0:01

Good evening, it's Friday, June 28th.

0:17

Welcome to a new episode of System Update,

0:19

our live nightly show that airs every Monday

0:21

through Friday at 7pm Eastern,

0:24

exclusively here on Rumble, the free

0:26

speech alternative to YouTube. Tonight

0:32

the last 24 hours in

0:34

American political life were among the

0:36

strangest and if I'm being honest

0:39

the most entertaining as any

0:41

that I can remember. Joe Biden crawled

0:44

or rather unsteadily shuffled onto a

0:47

debate stage in Atlanta and then

0:49

proceeded to fulfill every fear and

0:52

nightmare that Democratic Party operatives and

0:54

American voters have been

0:56

harboring about him. From the minute he opened

0:58

his mouth and repeatedly coughed until

1:00

he finally faded out in his

1:03

closing remarks with a string of

1:05

barely coherent phrases, Biden not only

1:07

looked exactly like the cognitively impaired

1:09

and fragile old man that Americans

1:11

have perceived him to be, but

1:14

he was actually worse, a caricature of

1:17

an escaped patient from a nursing home who

1:19

managed to put on a tie and wander

1:21

aimlessly and by accident, wandered into

1:23

that hall without having any idea where he

1:25

was or why he was there. By

1:28

far the most extraordinary and again entertaining

1:30

part of the evening was that all

1:33

of the on air personalities and liberal

1:35

media outlets who had been aggressively insisting

1:37

for months, oh

1:39

that there was nothing wrong with Biden

1:41

at all, that voters only believed that

1:43

there was something wrong with him because

1:46

of the big bad right wing disinformation

1:48

machine paddling videos which they called cheap

1:50

fakes, a brand new term they invented,

1:52

all had to admit at

1:55

once that Biden was in fact everything

1:57

they had been angrily insisting he was.

1:59

was not. The panic

2:02

in their eyes and on their faces was

2:04

palpable and drove them in unison, like the

2:06

herd animals they are, to do

2:08

a complete 180 reversal of

2:10

everything they had been

2:12

saying for months and even years to protect Joe

2:14

Biden. And they even had to

2:16

go so far as to plot openly how they could

2:18

force him out of the race and

2:21

replace him with a more formidable challenger

2:23

to Donald Trump. Yes, our neutral and

2:25

nonpartisan press corps spent the evening

2:27

acting like what they are, DNC operatives,

2:30

to find the best path for defeating

2:32

Trump. Now, right after

2:35

the debate, I streamed a 30-minute analysis

2:37

of my reaction for our locals, subscribers,

2:39

and earlier today, we made of it

2:41

all available, fully available to our entire

2:43

audience here on Rumble and YouTube. And

2:45

I don't want to repeat all of

2:48

that tonight. It was sort of my

2:50

immediate impressions immediately after the debate without

2:52

having a lot of time to analyze

2:54

and process things. But I

2:56

do want to analyze what happened over

2:58

the last 24 hours, including how they

3:01

are all changing their tunes yet again

3:04

now that Obama and other party leaders

3:06

have made clear that Biden isn't going

3:08

anywhere. There's no way he will

3:10

voluntarily drop out of the race because

3:13

there are few events really that have

3:15

torn down the masks that our media

3:17

usually wear quite as abruptly and violently

3:19

as last night's debate and the fallout

3:22

from it. Then

3:24

the Supreme Court has been issuing a

3:26

series of very consequential rulings. Over

3:28

the last week alone, they shielded

3:31

the Biden censorship regime from review

3:33

and a decision we covered extensively

3:35

last night. Today, they overruled the

3:37

longstanding Chevron doctrine that

3:39

had vested massive power in the

3:41

government's administrative agencies, returning instead that

3:44

power back to Congress and then

3:46

the courts. And today, they also

3:48

ruled the theory that was invented

3:50

out of nowhere by prosecutors to

3:53

convert non-violent January 6 defendants

3:56

into felons. The

3:58

court ruled that that theory that courts have been

4:00

approving and prosecutors have been using is actually

4:03

legally baseless, thus

4:06

making it far more difficult to convict

4:08

many of those defendants, including former President

4:10

Trump, for felonies under this

4:12

theory and it could actually jeopardize the prosecution

4:14

of many. Now, this is an issue we

4:16

have covered extensively and have

4:19

been pointing out that this theory has no

4:21

foundation in legal

4:23

precedent. And for that reason, and because the

4:26

breakdown of the court's voting block, like in

4:28

other cases this week was very interesting, we

4:30

want to report on exactly what happened in

4:32

this case and examine its significant implications. Now,

4:34

before we get to all of that, a

4:37

few program notes. We are encouraging

4:39

our viewers to download the Rumble app. If

4:41

you do so, it works on both your

4:43

smart TV and telephone and then it

4:45

will allow you to follow the programs you most

4:47

like to watch on this platform. And then once

4:49

you do that, you can

4:51

activate notifications, which we hope you will, which

4:53

means that the minute any of

4:55

the programs you watch go live on the

4:57

platform, for example, as we did last

5:00

night, not at a regularly scheduled time, although we

5:02

did at a regularly scheduled time, but then once

5:04

again after the debate was over, you would be

5:06

immediately notified by text or email with the link

5:08

that you can then just click on and immediately

5:10

begin watching. As another reminder, System

5:12

Update is also available in podcast form.

5:14

You can listen to every

5:17

episode 12 hours after the

5:19

first broadcast live here on

5:21

Rumble, on Spotify, Apple, and all

5:23

the major podcasting platforms. If you

5:25

rate, review, and follow the show,

5:28

it really helps spread the visibility of the

5:30

program. Finally, every Tuesday and Thursday night,

5:32

once we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we move

5:34

to local's, which is part

5:37

of the Rumble platform where we have our

5:39

live interactive after show. And

5:41

that after show is available only from

5:43

members or local's community last night. In

5:46

lieu of our normal after show, that

5:48

was where we streamed my full reaction

5:50

to last night's debate. And

5:52

if you want to join, which gives you access

5:54

not only to those after shows and to

5:56

those other features, but also to the written transcripts

5:59

of every program we brought here. It's

6:01

the place where we first publish our original written

6:03

reporting and most of all it's the community on

6:05

which we rely to support the independent journalism that

6:08

we do here every night. Simply click the join

6:10

button right below the video player on the rumble

6:12

page and it will take you directly to that

6:14

platform. For now welcome to a new episode of

6:16

system update starting right now. I

6:25

have really spent the last 24 hours trying

6:28

to decide what I think are

6:30

the three most entertaining features

6:33

or events or parts of the

6:35

last 24 hours of American

6:37

political life which in so many ways is

6:40

unique. It is something that

6:42

we've never really seen before because the

6:44

extent of Joe

6:47

Biden's disastrous performance is

6:50

unprecedented in American political life. You've

6:52

had candidates before who have turned

6:54

in poor or inadequate debate

6:57

for performances but nothing in the

6:59

category in the universe of what Joe

7:02

Biden did last night. It's

7:05

very difficult to pick the three funniest

7:08

or most revealing entertainingly revealing moments

7:10

because there really are so many

7:12

of them. The exchange that they

7:15

had about who was the better

7:17

golfer when Joe Biden claimed to be to

7:19

have a sixth handicap and that was the one

7:21

time that Trump wasn't pretending to be offended

7:24

and outraged but was genuinely and earnestly

7:26

enraged that Biden would claim to be

7:28

a sixth handicap and they bickered over

7:30

that and then and ended with Trump saying Joe

7:32

I've seen your golf swing you

7:34

don't have to try and convince me. There's

7:37

all kinds of moments like that there are

7:39

those moments where Joe Biden just in mid-sentence

7:41

just his brain went off and he just

7:43

started grasping around for words

7:45

and just kind of floating

7:48

away mid-sentence. It was extremely uncomfortable to

7:50

watch but at the same time

7:52

you knew that the people in media who had

7:54

been spending months and years vehemently

7:57

denying what everyone knew was true. Namely that there

7:59

was impairment of a very significant

8:01

kind plaguing Joe Biden. And

8:04

they weren't just denying that they were attacking and

8:06

maligning anyone who said it as

8:09

being part of the right-wing disinformation machine. You

8:11

knew that they were watching and were watching in horror

8:13

and were going to have to deal with it in

8:15

some way. But

8:18

if I had to pick the one thing that actually made

8:20

me laugh the most, it was when halfway through the debate,

8:22

when every

8:24

Democrat, every liberal office holder,

8:27

politician, pundit,

8:29

activist, journalist, were

8:32

all admitting that this

8:35

was a debacle of unprecedented

8:37

proportions. All

8:40

of a sudden, halfway into the debate, multiple

8:43

media outlets started running to social

8:45

media and announcing a breaking news

8:47

story when they were using sirens.

