On this Salcedo Storm Podcast: Former Acting Attorney General under President Trump, Matthew Whitaker.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
Probably heard the term lawfare. And some of you might might be questioning what exactly does that mean? What when somebody says the left is undertaking law fair. What does that mean? And what does it mean for me? Well, let me give you an example. The law fair being lodged against President Trump, what why are they doing this? Well, they’re doing it to make sure that he can’t get into positions of power and authority.
Again, they’re doing it to stomp on his message. They’re doing it to send a message to the rest of us if we can get Trump. What do you think we’re going to do to you for opposing us? On the left, as you will know, the case that came down out of New York was a travesty a judgment against President Trump that can only be looked at as a complete miscarriage of justice. Not only that, it is the complete politicization of, of our justice system, to to basically silence one’s political opponents either out of sheer hatred, or making sure that your opponents don’t have the ability to maintain an opposition to you.
It’s a weaponization of government, on a level we have never seen in this country before. And in this liberty loving Latinos opinion, we don’t stop this now. We may never be able to save this country. And I don’t want to be misunderstood here. This isn’t about President Trump. This. This isn’t about those who are being targeted by law fair, it’s the practice. If we start accepting, well, yeah, the left wing is going to weaponize the law. And every single time you disagree with a left winger, you’re going to find yourself in a selves impoverished or in jail for disagreeing with with a left winger folks. It’s the predicate of criminalizing conservatism and opposing leftists that I’m that I’m speaking out against here. And apparently, I’m not the only one. And I can’t believe I’m going to say this.
But Katy Tur over at MSN BS, actually, with the first sign that I can tell folks that maybe the left wing thinks they’ve gone too far against President Trump, that they recognize Whoa, we go down this road, we’re not America anymore. Katy Tur on MSN BS on Friday after this ruling came down. She questioned the fairness of this because remember, this whole case inside of New York has no victim has as metaphoric. Everybody profited off of what happened here, judge and Goron, this leftist who was from the very beginning mugging for the camera and saying, Well, this is my big, my big chance to make myself famous by going after President Trump because I hate him and I think everybody else does as well.
He underestimated the value of President Trump’s properties that he was taking a loan out on to purchase. The banks reviewing the purchase said wait a minute, we find this to be a good investment. We’re going to lend President Trump the money because our actuaries did the job and we think and And they evaluated these assets and found them to be worthy of a loan. So nobody was a victim here. There was no crime here, because there was no victim.
But judge and Goron. Not only did he pass down this $350 million judgment against President Trump, he forbade President Trump and the Trump businesses from doing business in New York for three years. And I’ve got something to say about that as well. But here’s Katy Tur, and her evaluation, listen to this on MSN BS.
You know, I’m looking for a little bit of reporting with the Associated Press Did regarding these sorts of decisions, these sorts of investigations, these trials, I’m not finding it in this pile of papers that I have in front of me, but basically, they said they went back over 70 years and looked at all the cases that have been tried under this this rule 36 or 6312, which is used here, which doesn’t have to show harm done. It’s not the that’s not the burden. You don’t have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices.
There’s nobody you defrauded specifically. But they went back and they looked at cases over 70 years, I believe was about 150 cases, and found that there was no case where there was a ban on doing business. Yeah. Folks, judging Goron, 70 years 150 cases of precedents. He just ignored all that because he hates President Trump. And he believes and because he’s got the power because we stupidly continue to fund individuals who abuse us. Thank you Republican Party. This guy said, Yep, I hate Trump’s I’m just gonna, I’m just gonna do whatever the hell I want. Because who’s gonna stop me? Where there wasn’t harm shown so even though that the the threshold is harm shown in the past, it has only been used to ban someone doing business when it’s been shown that somebody was hurt.
Say you’re selling cosmetics that that are poisoning you. There’s somebody that was hurt there, the cosmetics company gets banned. Is this fair to go after Donald Trump like this in this environment? When you’ve got Katy Tur at MSN BS asking about the fairness of this? It is, folks. It is a clear sign that they’ve gone too far. When the left wing it as much as they despise President Trump. When committed left wingers go whoa, whoa, wait a minute, we we may have jumped the shark on this one. We’re going too far. This is no longer America. This is something else. Now there there have been plenty of ramifications for what Judge and Goron did. Of course, it is widely accepted. This is going to be appealed and it will be overturned on appeal. Because it’s as as stated. It’s absolutely outlandish, no precedent for it whatsoever. There’s no justice here. But the people of New York who are represented by judging Goron are are starting to feel the ramifications.
