP nomination race said democrats need to dump president Biden as their Presumptive nominee following his halting debate performance as she reiterated her calls for cognitive testing of all federal candidates And this is of course in the Wall Street Journal because the Wall Street Journal Is a bunch of neocon hacks sadly And so they actually still think that Nikki Haley's a credible person that you would actually say here's what necki Haley Things and somebody's like yeah, that's newsworthy, but it's not actually because Nikki Haley's idiot and never has had anything valuable to add to our politics at all But if you're a bunch of war-bongering deal con hacks like Nikki Haley's awesome, right But the former South Carolina governor and a Wall Street Journal interview said republican shouldn't assume replacing Biden Would inherently help Trump Well, they're going to be smart about it. They're going to bring somebody younger. They're going to bring somebody vibrant They're going to bring somebody tested. She said this is a time for republicans to prepare and get ready for what's to come because there is no way that there will be a surviving Democrat party if they allow Joe Biden to continue to be the candidate Well, that's an interesting theory and I and I can live with that world Why is Nikki Haley trying to rescue the Democrat party? Haley also said she spoke about a week ago with Trump the former president and presumptive republican nominee for the first time Since she left the race in early March The two had a highly combative relationship during the first two year months of the year But Haley said she reached out the Trump personally to offer her support after stating during a public appearance in late May that she would vote for him She described that as a good conversation But said that there was no discussion of a campaign role for her or participation in next month's republican national convention in Milwaukee When she exited the race she had urged Trump to be more welcoming of the millions of people who voted for her Haley who served as Trump's first you and ambassadors said Biden's presence in the White House risk Uh, the presents risk for the nation Following his debate appearance because his performance projected weakness our enemies just saw that they have between now and January 20th to do whatever it is They want to do she said in a reference to next year's inauguration day So real quick. Let's just point out that That's not true. All right, so like your Xi Jinping and you're like, you know what? I better Launch my war against America before January 20th While Joe Biden's in there And if I do that before Donald Trump comes in then I can get away with it all right Well, that's preposterous on its face stupid obviously. That's why Nikki Haley said it because she's adult More to the point That actually might give Nikki Haley too much credit to call her an idiot because that sounds malicious, right That's like that's like when Joe Biden said oh well, you know Putin goes in for a minor incursion who knows right What was Joe Biden doing when he said that was Joe Biden was that another Biden gaff? I don't think so actually I think that Joe Biden was trying to egg Putin on to invade Ukraine because His war-mongering deal have contact puppet handlers We're like yeah, yeah, yeah, this is gonna be great if he goes in there and attacks Ukraine then like we'll just Get everybody involved dead because we just love death And so it's like yeah, you know if there's just a minor incursion or whatever who knows see what happens And that's what Nikki Haley's doing Okay, she's like our enemies just saw that they have between now and January 20th to do whatever it is they want to do Well, why would the former you and ambassadors say that in a public forum Well, because you actually want these people to go out and stir mayhem To justify war because you're a lunatic Biden's campaign didn't directly respond to Haley's comments But issued a statement seeking to embrace her supporters to the millions of Nikki Haley supporters who were tired of Donald Trump and his Maga allies constantly attacking them running moderates and independence out of the party and repeatedly refusing to commit to accepting the Election results you have a home in president Biden's coalition said a campaign spoke to him a Marmousa When Haley announced her presidential bid in February 2023 She called for congressional term limits and mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75 years old It was a topic she brought up at virtually every campaign stop for more than a year because she's an idiot And she's like, yeah, Donald Trump's too old Caller you are on surreal politics. What can I do for you? Hi, Chris So like this presidential immunity decision it didn't shock me one bit. I thought that was kind of Like we everyone just knew that That you don't profit you presidents for Things they did, but I'm not sure if I agree with the ruling I The fact that there's no Consequences To things you do while you're in off like I think that's why we're we're at right now that well Let me put it this way. There's no way that's not the case no there is and like it's a it's a means by which you don't have direct access to But you don't have direct access to the powers of a US attorney either so like If the president commits a crime wall in office The the Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, right? So if the the implication of that is That impeachment is the remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors now I don't actually don't know if like And that and that would very clearly if he was convicted in the Senate that would very clearly Render the act not the act of a president right to say you Abuse your powers and it means but in an effort to Effect some other goal that's not pertaining to your duties And therefore we have impeached you and you've been convicted in the Senate of the impeachment You know you the they say and Trump has been twice impeached means the House Issued the articles of impeachment in the Senate they try the