8:49

And they said, Joe Biden

8:52

has a cold tonight, according

8:54

to sources familiar with

8:56

the matter. So out of nowhere, just halfway

8:58

through the debate, they all started

9:01

to say, Joe Biden

9:03

has a cold. That's why he's

9:05

doing so poorly. And

9:07

obviously, if Joe Biden had a cold, that's

9:09

something you would announce beforehand. It's

9:12

not something that would just, obviously, the Biden

9:14

people started calling every media outlet that they

9:16

control and saying, oh, we want

9:18

to tell you the scoop. Joe Biden has a cold

9:20

and they all ran out of nowhere in the middle

9:23

of the debate to say, breaking, Joe Biden has a

9:25

cold. I think the

9:28

second funniest thing that I saw

9:30

was after the debate,

9:33

when Joe Biden led Joe

9:35

Biden to a debate after

9:38

event, she was

9:40

speaking for him because he had just

9:42

proven that he is incapable of speaking

9:45

for himself. And

9:47

she tried to encourage him, tried

9:49

to make him feel good by

9:51

saying, Joe, you answered

9:54

every one of those questions and he kind of

9:56

had this grin on his face. And

9:59

honestly, I I really do remember

10:01

it was many years ago when I,

10:03

one of my kids had failed their

10:05

test and was very upset. They

10:07

were very young and I remember sitting down with him and

10:10

trying to give them encouragement. And that was one of

10:12

the things I said was, look, you answered every question. So

10:15

you tried so hard, you answered every

10:17

question. And you could

10:19

just see how the people around Joe

10:21

Biden treat him. You know,

10:23

they use that sing-songy voice that

10:25

you use for like an old

10:28

but adult grandparent to

10:30

try and keep them happy, to try and encourage

10:32

them, to try to keep them distracted. And

10:36

just watching that was truly amazing. And

10:42

then the, I think

10:45

funniest aspect of all was watching

10:47

all of these media people who are about to

10:49

show you who have spent a

10:52

year or five years angrily

10:55

denying that Joe Biden had anything wrong

10:58

with him due to his advanced age sit

11:01

there in nausea and horror

11:03

and disgust as they

11:06

all had to grapple with the fact that there was no

11:08

way to hide it any longer. Now,

11:12

the interesting part of this whole

11:14

issue of cognitive impairment is

11:16

that polls have been showing for quite a

11:19

long time that the American

11:22

people have no doubt that

11:26

Joe Biden is cognitively impaired. And the

11:28

reason for it is because they've all

11:30

had the experience of dealing with an

11:33

elderly loved one as they decline in their

11:36

sunset years. And

11:38

there's nothing these media people can tell them

11:41

to convince them not to believe what

11:43

they're seeing with their own eyes on

11:45

an issue that they

11:48

trust their own judgment on more

11:51

than anybody else's as they should because they've gone

11:53

through it in their life. So just to give

11:55

you an extent of how

11:57

vast is the poll. public

12:00

opinion. We've shown you before polling

12:02

data that shows that

12:04

a gigantic percentage more believe

12:07

that Biden is at old by

12:09

age than Trump is, including Democrats,

12:11

independents and conservatives. But here

12:14

was a segment that happened on

12:16

MSNBC today that revealed just how

12:18

vast this difference is. And

12:20

this was before the debate.

12:22

This was before last night's debate. Ben,

12:26

how would it happen? Who would be able to fill

12:28

the spot? We go to Steve

12:30

Kornacki, because there are some indications with numbers

12:32

to answer those questions. Yeah, I mean, a

12:34

couple of ways of looking at it, Chris.

12:36

First of all, the backdrop for that performance

12:39

Joe Biden gave last night and the reaction

12:41

you're getting from Democrats. Look at it this

12:43

way. Back in the 2020 campaign from our

12:45

NBC poll, we asked folks who is better

12:48

when it comes to having the necessary mental

12:50

and physical health to be president. And there's

12:52

basically a wash. 41 said Biden, 40 said

12:55

Trump. So. All

12:57

right. So it doesn't have the most important part of the

12:59

video where he then shows how those

13:02

percentages have changed up

13:04

until this year, where it's

13:07

something like 65 percent of

13:11

people believe that Biden doesn't

13:14

have the necessary mental and physical health

13:16

to be president and something like 34

13:21

percent or 40 percent believe that about

13:23

Trump. So the gap has grown enormously

13:25

as people have watched Joe

13:27

Biden over the next the

13:30

last four years. That's the next column, which would have

13:33

shown had we had it that in 2024, this gap

13:36

has exploded. Now, I think

13:40

one of the most important parts is why the

13:42

American people in every poll have

13:44

said that they know that Joe Biden

13:46

is cognitively impaired and not capable of doing

13:49

the job as president. The

13:51

media, it is important to remember,

13:53

has very aggressively and angrily insisted

13:55

that not only

13:57

is there nothing wrong with Biden, but that

13:59

the reason America believe that there's something wrong

14:01

with Biden is

14:03

only because right-wing operatives

14:07

and other manipulators

14:10

of videos have trying to see

14:12

Americans into believing it. So here,

14:14

for example, is the Washington Post.

14:17

This was from just a

14:20

week ago or two weeks ago, June

14:22

14th, this was when there were videos of

14:24

Biden's trip to Europe that were circulating and

14:26

that fundraiser that he did with President Obama

14:29

where you could see that he was distracted, he didn't know where

14:31

he was, he didn't know where he was supposed to be, he

14:33

had to be let around. And the

14:36

media decided to unite and claim that

14:38

these videos were manipulated to try and

14:40

make it look as if Biden was

14:44

suffering from confusion when in fact he's as

14:46

sharp as ever. Here was just one example

14:48

from the Washington Post. There you

14:50

see the headline, quote, cheap fake. This is a

14:52

new word they invented. They can't claim the video

14:55

is fake, they can't claim that it was doctored,

14:57

they can't claim it was manipulated

14:59

because it was the exact video that showed

15:01

what Joe Biden was doing. So they invented

15:03

a new word, cheap fake, kind

15:06

of like what they did with disinformation

15:08

or misinformation than malinformation. And

15:11

they said cheap fake Biden

15:13

videos enrapture right-wing media but

15:16

deeply mislead. Quote,

15:18

the Republican National Committee posts a

15:20

clipped video, then the New York Post,

15:22

the Telegraph and other pro-Trump outlets

15:24

follow soup with the same depressing, with

15:27

the same deceptive framing. So

15:29

just two weeks ago the media was insisting

15:31

that the only reason Joe Biden looked in

15:33

any way to be impaired is because right-wing

15:36

liars were clipping videos in

15:38

a deceitful way to make it appear as

15:40

though this very robust, focused,

15:42

energetic and present leader was

15:46

something that he wasn't, which is

15:48

confused, disoriented and

15:50

cognitively, declining very rapidly.

15:54

Here's a super cut of just a

15:56

few minutes, a couple minutes of Media

16:00

figures who have been insisting over the

16:02

last year that there's

16:04

nothing wrong with Joe Biden, that they

16:06

know personally that in private, when

16:09

no one's looking, but also in public, he's

16:12

as sharp as he has ever been. He

16:14

is a very alert and

16:17

connected and engaged leader who understands

16:19

complexities and makes very complex decisions

16:21

without the slightest difficulty. This is

16:23

what they were saying in the

16:25

months and weeks heading into the

16:28

humiliation last night. Just get a little bit of

16:31

taste of this. Start your tape right now, because

16:33

I'm about to tell you the truth. And

16:36

F you if you can't handle

16:38

the truth. This version of Biden

16:40

is the best Biden ever. He

16:43

knows so long as he was

16:45

nine. In fact, I think he's

16:47

better than he's ever been. President

16:50

Biden has a photographic memory.

16:53

His understanding and mastery of

16:55

a complicated geopolitical situation is

16:58

remarkable. He is sharp, intensely

17:01

probing, and detail-oriented and focused.

17:03

Jackie, are you here? Where's

17:06

Jackie? I think she was

17:08

gonna be here. I was sitting two

17:11

feet from him across the table, and he

17:13

was intense. Had trouble

17:16

walking sometimes? Yeah, so did FDR. He

17:18

wanted GD war. But he's totally focused.

17:20

He's very sharp. They say he's sharp

17:22

in meetings and so on. Very lucid,

17:24

very well-informed. Biden is stately. He comes

17:27

with gravitas. There hasn't been, as far

17:29

as I know, a single claim

17:32

that Biden made a

17:34

mistake. Ageism is an issue. Americans

17:37

have a rich history of holding

17:39

people's physical characteristics against them. Okay,

17:41

you can ask African Americans. He's

17:43

older. That doesn't mean that

17:45

he is unfit, and there's a lot

17:47

of ageism there. Now, this age attack,

17:49

this obsession by the right, Joe Biden

17:51

may not be able to speak for himself the way

17:53

that he used to. They want to think is

17:56

to take on government if we get

17:58

out of line, which they're talking again

18:00

about. and that's him lying around. I

18:03

think people should be speaking up for

18:05

Joe Biden. Americans and reporters in the

18:07

media are just judging him by a

18:09

physical appearance and it's horribly unfair. Not

18:12

only, and by the way, Van

18:15

Jones was in that clip insisting

18:17

that it was an outrageous attack

18:20

to suggest that Biden was anything

18:22

other than an alert

18:24

and engaged leader. And

18:27

then that same Van Jones

18:29

went on CNN last night right after

18:31

the debate ended and he

18:33

was basically on the verge of tears saying, I

18:35

love Joe Biden, I love the guy, I love

18:38

the guy and it pains

18:40

me to watch him this way. He needs to

18:42

drop out of the race. None of us want

18:44

to see him this way. I

18:47

mean, they spent, this isn't from four years ago

18:49

or six years ago. This is

18:52

from this year. And

18:54

they even went so far, of course, on NBC was

18:58

the victim of some kind of ugly

19:01

prejudice akin to racism

19:03

because people were condemning him based

19:09

on his physical appearance. You

19:12

just see the propaganda and they read from the

19:14

same script they all sound exactly alike because they're

19:16

getting their orders from the same place. These

19:19

are herd animals and

19:21

they all were running in one direction and

19:23

suddenly last night they all stopped and ran

19:25

in exactly the opposite direction together

19:28

reading from the same script as well. They were

19:30

getting their words from

19:32

all their democratic sources who

19:34

were telling them, we need to get Joe Biden out

19:36

of this race, we're panicking and they

19:39

were just reading from their phones and repeating it all

19:41

together. There's not a single

19:43

note of dissent ever from this crowd. They

19:46

say the same things over and over without the slightest

19:48

regard for whether it's true. Now, let

19:50

me just show you a couple of the most extreme examples.

19:54

Earlier this month, at the very beginning of

19:57

this month, the Wall Street Journal published a...

20:00

very deeply reported article that

20:03

detailed how in

20:05

private meetings, contrary to what Democrats

20:07

were claiming, Biden often faded out.

20:10

He would speak and ramble in such a

20:12

low voice that no one could understand what

20:15

he was saying. Basically, they were describing exactly

20:17

the Joe Biden we saw last night at

20:19

the debates. And

20:21

this wasn't the wall street journal op ed page, just as the

20:23

wall street journal reporting team.

20:27

And so many of the, uh, Democratic

20:32

party on air personalities were so

20:34

enraged by the fact that the

20:36

wall street journal reported

20:39

this, that they couldn't even

20:41

contain their anger. And again, this is only

20:43

two weeks ago, three weeks ago, listen to

20:45

what Joe Scarborough and that

20:47

crude that he has there on that morning

20:49

show that Biden loves and watches every morning,

20:51

watch what they were saying just three

20:54

weeks ago about that wall street journal

20:56

report. My,

20:58

uh, my meetings with the president over

21:00

the past year, uh, uh, Willie and,

21:03

and, and talked to Mike and Meek

21:05

about it. And I said, in real

21:07

time, the guy, the guy,

21:09

you see about those guys right there.