I said on the Newsmax show, that if I were president Trump, I would shut down. Shut down every business I have in New York, I would divest out of New York. If I were a business in New York, I would not now that it’s open law fair and anybody doing business, you just you disagree with the leftist? And they’re gonna say, Well, we’re going to start slapping judgments against you for $350 million and prohibiting you from doing business. We’re going to wipe out your companies because you went against a left winger. I mean, seriously, I would shutter my businesses and I tip the hell out of New York right now. Get out. There is a story in The New York Post. Trump loving truckers are saying they’re going to refuse to drive to New York after former President Trump was slapped with this $355 million fine.
And judgment last week. You know what you people in New York want to support this debauchery? This weaponization of the law against free speech as weaponization of of law to take out the left wings political opponents go right ahead. But you’re going to do it without us. See if you can if you guys want to deliver your own groceries, deliver your own goods fine. We’re going to refuse to haul it going to refuse.
No, nobody’s safe in New York. Folks. If you disagree with leftist go ahead and move your business to New York. I’m sorry if you if you agree with leftist go move your business to New York. If you disagree with leftists and you want the ability to have the freedom to disagree with leftists then leave New York and leave California and leave Illinois and then there’s another story that just came out I don’t know if you guys this didn’t get a lot of reportage but I think it’s right in line with what we’re talking about.
Now, Mark Stein, as you all remember, conservative host you’ve seen him on Fox he used to fill in for Rush Limbaugh quite frequently. Now he has been in this well for lack of a better term pissing match with Michael Mann, Penn State’s climate scientist alarmist. And Mark Stein agreed partially with somebody else’s opinion and was found liable for a million dollars. And well, as you all know, Michael Mann was the one who authored this controversial hockey stick model that has been used by the United Nations, basically costing people all over the globe, billions and billions and billions of dollars, with it, giving legitimacy to the manmade global warming religion, as I’ve called it. And Mark Stein was citing an opinion from somebody else who by the way, didn’t get hit with a hefty as a fine, the original purveyor of the opinion didn’t get hit with with it with as much as a fine as Mark Stein did.
Now just give you some background, Michael Mann Co wrote a paper in 1999 using tree ring data as a proxy for temperature. To show that over the last 1000 years, temperatures declined slightly until 1960, when they dramatically spiked up. The IPCC featured man’s work prominently in 2001. And of course, there have been subsequent challenges to this. Some people believe that the spike in temperature was the cause of the rise of co2 and not the other way around. But it’s a debate and we used to be able to have these debates, not anymore. The problem was hundreds of scientists highly critical of man’s work Stephen McIntyre.
For one, an Oxford educated PhD in mathematics published several papers, one in the same journal that published man’s original paper concluding that man’s results lacked statistically significant statistical significance. And worse, he showed man’s data manipulation. It’s so strong that a hockey stick is nearly always generated from trendless red noise from McIntyre’s efforts man called him a professional liar, a denier for hire a heinous climate villain, a barely perceptible stain, a horrible person and a white supremacist comments like this.
Were not isolated Professor Emeritus Judith curry, who man called a climate denier testify that man violated norms of science and codes of professional conduct repeatedly and egregiously. Few Years Later emails were leaked from the University of East Anglia. One email read, let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline. To hide the decline man’s data trick would come to be known as climate gate, the tree ring, data showed decreasing temperatures after 1960 not increasing temperatures. According to this write up in lifesite News, man had removed the post 1960 tree ring data, replacing it with temperature data and smooth the curve to give the appearance of a hockey stick. The backlash was immediate and devastating. Berkeley professor Richard Miller presented a lecture to his students rebuking man’s work. They deceived the scientists and deceive the public.
The justification for inserting temperature data would not have survived peer review in any journal I’m willing to publish. I’m willing to publish it. You’re not allowed to do this in science. The climate gate scandal prompted Penn State man’s employers to launch an independent investigation that ultimately cleared man of manipulating data, deleting records and hampering scientific discourse. Notoriously, Penn State had cleared football coach Gary Sandusky of sexual misconduct with young boys in the locker room, only to have the FBI bring charges that landed not only Sandusky in prison, but for his part in the cover up university president Graham Spanier as well.
Man’s investigators were about to censure him until Spanier insisted on man’s exoneration shortly afterwards, Stein’s co defendant, a man by the name of Rand sim Berg would pin the statement that led the jury to find him liable for defamation. Now, here’s the statement. Quote, man could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data and quote now for quoting this in remember Mark Stein I quoted Rand sin Berg didn’t claim credit for it just said this is what Rand sin Berg said. Stein was found liable for quoting Sandberg with his comment.