impeachment and he's been acquitted both times, okay? but like You know if he's convicted in the impeachment trial then that is prima fascia evidence that what he did was not an official act And then he doesn't have immunity for that right, but they've got to go through that process. They've got a you know They've got to go through the political Riggers of saying no the president is a criminal and go through it that way and if they can't do that then Merrick Garland can't just go like hire some guy to be the special counsel and be like yeah Indite Donald Trump for whatever far fetch legal theory you can come up with right Those are two different things and like yeah, it's a high bar of entry to go and you know get a president and peaked like no I know we've never fully successfully impeached a president. I mean there's been several impeachments But never has there been a conviction so like um But again, it's like the idea that they go ahead go ahead buddy I so I mean that's my point like they don't do like the Senate They don't do their duty. I mean yeah, you got Bill Clinton got impeached for getting the hot tool and having fun with the cigar or whatever And Trump with all that the Russian nonsense and all that but They've never impeached a president for anything that Really matters Like starting worse and stuff like they don't go after the president for that Well, but that's actually good, but they don't well As a matter of fact now like the idea that a president could be indicted for starting awards like you know The congress has the authority to declare war they have this thing called the war powers act which says You know the president can act militarily in response to x-y and z type of situation right and you know that that x-y and z Situation is fairly broadside okay now like you know if he continues to conflict before congress acts I which I think is like a period of 60 days or something like that then arguably you know Ben he's waging war outside of his constitutional authority, but You know that the one of the axioms of the office is basically that you know the the president is acting at the zenith of his power or something that effect When he's dealing with foreign eight with foreign countries, okay? So like there's one of the things they brought up in the case of That's what they called the Muslim ban. It's like yeah like an immigration like the idea that the president can't just say this category of immigrant Just walled off like that's preposterous like of course he can don't tell me about your civil rights crap. He's dealing with foreign governments Um, you know what waging war, you know, you can doubt the wisdom of some of the wars that are waged I would say that I haven't seen a wise war in my lifetime But like they knew that but like the perp you know, we don't have there's not much purpose for a government If not to be prepared to wage war right and so like you know The idea that the president could be prosecuted for going and engaging in violent foreign policy or something is actually in my view Like that's one of those things. It's like facially preposterous But that's why you have the impeachment process So if congress says hey maniac like yeah, like you have the war powers act But you're not allowed to go and like you know Centripes to invade North Korea because you want to go Bankim Jong-un's sister or whatever, okay? And so like congress can go and impeach him and say yeah, you're not allowed to do that and you can be impeached for literally anything I mean the Constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors But there's actually no you know, you just say well what he did is uh, you know his demeanor was not as it ought to be right and a misdemeanor So like the congress can impeach the president for anything and if the senate conveics them then then his act was not official And if it was criminal from that point then you can put a throwman jail But if he's just like if you don't like his foreign policy or whatever we don't want a situation where Where the president can go to jail because the next guy in the chair which is disagrees with his policy positions like especially since That's almost who sits it almost always who sits in the chair next is like I who disagrees with you You know unless you're just term limited out and then a member of your party comes in and he's like allied with you Now generally speaking you lose an election Your opponent is in your seat right? So like the idea that we could go back and forth like we've been doing that You know the the president that the democrats are setting is preposterous They're doing it on the basis of the belief that the republicans won't do the same thing to them Like the idea that the government would change hands and then all the republican prostitutes just start throwing democrats in jail for Crimes they've actually committed much much more so if they decide to actually start making things up the way the democrats do Right Yeah, they have no evidence to believe that right that the republicans would do the same thing to that right I mean if the if the republicans just went out and and and convicted the democrats who conspired to violate the riot act Right just go charge them all with the same thing they charge Robert Rundo with right How many of the democrats are where presently in congress would be on the be on the you know on the on the Inside of a prison cell at the end of that like a lot of them as a matter of fact And the world would be a much better place for it In theory at least you know in forgetting rid of those people But if you know this back and forth the idea that we're going to go back and forth that The democrats went and threw a bunch of republicans in jail that we won the election and we threw a bunch of them in jail And then like then they win at you know like eventually they got to reach a truce right Either they have to completely wipe the other party out Or they have to come to some kind of like agreement that like hey we're not gonna be able to govern If every time power changes hands all our guys go