Attention. You're listening to the top Huff radio show, America's home for conservative not bitter talk radio. The advised the content of this program has been documented to prevent and even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean to the right. Here's your Conservative but not Bitter host Todd Huff. All right, my friends, So the House of Representatives has found Merrick Garland to be
in contempt of Congress for refusing to release the video. The video of the question and answer session, the interrogation, if you will, between Biden in his well ended up in the her report. So he's now officially in contempt of Congress, and we'll see what happens from here. But I want to talk about that here at the beginning of the program today. But we'll get to that here as things come together. Welcome to the program. Email Todd
at todefshow dot com three one seven two one zero twenty eight thirty. Should you want to text your thoughts and questions and all of that, I welcome you to do that. Before we get rolling, I want to remind you, my friends, that you have I have a responsibility to maintain our health. You know, one of the underlying, I guess foundations of this program
of conservatism is that there's this concept of individual responsibility. Now, we're not responsible for everything that goes on in the world, and there are certainly things that we deal with from time to time that are not under our control. But for the grace of God, there's some things that are just I mean, we can't control everything, but we do have responsibility, responsibility to take care of ourselves and to take care of those things that we have a responsibility
for, like those little children that drive you crazy sometimes. But anyway, one of those things, of course, is taking care of your health. And one way you can do that is taking some natural health supplements. So so we've partnered with z Stack here on the program to share that they well a little bit about who they are, the products that they provide. They've created a series of formulations, so trust the brand created by doctor Zolinko clinically
proven ingredients. It's proudly manufactured right here in the good old US of A. They've got a series of six products that you will find at zstaklife dot com, slash Todd and use my name Todd at checkout. You're gonna say fifteen percent. They got their original Z stack formula, they've got Z Shield, they've got a kid's version of Z Stack, they've got zflu, Z
Detox, and Z Night. So for more information about those products, to see what each one is designed to help you with, zstaklife dot com, slash Todd again, z stacklife dot com slash Todd use my name Todd at checkout and you're going to save fifteen percent. Interested in having Todd speak at your church or event. He's available in more locations than you may think. Visit Todd Huffshow dot com slash speak for more information. All right, so
let's get into this latest development in Washington, DC. This again, this cold civil war that we are enduring here in this nation. Congress has voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in the contempt of Congress. Now, before we get into that specifically, let me go back a little bit into history, because I think it's important that we recognize who we're dealing with here.
Because if you've been a student of politics for some time, you will remember you'll remember back in twenty sixteen, twenty sixteen that the there was a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. The vacancy was created when one of the all time best justices on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia. I love antonin Scalia. I had the privilege of seeing antonin Scalia on the bench on the
Supreme Court. We watched oral arguments in nineteen ninety nine. If you've not had the opportunity to do that and you're in Washington, d C. I know that we watched oral arguments in April. But there's certain seasons, certain sessions where you can do that. It's something that I think is very Worthwhile I had to get there super early, I'm guessing that's still the case. It's first come, first serve. But I remember watching antonin Scalia when he
was a justice on the Supreme Court. It's one of the only times I've ever felt a little bit sorry for an attorney. Anton and Scalia starts peppering one of the attorneys with questions about three seconds in to his, you know, presentation of his case before the Supreme Court, and Antonin Scalia was relentless. Another justice has jumped in as well, and of course Clarence Thomas is sitting over there. That was the first time I'd ever seen this. I
didn't really understand that. Clarence Thomas. I was a kid, young man. Clarence Thomas was sitting eyes closed, with his head tilted back, looking directly straight above his head, just looking straight up in the sky, eyes closed. For a while, I thought maybe he had fallen asleep. I didn't know, but that's how he listens to cases. And so this whole thing is going on, and I just remember antonin Scalia, just rapid fire
questions, boom boom, boom, boom boom. And of course, if you read much of what antonin Scalia wrote, if you listen to him giving speeches, this was a guy who really had an unbelievable mind, just an incredibly intelligent, great legal mind, great defender of the constitution, just kind of an example really for the way that conservative thinking should be done. In fact, I remember I remember that Rush. Of course, you know my
you know my uh love for Rush. But Rush used to say, if he didn't have his brain, he the next best choice would have been the brain of Antonin Scalia. So anyway, but Scullia was something else. Scalia passed away tragically, and I think it was February of twenty sixteen now, you'll remember all this if you followed this. Some of you again maybe newer to following politics, so this might be this might be a little bit new. But Scalia was a conservative justice, and by that, let me let
me explain what that means for starters. See, conservative justice does not mean that you are someone who believes in conservative policies and tries to enact them from
the bench. Really what we mean what I mean when I say a conservative justice, it's someone who revers the Constitution, who believes that it should be interpreted as it was originally intended by those folks who actually wrote the document, an originalist right, people who actually try to understand what it meant at the time, so that we can understand what the founders are trying to communicate and establish, so that then we can apply that to today's world and to the
laws that were the laws that are being reviewed before the Supreme Court as they're deciding a particular case. But that's how this should be done. And a conservative justice just means that a conservative justice who doesn't like a particular law is not going to dis unilaterally from the bench, say you can't do it. The law has to be overturned. That is what a liberal justice has become. That liberals have become activist judges. That's what that's synonymous with today.