Here’s what Mark Stein said, quote, not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker rooms, showers. With quite the zeal, Mr. Sim Berg does. But he has a point and quote, Stein added that man was, quote, The man behind the fraudulent climate change hockey stick graph, the very ringmaster of the three ring, the tree ring circus and quote. Now, my understanding is ransom Berg was only fined $1,000. Mark Stein, however, was ordered to pay well, damages of $1 for one portion of this lawsuit, but staggering punitive damages of $1 million. Now, what is this going to do to scientific discourse? If you get a left wing scientist who puts out something who doesn’t want to be challenged? Oh, well, if if another of my peers decides to call out my work, I’m just going to sue them. And what is this going to do?
To scientific discourse? Let’s just let me let me just give you an example. What if the original quote unquote scientist who theorized the Earth was flat? What if this mechanism were available? Back then, that anybody that would challenge the idea that the Earth was flat? Well, they’d be ruined? Well, actually, this actually did happen. There were those in the, in the church at the time, that that thought this idea of the earth being round, as something controversial people were, were labeled heretics, and destroy their lives destroyed, literally, sometimes because of this mentality. And this is where our nation is heading. If we don’t put a stop, to the to the, to the blatant attack on free speech, the ability to say, wait a minute, I disagree with what you’re saying, or I’ve got countervailing data or wait a minute. You didn’t dump that iron across that tea here. Can we discuss it?
Oh, no, no, no, no. Any suggestion that we discuss anything? We’re going to sue the pants off of you, folks. This is dangerous, and it can’t stand. More discussions on lawfare coming up on the Saucedo storm podcast.
We have a big conversation to get into with former acting Attorney General of the United States under President Donald J. Trump, Matthew Whitaker, Mr. Whitaker, welcome to the program. Hey, Chris, good to be with you, my friend. I wanted to talk with you about several things going on. And there’s there’s so much in the legal realm to talk about, first off this report that came out by three actual journalists talking about how they haven’t confirmed now it was John Brennan, along with basically colluding with foreign intelligence officials from the Five Eyes group. This is Australia, Great Britain. What is it Sweden, others know that English speaking the English English speaking. Australia, US. There you go. There you go. So these folks colluded to spy on the Trump campaign, which is illegal.
Two questions for you. Number one, why hasn’t this after seven years been investigated? Number two, why is anybody in jail for including Mr. Brennan for breaking the law? Well, this is one of the many frustrations Chris, as I travel the country with folks. I mean, I think, you know, each each card that’s been played in the whole Russian collusion hoax has been a broader conspiracy than anyone could have imagined. And I think a lot of folks, you know, whether it was me at the Department of Justice for this time when I was there, or whether it was Rick Grinnell at DNI, or, you know, you just could go through all the people that had a piece or a part of this that couldn’t connect the dots because of the sophistication with which people like clapper and Brennan and Comey and others had executed this plan.
And it’s, you know, it’s just it was hard to connect all these dots based on how they had originated it, but yeah, this is I mean, this is incredibly damning that, in that they would try to essentially create a false flag that then would cause, you know, these these downstream consequences, including, well, Special Counsel being appointed and you know, the President Trump’s for two years being so disrupted by the chaos that was created by it. So true. And it felt to the chaos that the attorney general is talking about, is the the Russia collusion hoax, which was proven in the end to be a hoax.
And I think the only person who saw jail time from it was was a low ranking lawyer, who I understand is getting his license back, you’ve got to be kidding me. He spent six months in the clink for essentially undermining the the choice of the of the people of the United States, the President of the United States. I don’t understand how leftist Marxist socialist can get away with something like this. And a system is supposed to be fair. And free. What how does this happen? Chris? I mean, that’s, you know, equally my my frustration as well, you know, I left the Department of Justice when Bill Barr took over. And so, you know, didn’t have, you know, access to sort of the second half of the Trump administration.
But you know, what, you know, what I know to be true is that, you know, Bob Muller and his team concluded very early on that there was no coordination between the Russian Government and the Trump campaign. And really, that should have ended it right there. And, you know, instead, it was an unguided missile that, you know, brought, you know, took on people like Roger Stone and others. Paul Manafort, you know, and all the all this, you know, you remember, it was just it was a, it was a giant whirling dervish, this just was wreaking havoc with anybody that happen to be associated with Trump.
And, you know, they get a full examination, if you will, to see if they’ve done anything on whether it was related to Russia or, you know, anything else. So, it just was, you know, it’s exactly the problem that we have with the Special Counsel. In its appointment. I think, you know, this is, if there was ever a time for reform of that piece at the Department of Justice, I think is now however, you know, we’re talking about a broader intelligence community problem, you know, that, you know, it’s not just the Department of Justice in the FBI, it is, you know, things like the CIA, things like, you know, the Director of National Intelligence, and, you know, the military. I mean, it is there. We have massive challenges in that piece.