21:12

I've spent time with both of those

21:14

guys privately and spent time with

21:17

Biden and Trump privately. I've spent

21:19

time with every house speaker over

21:22

the past 30 years and Joe Biden. I'm

21:25

not just, it's just not

21:27

close. If you want to

21:29

talk about international affairs, if you want

21:31

to talk about how to get bipartisan

21:33

legislation, Joe Biden is

21:35

light years ahead of all

21:38

of them. Joe Biden

21:41

is light years ahead when it

21:43

comes to complex foreign policy, complex

21:45

economic and domestic policy. He's

21:47

light years ahead of every single house

21:50

speaker over the last 30 years with

21:52

whom Joe Biden has spent

21:54

his time. John Boehner,

21:56

Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy.

21:59

Mike Johnson going all the way

22:01

back 30 years. Every

22:04

single one of those House leaders, according

22:06

to Joe Scarborough, just two and a half weeks ago,

22:09

didn't have even a fraction of the capacity

22:12

to be in charge, to understand complicated

22:16

information the way that

22:18

Joe Biden does, the way that Joe Biden

22:20

can. This went on

22:22

like this. And the fact that

22:24

the Wall Street Journal knew these quotes were

22:26

out there, fit editors. I'm not looking at

22:28

the reporter. People always blame the reporter. There

22:31

are a line of editors behind every

22:33

story that's done. The editors saw that

22:35

Kevin McCarthy had a habit of

22:39

saying one thing in public, lying

22:41

in public, and then privately telling

22:43

his aides just the opposite, that

22:46

Biden was sharp, that he

22:49

was cogent, that he was substantive. And

22:51

in the same meeting that Kevin McCarthy

22:53

is now telling the Wall Street Journal

22:55

Biden was out of it, he

22:58

went out and he told reporters after

23:01

the meeting that the meeting was both the

23:03

best yet. We're making progress and I'm gonna

23:05

be talking. There's that photo of Joe Biden

23:07

and his Ray-Bans, just to show the point

23:09

of how tough and strong

23:11

and energetic of a leader he

23:13

is. And there you see on the screen, Wall

23:16

Street Journal relies on former speaker,

23:18

Kevin McCarthy, to criticize Biden's acuity.

23:23

They were rolling out every stop to

23:25

try and discredit and maul the Wall Street

23:28

Journal for daring to suggest that

23:31

Joe Biden behaves exactly the way that he

23:33

behaved last night. And he does it all

23:36

the time in private meetings where they were

23:38

there to discuss policy. And

23:40

that Joe Biden every day,

23:42

very professional, very smart, very

23:45

tough. I just, I don't even

23:47

know what to say. I really don't even know what

23:49

to say here. Well, let's begin

23:51

with the fact that Joe Biden is 81 years old.

23:54

Donald Trump, by the way, will be 78 next week. So

23:57

he's not much younger. So yes.

24:00

Does he move a little slower and speak a

24:02

little softer than he did 15 years

24:04

ago when he was vice president? Yep. As

24:06

former Speaker McCarthy says, Sure does. Sure does.

24:09

Yeah. I think most 81-year-olds do, or

24:11

most people are different than they were 15 years ago. This

24:14

does have the feeling of

24:16

Trump acolytes laundering their

24:18

attacks through a reputable, prestigious news

24:21

organization in the Wall Street. This

24:23

was Trump acolytes just making stuff

24:25

up and then laundering

24:27

their lives through the Wall

24:29

Street Journal to imply that

24:32

Joe Biden wasn't what he really is, which

24:35

is a very mentally

24:37

astute leader

24:40

that dominates rooms that

24:42

he's in, understands

24:44

complexities better

24:46

than men half his age.

24:49

In fact, better than every House Speaker of the

24:51

last 30 years. He's in a different

24:53

universe, they said. Street

24:56

Journal. Also the point about notes,

24:58

as Richard Haas would tell you, presidents

25:00

use notes in meetings. That's not unusual.

25:03

They might have a sheet, they might have a

25:05

card in front of them with some points that

25:07

they want to make. I would also point out

25:09

Donald Trump has a person who follows him with

25:11

a printer to print things out for him so

25:13

he can have hard copies so he can read

25:15

his notes and facts and lies

25:17

often that he rattles off. And then the

25:20

other point to make is will the Wall

25:22

Street Journal have a piece about

25:24

Donald Trump and his mental acuity? All you

25:26

have to do is watch the 90 minutes

25:28

of that Fox News interview over the weekend.

25:31

I mean, this is really North

25:33

Korean style propaganda. I know that's

25:35

a cliche, but they spent

25:39

close to five minutes just there alone expressing

25:43

indignation that anyone would

25:45

question Joe Biden's

25:47

mental state. That

25:51

was June 9th. So

25:54

two weeks ago, a little more than two weeks ago.

25:58

This morning after that president. The

26:00

very same program, Joe, Morning Joe,

26:03

composed of the very same people that you

26:05

just watched, went on the

26:07

air and said exactly the opposite

26:11

because they could no longer lie. The evidence was too

26:13

glaring, even

26:17

for people this shameless to continue to lie. Look

26:19

at what the funeral that they held

26:21

for Joe Biden's candidacy looked like this morning on

26:23

that show. I think his

26:27

presidency has been an

26:29

unqualified success. If,

26:33

however, you believe as do I,

26:38

and as do so many people

26:40

who watch this program and

26:44

who fear

26:50

just how dark of a place

26:54

a second Donald Trump term will

26:56

take America, then

26:59

I think it's critical that

27:02

we ask the same questions about

27:04

this man I love,

27:08

respect, and

27:12

whose public service in

27:14

saving this country from Donald

27:16

Trump over the last three and a half

27:18

years, I honor and always will. I

27:22

think we have to ask the same questions. By the way,

27:24

it is hard to overstate how

27:26

many of these people in media last

27:29

night and this morning and through today, when

27:32

forced to

27:34

admit just to save the last message

27:36

of their credibility, that

27:39

Joe Biden is actually suffering

27:42

from a serious form of civility. Even

27:46

though they were saying two weeks ago that it

27:48

was outrageous even to suggest that, it's

27:50

hard to overstate how many of them begin by saying,

27:53

I love Joe Biden very deeply. He's

27:56

a good friend of mine. I love the guy. And

27:59

that's why. It pains me to have to say this. Tom

28:02

Friedman started his article that way in the New York

28:04

Times, calling on Biden, dropped out of the race. So

28:07

many CNN people said it. Here you see Joe

28:09

Scarborough saying it. It was

28:11

all over the place. You're

28:14

not supposed to be friends with, let

28:16

alone deeply love on a personal

28:18

level, a politician whom

28:20

you're supposed to be adversarially covering that is

28:23

not the healthy and correct relationship between a

28:25

journalist on the one hand and the most

28:27

powerful politician in the country on the other.

28:31

But this is just one of the reasons why the

28:34

media in our country is so

28:36

hated and disrespected because,

28:38

and distrusted, because

28:40

people understand that

28:42

they have completely abdicated what they

28:45

always claimed was their responsibility and their function,

28:47

and they have a completely

28:49

different function instead. Let's hear the rest of

28:52

this week by the very same person who

28:54

just two weeks ago was saying

28:56

you are a right wing liar if

28:59

you even questioned Joe

29:01

Biden's mental capability, that he was in

29:03

a different universe, inability

29:06

right now than everybody else in

29:08

Washington. Let's listen to the rest.

29:10

Of him that

29:12

we have asked of Donald Trump

29:15

since 2016, and that is if

29:19

he were CEO and

29:22

he turned into performance like that, would

29:26

any corporation in

29:28

America, any Fortune 500 corporation in

29:30

America keep him on as

29:32

CEO? If

29:38

this were Donald Trump time

29:40

and time again, we talked about the

29:42

gold water, where is the Barry Goldwater? To

29:45

walk over and tell Richard Nixon it was over,

29:48

to tell Donald Trump it was

29:50

over. And now the question is, do

29:54

Democrats need to do the same thing of

29:57

Joe Biden? are

30:00

hard questions, but

30:03

the fact is friends, failure's

30:05

just not an option. In

30:08

2024, failure is not an option.

30:10

So who I love,

30:12

who I respect, who I

30:14

revere for their work and their

30:16

duty to service over their

30:18

lifetime really is not relevant. It's

30:22

not relevant for any of us. It's not

30:24

relevant for democratic leaders. It's not relevant for

30:26

anyone. The question is, can, we know Joe

30:31

Biden can govern. And

30:34

again, I'll debate that issue with anyone and I

30:36

will win. I will

30:38

destroy anybody that wants to debate Joe

30:41

Biden's record over the past three and

30:43

a half years. He

30:47

can run the White House. He

30:49

can run the country effectively, despite

30:52

the barrage of lies that constantly come at

30:54

him, like Donald Trump's lies

30:56

last night, but can he run for president

30:58

in 2024? Donald

31:03

Trump lied over and over

31:05

and over and over again.

31:10

And Joe Biden couldn't respond to

31:12

any of those lies. You know, maybe this

31:14

is naive of me to say, but

31:17

when I see this, I genuinely

31:19

do not understand. I

31:21

mean, I cannot comprehend. I really cannot. I'm not

31:23

saying this to make a point. How

31:26

it is that someone can go on television

31:28

before a camera two weeks ago and

31:31

rant and rave at

31:34

anybody who would dare suggest that there

31:36

was something adult about Joe

31:38

Biden and call

31:40

everyone who suggested it a liar and

31:43

swear up and down that you've never

31:45

seen anybody as in command

31:47

and in control and physically and

31:49

mentally adept as Joe Biden and

31:52

you create this whole emotional melodrama

31:55

in defense of Joe Biden's mental acuity,

31:58

attacking anyone who's, and then just too.