to prison right like they can't that that's a completely untenable situation you either have to wipe them Completely out or you have to find a way to live together, you know Well, I mean there's no political will on In the republicans to reciprocate the Jailings their opponents like the republic democrats do Sam but like I'm more bringing up like you know on the With the presidential immunity The afghanistan with draw I The the guy's name escaped me the DOJ guy came out and he admitted that there was all kinds of mistakes made and a lot of people messed up And you know the journalist that was talking to him asked him you know Anyone being held accountable for this and he's like no Right like no one's in trouble for any of this so there's no like I know you say congress has the problem or the the um The power to do something about this, but they don't So what is our What can we possibly do to how these people accountable for A major screw up or you were a 13 of our guys got killed Well, and then they I would say that here's like a bunch of innocent i raki or uh Afghanis a lot of them were children. Yeah, I would say that on ability for that And I'm not sure that I'm not sure that it is a worthwhile aspiration to find a legal remedy to that look here's what the Supreme Court should have said And maybe it's mentioned in there You know hey citizens right you want a democracy you wanted to be able to elect your leaders And if you elect bad leaders then you're gonna have problems right like there's actually no substitute for decent honest people With good intentions running your government right there's no substance you can't write enough laws That will fix that problem so like you could give the president complete you know, let's just say The the the Supreme Court could have said the following and accomplish the same thing The president can do whatever the hell he wants for the duration of the terms Time that he isn't in office and the citizenry would do well to remember that when they go vote Right Because as a matter of fact that's the functional reality of it, you know You know the courts part of the reason the courts always defer to the executive branches because they actually have no other choice Right like I forget I think it was Andrew Jackson somebody famously said early in American history Uh of the court like oh there's a court order Against the executive branch. Well let them try and enforce it right Well the courts are completely powerless to enforce an order against the executive branch because the executive branch is the enforcement arm Right so like the courts will tend to defer to the executive because that's the real politique of the matter They have no other choice right they can go and they can fight with the legislature all day because once the the president and the judiciary Are on the same team then you can do it out of the hell they want to the legislature right But you know the the everybody's you know the the the real politique is that the president can tell people to kill you So you know there's actually no substitute for having a good president Unfortunately, you know like this idea that everybody's trying to run around like write some law or some code that you know You can go and elect somebody to be president of the United States and then that guy's a complete idiot or a monster and then Good thing we had those laws to prevent a monster president from destroying things like that's preposterous right like you I like to bad person bad things are gonna happen so be careful when you vote Yeah, yeah, I mean I I would love for the supreme court to say But the problem is we have a population that has a memory of like 15 seconds ago You know tomorrow. There's gonna be another new story that forget about everything Well, it's true, you know, I don't know if there's a solution under this system. Yeah, and it's you know It there isn't okay, so there's not there's not like there's not a clean solution say okay You know at some point the the way that you make this a little bit less messy is As you restric the franchise more okay like you know this idea that We we make better decisions the more people are involved is preposterous that defies every Experience that every human being has So like you know if you're a you know If you're a property owner and you're not in debt beyond a certain amount or whatever like you can vote And if you're not then you can't like is you know you'll you'll Instantly completely transform the country after that right, but it has to that's the only way that you can actually in my view You know, and it's not a completely preposterous thing to do the Democrats would say that it was preposterous But it's actually not you know restricting the franchise more than it is today is actually pretty smart And then if you if you can find the political will to do that at some point You know, then you can actually start to repair things because that's the whole thing It's like all of the other stuff that we're trying to do passing laws do this do that. It's like it's all nonsense The there is no substitute for good decent honest people with good intentions running your government and We will never find any alternative to that and so you know, that's my that's my thoughts on it Well, um, I forgive which libertarians. I think it might have been Bob Murphy Murphy that said The Laws are whatever the people that enforce the laws are willing to enforce Yeah, let's that's largely true So So yeah, like I mean if you're driving 40 on a 35 and the cop doesn't want to pull you over then it's legal to drive 40 on a 35 Yeah, so So I get whatever the president does I guess He's allowed to do as long as no one's gonna enforce the law or Let him do it, you know This is the whole thing. It's like I mean, I appreciate it Yeah, I'll I'll respond more, you know, here's what I'll say before I let you go is that you know I think that People lose track of the fact that the law is just people doing stuff, okay? And it's good that they lose track of that fact. It's a good thing for people to live under the fiction