And in the, in the unelected bureaucrats that oftentimes staff and run these these places. You know, it’s got to, you know, in the next Trump administration has to be routed out by, you know, just on ending attention to fixing those problems. Yes. I mean, this is just, you know, the sophisticated actors like Comey, clapper Brennan, Just were able to manipulate it, almost without their fingerprints on it. And now we’re finally finding their fingerprints all over it as we, as we suspected, but I don’t think we could.
There has to be a complete housecleaning, it has it has to happen, or we’re not going to be the United States of America anymore, which I believe the gentleman you mentioned, that’s their aim. That’s their goal. You mentioned Mother Russia, and Putin is chief rival Navalny is dead. And we don’t know exactly when that happened. But he died in prison, of course. And that’s that’s the way they do things over and Mother Russia. And now we hear that a special counsel David Weiss, probably one of the most worthless individuals on the planet, he, he is now charging the individual who provided information on FBI 1023 against Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
They’re now arresting this man, Alexander Smirnoff, H 43. They’re arresting him for providing false information to the FBI after all this time. And it just my first observation as well jail your political opponents. What is your reaction to this? Yeah, remember that this is a source for the FBI, I think I believe he’s a paid source, someone that had access to certain people, and just would report every, you know, so often what was hearing and, you know, this is going to have certainly a chilling effect on the collection of intelligence, if we start going after our sources for intelligence and the people that, you know, give us visibility as to what’s happening in the former Soviet Union.
So I don’t I don’t know enough about to be honest with you. I just read this this morning, the journal and I don’t have enough information to know exactly the facts. But, you know, certainly, the political damage that was caused by this report, certainly, you know, embarrassed the FBI and others. And so I think they, you know, they, you know, they’re human beings. And I, you know, I obviously we can’t people can’t break the rule of law. But you know, we should also Well, wait a minute. Judging by the the level of corruption you and I have just been talking about across the CIA across the, the FBI, the Department of Justice, is there room to say, wait a minute, this sounds like a trumped up charge, no pun intended. This sounds like a trumped up charge to run political cover for Joe Biden. And to stop his detractors are those who would inform on what they know about him to stop them from talking? Yeah, no, this is my point, Chris, I just don’t know enough to know enough.
And so there’s obviously a line that we need to know where this falls, whether it’s just someone reporting what they had heard, or whether it’s somebody that actually made up a falsehood, and, you know, and so that’s, that’s where I think the line is, and we got to figure out, you know, and I don’t know, you know, just based on today’s story, I don’t know enough. But you know, certainly, what you say could be a valid criticism. I mean, they’re the bear the political embarrassment, this last summer, over this revelation. And, you know, my home state Senator Chuck Grassley was all over this 1023 And what it contained, certainly did damage and help further, you know, the corrupt Biden family, which they are, I mean, you know, this, this does not take away, so many other things. Burisma you know, CFTC and all the other connections between Ukraine, China, Romania, and other countries that 100 Biden was doing business. Former Attorney General Matt Whittaker, our guest right now, folks here on the court Salcedo show, let’s talk about these, as we are talking about Vladimir Putin’s political opposition dying in prison. Let’s talk about some of these cases against President Trump.
The classified documents case really have Americans because of the her report, have Americans running for the exits? Who are Democrats no longer supporting Joe Biden, because he was declared incompetent to stand trial. But that but the Democrats are saying well, no, he’s perfectly competent to fail to run the country. But let’s let’s let’s talk about the law and what it says about classified documents. They’re prosecuting President Trump, who had every right to have classified documents.
They’re prosecuting him. But Joe Biden who never had any right to any of these classified documents as a senator or vice president, they’re saying he will not be prosecuted because somebody might find him. forgetful or some sort of mentally incompetent. Can you tell me Oh, and here’s the other difference. Mr. Attorney General, they’re also saying, because Joe Biden gave up willingly all of his 40 plus years of stealing documents. He gave it all up willingly. It’s okay. But because President Trump claimed that he had rights to these documents that he declassified, he says, then that’s what’s going to put Trump behind bars. Can you tell me the legal predicate of oh, all you got to do is cooperate and you get off? Yeah. Don’t forget, President Trump has a very legitimate Presidential Records Act argument as well. So it’s hard to explain. I mean, you know, it’s, again, we’re back in sort of Hillary Clinton land where no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case, even though there were significant violations of the law.