32:00

weeks later, not two months, not two

32:02

years, two weeks later, you go right

32:04

before that same camera and

32:07

with just as much melodrama, you

32:11

sit there and say, it's time for a Democrat

32:13

who has the authority and stature

32:16

that Barry Goldwater had to tell Richard Nixon

32:18

it was time for him to leave,

32:20

to go over to the White House and tell Joe

32:22

Biden, look, it's over. You

32:24

need to pull out of this race because

32:27

you are not mentally capable of running a

32:30

campaign and withstanding its rigors without

32:34

at least acknowledging that you had

32:36

spent months swearing up and down

32:39

that he was perfect mentally and

32:42

that the only people questioning this

32:44

were liars and smear artists

32:46

and right-wing monsters who believe in deceit.

32:48

How does it that you don't at

32:50

least acknowledge that? You're talking to the

32:53

same audience who watched you do this

32:55

over months and

32:57

you can at least say, look, I guess I was

32:59

wrong when I swore to you up and down many,

33:01

many times that Joe Biden

33:03

was in a different universe than every

33:05

other younger politician. I'm

33:08

now here to say I got that totally wrong

33:10

and I apologize to the people that I called

33:12

liars for saying over the

33:14

last several months what I am now saying

33:17

because I'm forced to. These

33:20

people are completely shameless and

33:24

when it becomes clear as

33:26

it pretty much already is that

33:28

Joe Biden is not going anywhere,

33:31

there's no possibility that Joe Biden is

33:33

going to voluntarily give up the power

33:35

and the title that he spent his

33:38

entire life chasing. And

33:41

when you see senior Democratic leaders like

33:43

Barack Obama and Steny Hoyer

33:45

and the hockey and Jeffries come out

33:47

and circle the wagons around Biden and

33:50

say, okay, he had one bad debate but he is

33:52

our leader, it becomes totally clear that

33:54

he's not going anywhere. You're going to see how fast

33:56

these people are going to go back. saying

34:00

in about three days, you know what? It was one

34:02

bad debate. Who cares in this scheme of things, given

34:05

how great Joe Biden is and what a

34:07

menace Donald Trump is. That debate didn't matter.

34:09

It's just one debate. You don't throw a

34:11

guy overboard for one night. You're going to

34:13

hear all of that very, very shortly. Let

34:18

me just give you another example of just what

34:20

inveterate liars they are, how they're willing to

34:23

just say whatever they need to in

34:25

the moment, and they have

34:27

no qualms about completely changing it a couple

34:31

months later when it suits them. Here is Paul

34:33

Krugman in the New York

34:35

Times. This is February of 2024, so about three

34:37

or four months ago, in a

34:40

column entitled, Why I am Now Deeply

34:42

Worried for America. And

34:45

this is why he's deeply worried. He

34:47

says, quote, many voters think the president's

34:49

age is an issue, but

34:52

there's perception and there's reality. As

34:56

anyone who has recently spent time

34:58

with Joe Biden, and I have,

35:00

can tell you he is in

35:02

full possession of his faculties, completely

35:04

lucid and with excellent grasp of

35:06

detail. Of

35:09

course, most voters don't get to see him up close,

35:11

and it's on Biden's team to address that.

35:14

And yes, he speaks solely and quietly

35:17

and a bit slowly, although this is

35:19

in part because of his lifetime struggle

35:21

with a stutter that

35:24

nobody ever noticed until about four years ago

35:26

when his brain started melting. He

35:29

even went so far as to blame the stutter that

35:32

nobody ever saw when Joe Biden was in public life

35:34

the last 50 years. He's

35:38

in command of the facts. He is completely

35:40

on. And I know that

35:42

because I'm with him, says Paul Krugman, and I despair

35:45

for the country that

35:48

people doubt that because a bunch

35:51

of right wing liars have convinced

35:53

them of lies. Here's

35:57

the very same Paul Krugman today after watching that

35:59

debate. The

36:02

headline is, the best president of my

36:04

adult life needs to withdraw. The

36:07

guy with the great engagement with

36:09

detail and the perfect lucidity and

36:12

the attention now he needs to withdraw. Joe

36:15

Biden has done an excellent job as president.

36:17

In fact, I consider him the best president

36:20

of my adult life. Based

36:22

on his policy record, he should be an

36:24

overwhelming favorite for reelection, but he isn't. Even

36:28

on Thursday night, he failed to rise to the

36:30

occasion when it really mattered. Given

36:32

where we are, I must very reluctantly

36:35

join the chorus, asking Biden to voluntarily

36:41

step aside with emphasis

36:43

on the voluntary aspect. Maybe

36:46

some Biden loyalists will consider this a

36:48

betrayal given how much I

36:51

have supported his policies and I

36:53

fear that we need to recognize

36:55

reality. Reality

36:58

is now that Joe Biden is incapable of doing

37:01

the job. Whereas three months ago, he

37:04

accused anyone who doubted that of living in

37:06

a fantasy world and anyone who was in

37:09

reality understood that nobody

37:11

was more engaged and lucid than Joe Biden. Again,

37:14

just a willingness to completely reverse what he

37:16

was saying was such vehemence a

37:19

very short time ago. Just

37:23

to give you a couple of other examples

37:25

of how people who have

37:27

been defending Joe Biden vehemently did

37:30

a 180 last night and this morning. Let's

37:32

look at Chuck Todd on NBC News, which

37:35

needless to say is a channel

37:37

devoted almost entirely to defending Joe Biden. One

37:41

of the things was would either candidate look like

37:43

the caricature that the other campaign has

37:45

been trying to paint of him? At

37:47

the end of the day, Joe Biden looks like the

37:49

caricature that conservative media

37:51

has been painting and

37:54

there were no clips tonight, right? This was

37:56

you saw it before your eyes. Look, I

37:58

don't want to just tell you what. I

38:00

think here, Tom,

38:03

I've been talking to a lot

38:05

of leaders in the Democratic Party,

38:07

elected coalition

38:09

leaders. There's a full-on

38:11

panic about this performance. Not

38:14

like, oh, this is recoverable. It is

38:16

more of a, okay,

38:20

he's got to step aside. There's a lot of

38:22

that chatter. This is

38:24

about as bad of a performance

38:26

in order to, that

38:29

Biden could have delivered if

38:32

his goal was to try to sort

38:35

of calm the waters among Democrats. All

38:38

right. And here was CNN, in

38:42

fact, hosted by that same person,

38:44

Casey Hunt, who had cut

38:46

off the Trump campaign spokesperson earlier

38:48

this week, a segment that we

38:50

covered, when she had this

38:52

meltdown because the Trump campaign

38:54

was daring to question her colleagues. Here

38:58

she's interviewing Alex Thompson

39:00

of Axios and

39:03

just listen to the extent of

39:05

what he's saying. And again, they're all saying the same

39:08

thing because they're all hearing from the same

39:10

people and they're all

39:12

just repeating the same words in unison. Listen

39:14

to this. Late night. Alex

39:16

Thompson, I know you are incredibly wired

39:19

in with the Biden team. We

39:21

saw those circuits. It took them a minute to get

39:23

out there onto the floor last night, but when they

39:25

did, they came out trying to project

39:27

this message of strength. Is

39:30

it going to work? Well, listen, I've

39:32

covered the Biden White House now for three

39:34

and a half years. And as someone that's

39:36

reported on his age quite a few times,

39:39

I can tell you that the White House's

39:41

response every single time it has come up

39:43

for three and a half years has been

39:46

to deflect, to gaslight, to not tell the

39:48

truth, not just to reporters, not just to

39:50

other Democrats, but even at times to themselves

39:52

about the president's limitations at his age. There

39:55

is a reason why he has not done

39:57

as many interviews or press conferences as any

39:59

president decades. There's a reason he does not

40:02

do events almost ever before 10 a.m. and

40:04

is rarely on camera after 6 p.m. And

40:07

the reason is because he has limitations. He is

40:09

81 years old But

40:11

the problem was they were not forthright with

40:13

other Democrats They weren't at times forthright with

40:16

themselves And that is why

40:18

Democrats are in full freakout mode because what

40:20

they saw is finally what they have been

40:22

obscuring Alex, okay He's

40:25

a journalist who I have to say on

40:27

this issue and others has been more honest

40:29

He's been noting this and complaining about this

40:31

for a while, but think about what he's

40:33

saying It

40:36

wasn't just the White House that concealed

40:38

this and hid this and gaslit and

40:40

lied about it They

40:43

wouldn't have been able to get away with it if

40:45

all these people in the media Who

40:48

pretend to be reporters and journalists and to

40:50

have no partisan allegiance, etc. Had

40:53

it been there every step of

40:55

the way? aggressively defending the Biden

40:57

administration and attacking anybody who Raised

41:01

these questions You

41:04

know even Chuck Todd said look

41:06

this Joe Biden looked like

41:08

the caricature that the right-wing media had been

41:11

depicting about him Because

41:13

it wasn't a caricature. It was the reality and

41:17

Finally Joe Biden was there. He wasn't at the

41:19

State of the Union address where he could read

41:21

from a teleprompter Or

41:23

at a campaign rally Today

41:25

where he reads from a teleprompter. He was in the

41:27

middle of a debate. No notes allowed

41:30

He couldn't bring in any notes. He

41:32

couldn't talk to his campaign staff and

41:35

that's the real Joe Biden And

41:38

that is the thing that they have been lying

41:40

about for months and years Here's

41:43

the New York Times editorial board New

41:46

York Times itself speaking on behalf of the full

41:48

paper. They just released their editorial

41:51

there you see their View quote

41:53

to serve his country president Biden

41:55

should leave the race now

42:00

They're kind of appealing here, as you've

42:02

heard many times, Joe Scarborough do, and

42:05

Paul Krugman and others, to

42:07

this sort of like sense of selfless

42:09

patriotism. What

42:11

has Joe Biden ever done in his life

42:14

that would lead anyone to believe that he

42:18

would voluntarily release the string

42:20

of hold on

42:22

this power and on this title and

42:25

office that he has spent his entire

42:27

adult life seeking? Joe

42:29

Biden first ran for the presidency in 1988.