that Today is that that the that the government Operate systematically according to a set of rules. It's a good thing for people to believe that falsehood because It it allows them to behave as decent citizens, okay? But everybody in the know actually understands that this is just people doing stuff, you know Yeah, I like that I'm gonna thank you. I'm gonna jot that down I appreciate it. Thank you, but thank you very much for the call my friend have a good night And so you know, that's the whole thing. I think that You know, and that was not an easy conclusion for me to come to by the way, okay? Like I came over here from the libertarian space. I'm like, yeah, we're going to abolish the government and then the market will control everything, okay? And that's you know if you listen to the the Roth barriens or whatever then that sounds as like merit to a critic utopia but That is not actually what you can expect that to do at all, right? So whoever Is the best at acquiring resources going to end up being king as a matter of fact that's the ultimate logical conclusion of antiracal capitalism And an antiracal capital is to accept that reality May turn around and say well, that's actually a superior method of choosing leaders because They have um, you know, they've demonstrated their competence and so fine. I'll live under the monarchy of the landowner who has just bought up enough land to build a place where I desire to live, right? Okay, maybe that's true. Maybe it's not but at the end of the day like Same idea if a good guy's running the place and he has your interest at heart and he's trying to make the place Nice if the incentives are such that He's driven to do that Then however he ends up in that position He can probably do a pretty good job of running your civilization If the incentive is you know Get the most people on your side. I'm sorry that you know, it's unfortunate that I think it's inevitable that That means catering pandering to the lowest common denominator, which means telling people a bunch of nonsense and anybody who tells people they things They don't want to hear is going to get voted against and so you know, you have A structure of incentives that puts bad people in the office So so why I'm opposed to term limits by the way so like you know people are like oh presidential You know, we want term limits presidential turbulence are a bad idea the idea that you want to put them in congress is terrible I don't like that idea Because you can get a succession you know, you're gonna have a very lengthy succession of idiots and monsters Very rare that you find somebody who's like decent and acts of good intent and is actually competent and that guy You just want to make sure he never leaves like don't allow him to find another job go ban him from doing anything other than working for the government It's a matter of fact, right You have a non-compete agreement now No, you have to work for us for the rest of your life because we'll be destroyed without you There's no risk there's no replacement for decent honest people running your government with good intentions Until you have a citizenry that's going to elect those types of people then like you're gonna live in Misery and you're gonna be at war and you're gonna have all these different problems That's inevitable whether the president is immune from prosecution or not If you have a corrupt Dumb citizenry then they will elect corrupt and dumb leaders who will do corrupt and dumb things and thereby create more of a dumb and corrupt citizenry and this feedback loop will continue What's going to break that cycle? Well, you know, I look forward to finding out ladies and gentlemen But I don't think we're gonna figure it out tonight So I'm gonna call it an even and I do thank you for tuning in. It's been a good time I'm thank you for the thank you for the calls Thank you for the superchets. I should get to them is by the way, so Libertariat chimed in again fun fact only enlisted personnel Taken oath to follow the orders of the president and officers appointed over them Officers only swear an oath to the Constitution and there is no mention of following orders in the oath of office for an officer I did not know that that is an interesting point Based bot sends one dollar quote of the day feminism has become a catch all vegetable drawer where a bunches of clingy sub sisters can store their moldy neuroses and that is by Camille Paglia That is uh, that's a pretty uh, that's a pretty well stated complaint about feminism. I go so far as the same So thank you to those of you who paid me to those of you who have not it's not too late Go ahead. I try to make it easy enough to do if you want to give me some money. It'll be a great idea Serial Pulse is a comm slash donate You can find all of the things that I'm about to tell you right now which include my cash app which is like You know the cash tag is dollar sign edgy chris But you can just go in your web browser you go to cash dot app slash edgy chris and you'll find my my cash app Like that cash app by the way, it's a pretty good thing. You should have it if you don't already have it Givesengo.com slash spm like surreal politics media. That's the gifs and go campaign You could make a one-time recurring donation there with your credit or debit card You can send me cryptocurrency. I do enjoy that cryptocurrency all of my Bitcoin Monero ethereum my Public keys are all at surrealpoliteaks.com or chrisfercantwell.net slash donate and so you can get all those There and I would encourage you to do all those things because I'm smart funny good looking and talented and I would love to keep on working for you But you got to pay me okay, so I'll see you guys real soon Wednesday for the member show Want to be a member? That's a good idea surrealpoliteaks.com slash join 10 bucks a month to become a member but if you use code agenda 33 for your promo code to check out You get 33% off your first three months because here's like a little there's a secret code word in there Okay, it's end of 33 do it. I'll see you Wednesday You You You