You know, it is not, you don’t get to get out of jail free card just because you cooperated. Or once you were caught, you decided to turn over the ill gotten gains. I mean, let’s remember, you know, these were documents that then Senator Biden took out of the Senate Skiff. These are documents that Vice President Biden just took from the White House in order to bolster his opposition to the surge in Afghanistan under President Obama. And you know, so this was an intentional act. This was something that he in 2017, after he left the White House, he realized he had he said to his ghostwriter for his book that he, you know, found the documents in his basement, didn’t turn them over, then certainly, you know, the clock was ticking in that he discovered them and knew he was supposed to have them. So the, you know, the her report wall, you know, certainly points out everything we already know, which is he’s a doddering old man.
You know, doesn’t mean that he gets, he should get a free pass. Now, obviously, department justice has a policy that you don’t can’t prosecute a sitting president until he leaves office. And, you know, Mr. Herrera, who I worked with, while I was at the Department of Justice, understood that, in addition to the policy that he just, you know, was going to have a hard time convincing the Washington DC jury, you know, this 95%, Joe Biden voters that they should convict Joe Biden, and that’s the problem with the modern system, American justice, I think we’ve talked about this before, Chris, on your TV show, you know, it just, it is a modern reality that there is no justice, especially in Washington, DC, Donald Trump is finding that with this judge, Chuck can and any jury that he might ultimately face is going to be very hostile, and that that is not fundamental fairness under the American system of justice, you know, they should be willing to take this case, to, let’s say, West Virginia, or somewhere that, you know, is more friendly to Donald Trump and actually try to prove this in a place that, you know, would give some level of fairness but you know, that’s what that’s what the railroad job is on this whole on all these all these cases.
But well, the last case I wanted to discuss with you is what we’re gonna we’re gonna skip Alvin Bragg, because even Democrats are saying New York’s Alvin Bragg’s case is absolute. It’s, it’s creating a felony out of a misdemeanor, a state misdemeanor. It’s basically turning a creating a felony out of unicorn poop and fairy dust. And so we’re not even Alvin Braggs. contention is just so it’s going to be thrown out. It’s an embarrassment to even Democrats. So let’s talk about Fannie Willis, down in Georgia. Yesterday, she’s on the stand.
And I don’t know how much of his trial that you watched. But she is now defend because she’s she’s an unethical, typical Democrat. Here she is. And this is a very brief sell. But I just want you to listen to it because now her ethics are being called into question, which is also calling in to question the validity of the entire case she’s brought against Trump, listen to this, your office objected to us getting Delta records for flights that you may have taken when this well done. I object to you getting records, you’ve been intrusive into people’s personal lives, you’re confused. You think I’m on trial, these people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial, but she is she is on trial. She her ethics are on trial. Yes. Yeah. And I you know, like a lot of Americans, I watched the whole thing yesterday, and you know, it was pretty clear what was going on is that they you know, had a relationship.
They were the sad thing and play this forward, Chris, is that both of these, Mr. Wade and the DA DEA, Willis are both going to be in significant trouble as they’ve because now they’re under oath, laying out a story that as it was pretty obvious was just not a believable story, but it’s the only story that they can make up in order to save their skin yesterday. Get back on the stand today. This hearing is going to continue today. More must watch TV and you know, I think it’s I think it’s pretty clear not only unethical, but it’s pretty clear they had an illegal business relationship where she was giving him a pretty lucrative contract of six $700,000.
To do to be the lead prosecutor in this case, and then that they were taking lavish trips to places like Aruba, Belize cruises, Napa Valley wine pairings with caviar and champagne. I mean, it was it was pretty, pretty incredible. And then, you know, somehow they split those expenses, because she paid them back in cash, you know, and if, and if he needed to, you know, what would G large I can’t remember exactly. Right. phrasing it was just, it was just it was it was a fascinating Well, look into her just how incompetent. Really, she was now qualified to be a major County, da. Org.
It’s fascinating to see how unqualified Democrats are how entitled Democrats are. And what makes this so unique is that it is the only example I can find a high profile Democrat that’s actually coming close to facing justice. And all that this isn’t even a full blown trial. This is this is just trying to determine whether or not she’s ethical enough to have to have properly created a case against President Trump and by all indications. She’s not Matthew Whitaker, former Attorney General of the United States, sir, we appreciate the time as always. Thanks for your time, always enjoyed my friends in Texas.
And thank you, sir, that’s gonna do it, everybody. For the Salcedo storm podcast. Do me a favor, visit a couple of websites Texas scorecard.com and Chris salcedo.com. That’s where you’re tracking on big news in Texas and including our social media. Until we visit again, my friends remember this society is worth isn’t measured by how much power is stolen by government. It’s measured by how much power is reserved for you and me. We the People stay vigilant out there my friends
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