42:35

That's 35 years ago, more than 35 years ago. That's

42:39

how long he has been desperate to be president. He

42:42

was elected to the Senate in the early 1970s when he was 29

42:44

years old. You

42:46

don't think if you're elected to the Senate when you're 29,

42:48

you immediately start thinking about how to be president. And

42:53

so finally he gets hold of this power

42:56

and this honor and

42:58

this prestige that

43:00

he's been chasing a whole life. When

43:02

has Joe Biden ever shown that he's a

43:05

selfless, honorable person willing to

43:07

sacrifice for the good of

43:09

some greater cause? Never.

43:12

They've created this fairy tale in their

43:14

mind. In fact, in

43:17

1988 when he first ran, he

43:19

was one of the front runners to win the Democratic nomination.

43:24

And yet he was forced out of the race because

43:27

he got caught as a

43:29

pathological liar, constantly fabricating lies about

43:31

his own life as well as

43:33

plagiarizing. Something

43:35

that Joe Biden continues to this very day to

43:37

do. He lies constantly

43:40

about his life. And

43:42

yet the media in their head has made

43:44

this narrative, oh, Joe Biden is a decent,

43:46

honest man. They've repeated it enough

43:48

times so that they actually believe it. Whereas

43:52

the reality is Joe Biden

43:55

has never been that and he is not that.

43:57

And there's almost no chance that he will voluntarily

43:59

get out of this race. race, none. Here

44:03

from the New York Times op-ed page,

44:08

filled with, I believe, every single

44:11

person who works there, Harvard's

44:14

an intense hatred for Donald Trump.

44:18

Every last one of them. They

44:20

have Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, whatever. They all

44:22

have in common that they hate Donald Trump

44:24

and yet here you see the

44:26

group thing there. Here's

44:29

one op-ed, Kamala Harris could win

44:31

this election, let her. That's

44:34

from Lydia Poulgreen. Joe Biden is a

44:36

good and decent man, a good president.

44:38

He must bow out of the race.

44:40

Thomas Friedman. Is Biden

44:43

too old? America got its answer. Three

44:45

opinion writers weigh in on the first

44:48

presidential debate. Here

44:50

is the all of

44:52

the op-ed writers who

44:55

work for the New York Times and they were asked,

44:57

did Trump win or Biden win? And

44:59

every one of them said Trump

45:01

won except for Jamil Bowie and

45:03

Lydia, what is her name, Lydia

45:07

Poulgreen. He

45:09

refused to name a winner. But

45:12

everybody else in the New York Times had to

45:14

admit that Joe Biden won. You see

45:16

this immense turnaround and again it's all

45:18

because they only do

45:20

things together. Here

45:23

just by the way is Nancy Pelosi for

45:25

good measure. Back

45:28

in February of 2024 she went on CNN with Anderson Cooper

45:30

and they

45:34

were giggling and laughing about

45:36

the idea that anyone would think Joe

45:38

Biden is not capable of doing the

45:40

job given how they both know him

45:42

and understand what a great

45:44

leader he is. Do you

45:46

think that is the avenue that President

45:50

Biden should go down on this sort of

45:53

poking fun at, I mean his

45:55

age is his age. His age

45:57

is his age, yes. I've

46:00

worked with the president for a

46:02

long time, especially closely as speaker

46:04

when he was president and now

46:06

since then. And he

46:09

knows, I mean, he's always

46:11

on the ball. He knows these issues.

46:13

He knows the legislation. He helped write

46:15

some of it. He campaigned on it.

46:17

He remembers it. Anyone

46:20

who would think that

46:22

they're at some advantage because of

46:24

his age thinks that

46:26

at their peril because he's very sharp. There

46:30

are, look, I'm sure you hear this from Democrats

46:32

all the time. There are Democrats, a lot of

46:34

Democrats who have concerns about his age, about his

46:36

mental fitness. How much

46:38

of him stumbling

46:41

over words or saying

46:44

Mexico instead of Egypt, what

46:47

do you say to people about their concerns?

46:51

Well, I think that people do make mistakes.

46:53

I think his age is one thing. That's

46:56

an objective fact. His making

46:59

a mistake from time to time. We

47:01

all do that. When the former ex

47:03

president defeated President Trump, made

47:06

a mistake about one thing or another, he would

47:08

make the same mistake seven times. It

47:10

wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was a

47:13

complete going down a

47:15

path of something that wasn't even true intentionally

47:17

or otherwise. So I think that,

47:19

again, age is an objective fact. As I say,

47:21

it's all relative. He's younger than I am. So

47:23

what do I have to say about his age?

47:26

But he is, again, knowledgeable,

47:29

wise. And after the football

47:32

game yesterday, which I was sad, I'm proud of

47:34

the San Francisco I didn't want to bring it

47:36

up with you, but since you brought it up.

47:39

Yeah, but I mean, because I brought it

47:41

up is because at the end of the game,

47:43

you saw experience prevail. We have

47:45

a new fresh team. Wait till next year.

47:47

We're getting all ready for it. But you

47:49

saw experience prevail at the end. Experience

47:51

is so important. So Joe Biden has

47:53

a vision. He has knowledge. He has

47:56

a strategic thinker.

47:58

This is a very. sharp

48:01

president in terms of his

48:03

public. I mean, isn't it

48:05

amazing the ability that these

48:07

people have cultivated from being

48:09

in Washington their whole lives, the ability that

48:12

they have to just lie without the slightest

48:14

flinching? As

48:17

an American, you are subjected to an

48:19

avalanche of deceit and

48:21

propaganda and outright lies from the

48:23

people who we've just looked

48:25

at, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Scarborough and

48:27

Paul Krugman and all of those Democrats

48:29

we showed you, they

48:32

know they're lying. They've been around Joe Biden.

48:34

They saw many, many times what the whole

48:36

country saw last night on the stage. And

48:39

yet they have no problem with going on and assuring

48:43

you of the opposite. Now, I just want

48:45

to note that the same

48:47

exact thing happened four years ago.

48:51

And I wrote about it when I was at the Intercept. The

48:54

very first people who started

48:57

spreading whispers and concerns

48:59

that Joe Biden, because of his age, was

49:01

no longer mentally capable

49:05

of running a campaign and becoming

49:07

president, was not Trump

49:09

supporters or Bernie Sanders supporters. It

49:11

was these mainstream Democratic Party operatives

49:14

who in 2018 and 2019 openly talked about how Joe

49:19

Biden wasn't there anymore because

49:22

they were worried that he would get the nomination simply

49:25

because he was around Obama for eight years

49:27

as his vice president being the best known.

49:30

He would just kind of stumble into the nomination and they

49:32

were worried that he would lose the election because he was

49:34

incapable of withstanding the rigors of a

49:36

campaign. Now fortunately for Joe Biden,

49:39

because of COVID, he barely ever had to come out

49:41

of his basement. They barely

49:43

had to do anything in 2020 physically. And

49:46

so he was just able to stay at home and none of

49:48

that got exposed. But

49:51

once Joe Biden got the nomination, the same

49:53

exact people, the same exact Democratic operatives who

49:55

had been saying Joe Biden

49:57

is mentally impaired immediately. turned

50:00

around when he was the nominee

50:03

and started saying it's immoral to

50:05

raise any questions about his fitness.

50:08

And that was the article I wrote there. You see the headline in March of

50:10

2020. It's the Democrats

50:12

and their media who impugned

50:15

Biden's cognitive fitness. Now they

50:17

feign outrage. Concerned

50:21

about the former vice president's cognitive decline

50:23

came from his supporters, not from Trump

50:26

or Sanders. So let me

50:28

just give you a few

50:30

little excerpts. Here is Andrea

50:32

Mitchell. This is in June of 2019, five

50:36

years ago. And you can compare the Biden

50:38

of 2020 and those debates to

50:40

the Biden of last night.

50:43

And you'll see how rapidly he's

50:45

declined. But already back in

50:47

2019, the Andrea Mitchells of

50:49

the world, the people who have been in Washington forever, who are

50:51

on the side of the Democrats were

50:53

openly speaking about Biden to suggest that

50:55

there was something wrong with him. Listen

50:57

to what she said. This was

50:59

right before the Democratic Party

51:01

primary debate. Listen to what she said.

51:03

This is the first debate. And

51:07

look, he has been a skilled

51:09

debater. We saw him with Sarah Palin. We've seen

51:11

him in the past. The question is, does he

51:13

still have his stuff? And it's

51:15

my nanny. Yeah. And is he how sharp

51:17

is he? Does the Joe Biden tonight, is

51:20

this he the same Joe Biden who could

51:22

respond with one word to a

51:24

younger question by the question. So

51:26

there's Chris Matthew

51:30

Chuckling saying you're pretending to ask a

51:33

question, but you're actually answering it. We

51:35

all know Joe Biden has slowed down

51:37

significantly and doesn't have anywhere near the

51:39

capabilities that he once did. In fact,

51:43

so open was this attack

51:45

on Joe Biden that Democratic

51:48

Party candidates on the stage with him mocked

51:52

him and openly talked about how he

51:54

was clearly in serious

51:56

cognitive decline, practically senile. Here

51:58

was an exchange. that

52:00

Joaquin Castro had

52:03

with Joe Biden, and Joaquin Castro

52:05

has been a score

52:07

member of the Democratic Party establishment for

52:09

years. He wasn't

52:11

some outlier figure, like, you

52:14

know, Marianne Williams set up on the

52:16

stage. I mean, he's a hardcore Democrat.

52:19

And watch what he was willing to do to

52:21

Joe Biden. This is 2019. They

52:25

do not have to buy it. You just said that. You

52:27

just said that two minutes ago. You

52:29

just said two minutes ago that they would have to buy in. You

52:31

said they would have to buy in. If

52:34

you qualify for the meds, you're forgetting what you said two

52:36

minutes ago. It's automatically being formed. Are

52:38

you forgetting already what you said just two minutes

52:41

ago? I mean, I

52:43

can't believe that you said two minutes ago that they

52:45

had to buy in, and now you're saying they don't

52:47

have to buy in. You're forgetting that. I said anyone.

52:50

I mean, that was not subtle.

52:53

Here was Cory Booker, who was

52:56

also on the stage, and also

52:58

very explicitly raised exactly the same sort

53:00

of attack on Joe Biden. Again,

53:03

this was five years ago. There

53:07

are definitely moments where you listen to Joe

53:09

Biden and you just wonder. I think that

53:11

we are at a tough

53:13

point right now, because there's a lot of people who are

53:15

concerned about Joe Biden's ability to

53:17

carry the ball all the way across the

53:19

end line without fumbling. And I

53:21

think that Castro has some really legitimate

53:24

concerns about can he be someone

53:27

in a long, grueling campaign that

53:29

can get the ball over the line, and he has every right

53:31

to call that out. I

53:33

mean, these were the people, not Trump supporters,

53:36

not Sanders supporters, who first were constantly raising

53:38

these concerns. I could show you so many

53:40

more. And yet

53:42

the minute it became apparent that

53:45

Joe Biden would be the Democratic nominee and would

53:47

run against Trump, the media all closed ranks again

53:50

and said that anyone raising these issues is

53:54

essentially an immoral scumbag. Here

53:56

was Ryan Lizza who was

53:59

at the... Yorker and Politico. And

54:03

he's showing here tweets

54:05

from Sanders supporters and Trump

54:09

supporters who are

54:13

raising that issue about how

54:16

Biden doesn't seem to really

54:18

be mentally there. And this

54:20

is what he said, quote, part

54:22

of the, quote, cognitive decline campaign

54:25

being spread by MAGA and Sanders Twitter

54:27

is to deny any coordination. The idea

54:30

is that everyone is just now noticing

54:32

that Biden misspeaks all the time and

54:34

they're suddenly alarmed by it. He's been

54:36

like this for decades. That's

54:40

how they closed ranks and relying back in 2019

54:43

here with from the Washington monthly in

54:46

March of 2020, a

54:48

article entitled the disinformation campaign

54:51

being launched against Joe

54:53

Biden, quote, there is no data to

54:55

support the allegation that he is in

54:57

cognitive decline. These people have been lying

55:00

for years to

55:03

cover for Joe Biden. And the

55:05

due finally, the bill finally came due last

55:07

night as they all got exposed

55:09

for the absolute liars that they were. But

55:13

don't think that these

55:16

people in the media have finally been

55:18

willing to declare independence. They

55:21

were only saying all these things, not because they

55:23

have a conscience or worried

55:25

about their own credibility. Maybe that was part of it.

55:28

But they thought they were speaking for the people

55:30

who they usually speak for, which are Democratic party

55:32

insiders who were texting them all night and saying,

55:34

this is a disaster. We have to get Biden

55:36

out of the race. And

55:39

yet Barack Obama appeared today to make very

55:42

clear that none of that is going to

55:44

happen. Obama

55:46

tweeted the following just a few hours ago,

55:48

quote, bad debate nights happen. Trust

55:50

me, I know, but this

55:52

election is still a choice between someone

55:55

who has fought for ordinary folks his

55:57

entire life and someone who only cares about him.

56:01

between someone who tells the truth, who knows

56:03

right from wrong, and will give it to

56:05

the American people straight, and someone who lies

56:07

through his teeth for his own benefit. Last

56:09

night didn't change that, and

56:11

it's why so much is at stake in November. So

56:13

he's telling these media servants, look,

56:18

stop with this narrative

56:20

about Biden having to get out of the race. He's

56:22

not going anywhere. Here

56:24

is the script that you're now going to use. You're going to

56:26

get back to work for

56:29

the Democratic Party and for Joe Biden, and

56:31

you're going to say, yeah, he had a bad night, a

56:33

bad debate night. Many people have had one bad debate night.

56:37

But in the overall scheme,

56:39

comparing Trump to Biden, none of this matters

56:41

at all. And I promise you, I guarantee

56:43

you, by Monday, all

56:47

of these media people are going to be back on message.

56:50

Once they realize that Joe Biden is not going

56:52

anywhere, they're going to be back to work making

56:54

sure, once they accept

56:56

the reality that they're stuck with Joe Biden, that they're going

56:58

to go back to doing everything they can to

57:01

make sure that that debate night

57:03

does not harm him and that

57:06

he gets reelected and keep Trump

57:08

out of office, the problem for them is

57:11

that nobody listens to them anymore. Nobody trusts them.

57:13

They can speak all they want about

57:16

how capable Biden is and how

57:19

nobody believed him before last night. And

57:22

especially after watching last night,

57:24

certainly, no one's going to believe

57:26

it now, no matter how much they lie and propagandize

57:28

and deceive. There

57:36

are a lot of people in the United States who owe back taxes,

57:39

and that's for a lot of different reasons. Pandemic

57:41

relief that was provided by the government in the wake of

57:43

COVID is now coming to an end. Along

57:47

with hiring thousands of new agents and

57:49

field officers, the IRS has kicked off

57:51

2024 by sending up to five

57:54

million, quote, pay up letters

57:56

to those who have unfiled tax returns

57:59

or balances. Don't

58:01

leave your rights and speak with them on your

58:03

own. They are not your friends and they will

58:06

not tell you what rights you have. Tax Network

58:08

USA is a trusted tax

58:10

relief firm that they've saved over $1

58:12

billion in back taxes

58:14

for their clients and they can speak

58:16

with you and give you consultation and

58:18

advice and help you secure the best

58:21

possible deal you can get with the

58:23

IRS. Whether you owe $10,000 or

58:25

$10 million, they can

58:27

help you. Whether it's business or personal taxes, even

58:29

if you have the means to pay or you're

58:31

on a fixed income, they can help you finally

58:34

understand your rights and directly deal with the IRS

58:36

on your behalf and to insist on all of

58:38

the legal protections you have and

58:40

try to negotiate the best possible deal for you.

58:43

Call 1-800-245-6000 for

58:45

a private free

58:47

consultation or you

58:49

can visit the website

58:51

tnusa, taxnetworkusa.com slash

58:54

glenn. So,

59:04

it has been a really big wait for the

59:06

Supreme Court and we think it's very important to

59:08

cover the Supreme Court not just to explain

59:11

what the outcome is so that people who are on

59:13

the left or right judge the outcome simply based on

59:15

the results, but to really give

59:17

you an understanding of what this very powerful entity

59:19

in the United States is

59:21

doing. We covered one decision

59:24

that they issued earlier this week, which

59:26

is the decision where they shielded the

59:29

Biden administration from any

59:32

sort of constitutional review.

59:36

In that decision, Amy Coney Barrett and

59:39

John Roberts joined with the

59:42

three liberals. It

59:44

was Alito and

59:46

Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.

59:49

In the minority, it was Brett

59:51

Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and

59:54

John Roberts who joined the three liberals for a 6-3

59:56

ruling that said the plaintiffs don't have standing there. We

59:58

covered that in depth the other day. night. Also

1:00:01

today they overturned the court did

1:00:04

by six to three ruling with the

1:00:06

six conservatives on one side. The longstanding

1:00:09

doctrine called the Chevron Doctrine, which basically

1:00:11

though it sounds boring, instructs

1:00:14

courts to defer to

1:00:17

the interpretations of congressional law

1:00:19

whatever agencies decide the

1:00:21

law means. And the court

1:00:24

has said there's no reason for judges to give

1:00:28

deference to say the EPA or the

1:00:30

FBI or

1:00:33

any other executive branch agency there

1:00:35

to regulate. It's not their job

1:00:37

to interpret what Congress meant, it's Congress's

1:00:39

job to pass a clear law and

1:00:41

if they don't, if there's ambiguity then

1:00:43

the courts are the place where those

1:00:46

disputes should be determined. It really has

1:00:48

the effect of taking a lot of

1:00:50

power away from the administrative state, the

1:00:53

unelected administrative state, and handing it back

1:00:55

to Congress and to some extent to

1:00:57

the courts. On July 1st, on Monday,

1:00:59

the court will decide its last case,

1:01:02

which is whether or not President

1:01:05

Trump enjoys immunity from any

1:01:08

kind of prosecution for acts undertaken as

1:01:10

president that will obviously have a big

1:01:13

impact. My guess is they will either

1:01:15

reject his theory or will send it

1:01:17

back to the courts to further analyze

1:01:19

certain things but we'll see how that

1:01:22

goes. But they also today overturned

1:01:25

the theory that prosecutors had

1:01:27

been using in order

1:01:29

to take nonviolent January

1:01:31

6th protesters and even

1:01:33

some who use violence and

1:01:36

turn them into felons using

1:01:38

an extremely distorted and stretched

1:01:41

interpretation of a law that was

1:01:43

passed back in 2000 after

1:01:46

the Enron scandal. Paul Krugman was on the

1:01:48

board of directors of that company

1:01:51

Enron that turned out to be a

1:01:53

gigantic fraud, the whole thing collapsed. And

1:01:56

in the wake of the collapse of that, of

1:01:59

Enron, they realized that there was a

1:02:01

loophole in the law that prevented them

1:02:03

from prosecuting the accountants who helped Enron

1:02:07

commit that fraud. They prosecuted

1:02:09

the CPA from Arthur Anderson, but

1:02:11

they couldn't prosecute the individuals. And

1:02:13

so they enacted a law called

1:02:15

Sarbanes-Oxley after the two members of

1:02:17

Congress who sponsored it. And

1:02:20

all that law did was say

1:02:22

that if you obstruct investigations

1:02:25

or official proceedings, you

1:02:27

can be guilty of a felony that had no

1:02:29

intention for it to apply to political

1:02:32

protest. It was simply designed

1:02:34

to prevent people from obstructing

1:02:36

ongoing investigations. After

1:02:38

January 6, the prosecutors who

1:02:41

were covering this these these cases were

1:02:44

under a lot of pressure to put these

1:02:47

January 6 defendants, including ones who committed no

1:02:49

use no violence, into prison for

1:02:51

a long time. In order to do that, they needed

1:02:53

to concoct a theory as

1:02:55

to why just entering Congress

1:02:58

and protesting can somehow

1:03:00

turn you into a

1:03:02

felon. And the theory that

1:03:05

they used was this

1:03:07

wildly expansive interpretation

1:03:09

of Sarbanes-Oxley that the Supreme Court

1:03:11

today rejected, which means

1:03:13

that a lot of those prosecutions

1:03:15

of January 6 defendants can be in

1:03:17

jeopardy. And the case that Jack Smith

1:03:20

has brought against Donald Trump, charging

1:03:23

him with felonies related to his conduct pertaining to

1:03:25

January 6, also in part

1:03:27

used this theory that the Supreme Court

1:03:29

today rejected. The

1:03:32

Wall Street Journal back in

1:03:34

20th of 21 explained the

1:03:37

following, quote, to

1:03:39

prosecute January 6 Capitol writers, the

1:03:41

government tests a novel legal strategy.

1:03:44

At first

1:03:46

trials, as first trials approach,

1:03:48

some defendants are challenging use

1:03:50

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act to obtain

1:03:52

felony convictions and stiff sentences.

1:03:57

The problem was these judges were

1:04:00

too cowardly, too afraid to rule

1:04:03

in favor of January 6th defendants. So almost

1:04:05

every judge on the lower court level accepted

1:04:08

and approved the prosecutor's distortion of

1:04:11

the law. And

1:04:13

I've been writing about this going back

1:04:15

for many years. Here is an article

1:04:18

I wrote in Substack in 2021 where

1:04:21

I was describing how Democrats had always

1:04:23

pretended to be so pro-defendant, anti-prosecutor, believe

1:04:25

in criminal justice reform, and yet when

1:04:27

it comes to their political enemies, they're

1:04:30

willing to relinquish every one of

1:04:32

the claimed beliefs they have about the

1:04:34

judicial system in order to ensure that

1:04:36

their political enemies go into

1:04:39

prison. I talked a lot about how the

1:04:41

prosecutor Michael Flynn, which almost

1:04:43

every left liberal cheered, used

1:04:47

a huge number of prosecutorial weapons

1:04:49

and theories that

1:04:51

anyone who considered them a criminal justice

1:04:53

reform advocate had long opposed. And of

1:04:55

course, they didn't care. They suddenly embraced

1:04:57

it in order to put Michael Flynn

1:04:59

in prison. The same thing happened when

1:05:03

cheering the conviction as felons of

1:05:05

January 6th defendants under a theory

1:05:07

of law that was obviously so

1:05:09

distorted, so stretched

1:05:11

and dubious, and

1:05:13

that had the potential in the future

1:05:15

of turning any political protesters into felons

1:05:19

simply because they might have disrupted a

1:05:21

proceeding in Congress. And

1:05:24

here's what I said in that article

1:05:26

when describing specifically what

1:05:29

the prosecutors were doing

1:05:31

here. Quote, the

1:05:33

most protracted thirst for harsh criminal

1:05:36

punishment from Democrats has been directed

1:05:38

at those who participated in the

1:05:40

protest-turned-riot at the Capitol on January

1:05:42

6th. Of the more

1:05:44

than 600 people charged with crimes in

1:05:46

connection with that riot, only

1:05:48

a minority are accused of using

1:05:50

violence of any kind. In other words,

1:05:53

the majority of January 6 defendants are

1:05:55

accused of non-violent crimes. While

1:05:58

few people object to prison terms for people

1:06:00

who use violence as part of that riot,

1:06:04

even though many progressives do object to long prison terms

1:06:06

for those who use violence as part of the 2020

1:06:09

Black Lives Protest Movement, a

1:06:11

large number of nonviolent protesters face

1:06:13

serious felony charges and lengthy prison

1:06:15

terms. That

1:06:17

nonviolent protesters should not be imprisoned

1:06:19

is foundational to the criminal justice

1:06:21

reform movement, yet it is nowhere

1:06:24

to be found when it comes to the January 6th

1:06:26

defendants whose real prime is

1:06:29

that they have the wrong ideology. To

1:06:32

charge nonviolent January 6th defendants

1:06:34

with felony charges has

1:06:36

been a serious challenge for

1:06:38

federal prosecutors since one

1:06:40

is nonviolent trespassing a felony. To

1:06:44

convert it into one, the DOJ

1:06:46

has invented a warp theory about

1:06:49

what the Starbeams-Oxley Act of 2002

1:06:51

was intended to criminalize, insisting

1:06:54

that the phrase obstruction of justice provision

1:06:57

of that law intended

1:06:59

to regulate Wall Street somehow applies to

1:07:01

the January 6th certification vote at the

1:07:03

Capitol. And

1:07:07

the irony was in order to argue that they

1:07:09

had to depict the vote counting

1:07:11

on January 6th not as a mere

1:07:13

ministerial act, but as

1:07:15

an official investigation that Congress is undertaking

1:07:17

where they had the option to reject

1:07:19

the vote totals or accept

1:07:22

them the exact theory that Donald Trump had

1:07:24

used as to why Mike

1:07:26

Pence could reject the totals.

1:07:29

So it was always an extremely warped

1:07:33

and stretched meaning.

1:07:35

We covered it as well earlier

1:07:37

this year because an appellate court

1:07:39

had finally looked at all these

1:07:42

prosecutions and rejected the

1:07:45

validity of this theory that the prosecutors had used

1:07:47

to put a lot of January 6th defendants into

1:07:50

prison as felons. And here's part of what

1:07:52

we reported back then in March. and

1:08:00

if they are they're charged with because they

1:08:02

weren't engaged in violence. And typically non-violent political

1:08:04

protesters in the US are rarely charged and

1:08:06

if they are they're charged with misdemeanors but

1:08:08

not in the January 6 case. And

1:08:12

the way that this was done is so ironic.

1:08:14

We've been over this before. I've written articles about

1:08:16

it. You can go in if you want to

1:08:18

really dig into the legalities of what I'm describing

1:08:20

here. You

1:08:23

can do so but basically there were

1:08:26

laws that were enacted in

1:08:28

the wake of the collapse of Enron which

1:08:31

was a gigantic energy company, Paul Krugman. So

1:08:34

we don't need that whole explanation again. I just want to show

1:08:36

you that this is something we've been covering for a long time

1:08:38

because I have been always very alarmed

1:08:41

that prosecutors are just able

1:08:43

to invent new laws out

1:08:46

of nowhere and everybody

1:08:48

was fine with it because

1:08:50

all they wanted to do is put January 6th

1:08:52

defendants or protesters into prison for a long time

1:08:57

without the slightest regard to whether they

1:08:59

actually committed felonies. They

1:09:01

were seen as political prisoners, as people that you just

1:09:03

wanted in prison at any cost and

1:09:06

because judges were too afraid to rule in their

1:09:09

favor, many of them went to

1:09:11

prison for a long time as felons under a theory

1:09:13

that never made any sense. Here in

1:09:15

March of first, this year was the

1:09:17

first glimmer that courts were

1:09:19

finally willing to say that this

1:09:21

is a theory

1:09:24

that had no validity from the

1:09:26

Washington Post. Quote, appeals court ruling

1:09:28

means that over 100 January 6th

1:09:30

rioters may be resentenced. And

1:09:33

then it goes on to explain what the court

1:09:35

ruled. Now, it

1:09:38

was this ruling that went to the Supreme Court

1:09:40

and the Supreme Court decided today by

1:09:44

a 6-3 ruling that

1:09:48

you cannot turn January 6th

1:09:51

defendants and protesters into felons

1:09:54

under this interpretation of

1:09:56

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that had been used over and

1:09:58

over to the Supreme Court. throw these people in

1:10:00

prison for a long time. And

1:10:03

the breakdown of the decision was very interesting.

1:10:07

The six justices voting

1:10:10

to reject the prosecution theory

1:10:12

were five conservatives, Thomas, Almeido,

1:10:15

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and

1:10:18

Roberts, along with

1:10:21

Katonji Brown Jackson, who joined the

1:10:23

majority. And she did

1:10:25

so and then wrote a concurrent opinion,

1:10:27

her own opinion, that

1:10:31

was extraordinary in terms of just how

1:10:33

straightforward it was in

1:10:36

condemning what had been done to

1:10:38

these defendants. She has a long

1:10:40

track record of being pro-defendant. And

1:10:42

rather than suspending her values and

1:10:44

judicial beliefs, simply

1:10:47

because she doesn't like the ideology of the

1:10:49

defendant, she very commendably applied her pro-defendant,

1:10:53

anti-prosecutor ideology to these

1:10:55

defendants as well, because

1:10:57

she knew that allowing

1:10:59

prosecutors to invent laws to put people in

1:11:01

prison who don't belong there will

1:11:04

endanger everybody. On

1:11:07

the other hand, the three justices

1:11:09

who formed the dissent were

1:11:12

Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and

1:11:15

Amy Coney Barrett. And

1:11:17

she wrote Amy Coney Barrett, the dissenting opinion.

1:11:21

But in reality, she wasn't ruling

1:11:24

against the January 6th defendants, she is a pro-prosecutor judge.

1:11:28

And so her ruling as well was consistent with

1:11:30

her longstanding theory about how to interpret laws, especially

1:11:33

criminal laws that are generally unfavorable to defendants. So

1:11:35

it was really an example

1:11:39

where at least those two judges,

1:11:41

Jackson and Barrett, reached

1:11:43

a conclusion, Lele, that they that

1:11:46

they knew would displease their political faction.

1:11:48

And I think when a judge does

1:11:50

that, even if

1:11:52

you don't like the result that it

1:11:55

creates, that's actually commendable.

1:11:57

That's what you want from a judge. That's what

1:11:59

every judge. swears when they're being confirmed

1:12:02

before the Senate that they'll do, well, we're

1:12:04

just going to apply the law without the

1:12:06

slightest regard for the political

1:12:08

outcomes. And very few judges do that. And when

1:12:10

judges do it, as they both did here, I

1:12:13

think it's to be celebrated. Let me just give

1:12:15

you a slight taste of

1:12:18

why the court ruled the way it did. In

1:12:20

reality, it's a very technical ruling. It's just a

1:12:23

question of how to interpret this law and

1:12:25

whether it should be read expansively to

1:12:28

include behaviors like

1:12:31

protesting the Congress on January 6th.

1:12:34

And the majority said that

1:12:36

it couldn't be. Here's what the

1:12:38

majority opinion from Justice

1:12:41

Roberts said, quote,

1:12:46

to prove a violation of Section

1:12:50

1512C2, that's the provision of the

1:12:52

Star-Bains-Oxley Act, the government must establish

1:12:55

that the defendant impaired the availability

1:12:57

or integrity for use

1:12:59

in an official proceeding of records, documents,

1:13:01

objects, or as we earlier explained, other

1:13:03

things used in the proceeding or attempted

1:13:05

to do so. The judgment

1:13:08

of the D.C. Circuit is therefore vacated,

1:13:10

and the case is remanded

1:13:12

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1:13:15

On remand, the D.C. Court may assess the

1:13:17

sufficiency of all these

1:13:19

other charges. So it was a

1:13:21

very just straightforward statutory

1:13:24

interpretation where they concluded that Star-Bains-Oxley

1:13:26

could not be read to turn

1:13:28

these people into felons. The

1:13:31

much more interesting opinion was

1:13:34

what Justice Kalanji Brown

1:13:36

Jackson wrote in her occurrence where

1:13:39

she explains why she's joining

1:13:41

the majority, the conservative majority, and ruling

1:13:44

in favor of the January 6th defendants. Listen

1:13:46

to what she said here. I think this is

1:13:48

such an important passage, and I

1:13:51

wish every liberal who respects and likes

1:13:53

her would actually read this to understand

1:13:55

what it means to apply a principle

1:13:58

irrespective of the political

1:14:00

outcome or the ideology of the people

1:14:03

whose legal rights you're protecting. This

1:14:05

is what she wrote, quote, on January

1:14:08

6, 2021, an angry mob stormed the

1:14:10

US Capitol, seeking to prevent

1:14:12

Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty

1:14:14

to certify the electoral votes

1:14:16

in the 2020 election. The

1:14:19

peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental democratic

1:14:21

norm, and those who attempted to disrupt it

1:14:23

in this way inflicted a deep wound on

1:14:26

this nation. So she's saying, like, I see

1:14:28

January 6 the way liberals see it. But

1:14:31

then she goes on. But today's case

1:14:33

is not about the immorality of

1:14:35

those acts. Instead, the question

1:14:38

before this court is far narrower.

1:14:42

What is the scope of the particular crime

1:14:44

Congress has outlined in 18 USC 1512

1:14:48

C2? That's the law we've been talking about. And then

1:14:51

she went on to say this, quote, in the United States

1:14:53

of America, and she's quoting

1:14:55

a case here, quote, men are not

1:14:57

subjected to criminal punishment, because

1:15:00

their conduct offends our patriotic

1:15:02

emotions, or thwarts

1:15:04

a general purpose sought to be

1:15:06

affected by specific commands which

1:15:09

they have not obeyed. Nor are

1:15:12

they to be held guilty of

1:15:14

offenses, which the statues have omitted,

1:15:17

though by inadvertence to the finding condemned.

1:15:19

And she quotes a 1943 Supreme Court

1:15:21

case there. And then she goes on,

1:15:23

our commitment to equal justice and the

1:15:26

rule of law requires the court to

1:15:28

faithfully apply criminal laws as written,

1:15:31

even in periods of national crises. And

1:15:35

even when the conduct alleged is

1:15:38

indisputably abhorrent. Notwithstanding

1:15:41

the shock of circumstances involved in

1:15:43

this case or the government's determination

1:15:45

that they weren't prosecution. Today, this

1:15:47

court's task is to determine what

1:15:49

conduct is prescribed by the criminal

1:15:51

statute that has been invoked

1:15:54

as the basis for the obstruction charge at

1:15:56

issue here. I joining the

1:15:58

court's opinion because I agree with the majority. that

1:16:00

this law does not reach all

1:16:02

forms of obstructive conduct and is

1:16:04

instead limited by the proceeding list

1:16:06

of criminal violations. And

1:16:09

as a result, she voted to

1:16:11

apply this law in

1:16:13

a much narrower way than

1:16:15

the prosecutors of January 6

1:16:17

defendants had applied it. Now,

1:16:21

similarly, Amy Coney Barrett, who might have surprised

1:16:23

a lot of people by

1:16:25

voting in favor of a prosecutorial theory

1:16:27

used against January 6 defendants. But in

1:16:29

reality, she's a pro prosecutor,

1:16:33

generally judge, who often rules against defendants.

1:16:35

She did what you would expect her

1:16:38

to do if she were ruling apolitically,

1:16:41

which is she, just like Katonja

1:16:44

Brown Jackson gave a anti-prosecutor

1:16:46

ruling, Judge Barrett gave a

1:16:48

pro prosecutor ruling. And

1:16:50

this is what she wrote. It's a

1:16:52

very technical and legal analysis. And that's

1:16:54

it. Quote, this court does not dispute

1:16:56

that Congress's joint session qualifies as an

1:16:59

official proceeding, that rioters delayed

1:17:01

the proceeding, or even that the

1:17:03

defendant's conduct, alleged conduct, which includes

1:17:05

trespassing, and a physical confrontation with

1:17:07

law enforcement was part of a

1:17:10

successful effort to forcibly halt the

1:17:12

certification of the election results. Given

1:17:14

these premises, the

1:17:16

case that this defendant can be tried

1:17:18

for, quote, obstructing influence or impeding an

1:17:21

official proceeding seems open and shut. So

1:17:24

why does the court hold otherwise? Because it simply

1:17:26

cannot believe that Congress meant what it said. The

1:17:29

law in question is a very

1:17:31

broad provision. And admittedly, events like

1:17:33

January 6th were not its targets.

1:17:37

Who could blame Congress for that failure of

1:17:39

imagination? But statues often

1:17:41

go further than the problem that inspired

1:17:43

them. And under the rules of statutory

1:17:46

interpretation, we stick to the text anyway.

1:17:49

So I think the ruling

1:17:52

is absolutely right. I've been arguing this

1:17:54

for many years. From the beginning, that

1:17:56

this law provides no basis

1:17:59

prosecuting January 6th defendants as

1:18:03

felons. I am very glad the Supreme Court

1:18:06

concluded that way. That means a lot of

1:18:09

January 6 felons are gonna have their convictions

1:18:11

subject to being overturned or

1:18:13

reviewed. It's gonna make the

1:18:16

prosecution of Donald Trump much more difficult since this

1:18:18

is a theory that Jack Smith used, that

1:18:20

the Supreme Court is now said it

1:18:23

is invalid. But I also wanna emphasize

1:18:25

that although we

1:18:27

generally celebrate when judges reach

1:18:29

a outcome that we want, sometimes

1:18:33

judges are willing

1:18:36

to contravene an

1:18:38

outcome that they may be politically sympathetic

1:18:41

to because their legal reasoning leads

1:18:44

them to that conclusion. And that's what we

1:18:46

should want in judges. That's what we should

1:18:48

celebrate in judges. So I

1:18:51

think Amy Coney Barrett is wrong here, but I

1:18:53

think it's impressive that

1:18:55

she's willing to apply the way she interprets criminal

1:18:57

law to reach the

1:18:59

conclusion that she reached, even though she's

1:19:01

ruling against January 6th defendants. And conversely,

1:19:04

I think what Katahdee Brown

1:19:06

Jackson did in applying

1:19:08

her long standing interpretation

1:19:10

of the criminal law to favor

1:19:12

defendants and limit

1:19:15

prosecutorial power, even

1:19:18

though in this case, it ended up protecting

1:19:20

January 6th defendants, which she made very

1:19:22

clear are people she finds to have engaged

1:19:24

in horrific and dangerous behavior.

1:19:27

I think that too is extremely commendable. That is

1:19:30

what we want from judges, even in the cases

1:19:33

where we end up disagreeing with them. So finally,

1:19:35

I think it's so important that

1:19:37

the courts have been willing

1:19:39

three years later to set

1:19:41

aside all the intense emotion around January 6th

1:19:45

to abandon this idea that we

1:19:47

should invent laws or fabricate laws

1:19:50

or concoct new and exotic theories to

1:19:53

justify putting people into prison because we don't

1:19:55

like the politics or the political protest in

1:19:57

which they engaged. the

1:20:00

court engages in an act where they're just actually

1:20:02

interpreting and applying the law, and

1:20:05

not doing so because of the political outcomes, I think

1:20:08

it's something that should be applauded.

1:20:10

In this case, it will have a

1:20:12

very significant, I think, positive outcome in

1:20:14

making clear to prosecutors that no matter

1:20:16

how much you hate criminal defendants, no

1:20:19

matter how unpopular in the country their

1:20:21

cause might be, you do not have

1:20:23

the freedom to

1:20:25

fabricate or invent new laws on

1:20:28

the spot simply to achieve the

1:20:30

outcome of putting them in prison because you believe that's

1:20:32

where they belong. So

1:20:38

that concludes our show for this evening. As

1:20:40

a reminder, a system update is also available

1:20:42

in podcast form. You can listen to every

1:20:44

episode 12 hours after their

1:20:46

first broadcast live here on Rumble, on

1:20:48

Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting

1:20:51

platforms. If you rate, review, and follow

1:20:53

our show there, it really helps spread

1:20:55

the visibility of the program. Finally, every

1:20:57

Tuesday and Thursday night, once

1:20:59

we're done with our live show here on Rumble, we

1:21:01

move to Locals for a live interactive after show. Last

1:21:04

night, in lieu of our standard

1:21:06

after show, we streamed for our

1:21:08

local subscribers 30 minutes of my

1:21:11

reaction to that debate that is now available

1:21:13

the following day today to everyone. We put

1:21:16

it here on Rumble as well as on

1:21:18

our channels, including the

1:21:20

podcasting channels and YouTube.

1:21:23

But in general, those are the sorts of

1:21:25

things that we do in our Locals community.

1:21:27

It is for our members of

1:21:29

Locals. So if you want to join, which

1:21:31

gives you access to all of those features,

1:21:33

the after shows, the interactive features, the written

1:21:35

transcripts of every program. And most of all,

1:21:37

it's the community on which

1:21:39

we rely to support the independent journalism that we

1:21:42

do here. All you have to do is click

1:21:44

the join button right below the video player on

1:21:46

the Rumble page and it will take you directly

1:21:48

to that site. For those of you watching this

1:21:51

show, we are needless to say, very appreciative, and

1:21:53

we hope to see you back on Monday night and

1:21:55

every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively

1:21:59

here on Rumble. We'll have a great evening and a

1:22:01

great weekend.