An activist judge basically means that if they don't like something, they will use their well their power to create law from the bench. That's not what they are allowed to do by the Constitution. But that is of course, there's no other checkpoint for that. I mean, Congress can then try to pass
a law to overdo it. But if half of Congress, half of Congress is in agreement with what the justice or the judge in whatever case this might be, what the judge ruled, then it's going you're gonna have a difficult time doing anything about that. So but when I say conservative justice, I mean someone who just interprets and applies the Constitution as to intend it originally. So that's what Scalia was. And so there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
And you'll remember that twenty sixteen was an electioneer. This is the election that Trump won fair and square, although they tell you that he stole it with the help of Putin by tricking Hillary voters into voting for him using Facebook ads and Twitter ads and pokemon go ads. But Scalia's vacancy. There's in the Constitution, there's a clear path, a clear series of things that has
to happen. The President of the United States is to make an appointment for that opening, and Congress, specifically the Senate provides and advise and consent role, which means they have to approve the nominee. And so Mitch McConnell, the Republicans controlled the Senate back in twenty sixteen, Mitch McConnell said, we're not going Our advice to this president, President Obama is that we're not going
to give consent. Our advice is to keep your nominee to yourself. I mean, you can make the nomination, but our advice is that we are not going to do anything about that. We are going to wait until this election plays out before we actually actually have a new Supreme Court justice here on the court, before we vote for someone. And there was a risk that was there, right because if Hillary Clinton would have won, they would have
nominated some leftists. If of course Trump won, they would nominate someone or the president would nominate someone like Neil Gorsich, which is what happened, and Neil Gorsuch so far as seemed to be a fantastic justice on the Supreme Court. But the nominee. The reason I'm telling you this is because the nominee that was presented back in twenty sixteen, in the wake of the passing of antonin Scalia, the nominee that was presented was our current attorney general. His
name is Merrick Garland. This is the guy who is now being held in contempt of Congress. Now he's the guy that's not giving over the video, and I want to talk about this in due courser the program comes together. But Merrick Garland was presented at the time as this moderate, middle of the road guy. In fact, I remember it was almost like a negotiating chip.
Hey, Conservatives, Mitch McConnell and the Senate, if you guys don't approve of this nominee before the election, you're gonna get Hillary's nominee, and it's gonna be someone that's potentially much more liberal than this guy, Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was painted at this middle of the road guy, somebody that everybody could get along with, fair minded, just above reproach. Merrick Garland. Now he's being held in contempt of Congress. He's being held in contempt
of Congress. So we dodged a major proverbial bullet there by not Mitch mcconnald. One of the only times I'll say Mitch McConnell did the right thing. He did the right thing there, and there's nothing illegal about it. That's the Senate's prerogative. That's what they decided. That was their advice back to the White House in those days, Barack Obama's White House, and their advice
was, we're not going to give consent until after the selection. So I want to talk about but that's important to understand this fair minded guy that we were told. This guy was just above reproach. Everybody could get along with this guy. He's not going to cause any problems for conservatives. He's not a biased guy. Just totally just buy the book. Merrick Garland, who's now been held in contempt of Congress for not providing this video as Congress has
requested. So we'll get to this as the program under unfolds. But before we do that, let me remind you, my friends, if you're currently smoking, and if you're currently using nicotine products, vaping, smoking, chewing tobacco, you know that there are some There's messiness to deal with, right, there's the smoke, the spitting. You've got to go outside take breaks at work. You can't even do it in the office. There's slimy pouches. You gotta deal with bad breath. You wonders. They're a smoky odor
on me. All this stuff going on. And Nicknack Naturals, our friends at Nicknack Naturals have created a mint that fully dissolves in your mouth. It's discreete it's odorless. You can do it sitting in the office. You don't have to take these smoke breaks. You don't have to worry about all these other effects that come from smoking and chewing and vaping. And Nicknack Naturals is
here to help you crush your vice. So you can go to their website nicknack dot com, in icnac nicknack dot com and you can shop their products.
You can see the different flavors that they have. You can get a variety fat pack of flavors, I should say, and you can see which one you like the best or if you prefer you can if you know your flavor, you can order a pack of cans that has the same flavor, whatever the case, if you use my name Todd at checkout, you're going to save fifteen percent crush device with Nick Knack Natural's my friends visit their website
Nicknack dot com. Promo code Todd saves you fifteen percent. Sponsors and advertisers of The Todd Huff Show do not necessarily agree with the views, ideas, and opinions expressed on this program, but they absolutely should so. Merrick Garland, who again in twenty sixteen, was presented to us as the I mean, straight as an arrow, absolutely no problems whatsoever kind of guy. This guy was just, I mean just totally above reproach. That's what we were
told. We were told that he was going to be a completely fair and unbiased Supreme Court justice. He's now the Attorney General of the United States of America, and he's now been held in contempt of Congress, and he's been held in contempt of Congress because he has not released the video, the video
of President Biden's speaking with special counsel Robert Hurr in the interview process. Remember, he was going through and determining Robert Hurr, special prosecutor, special counsel to see if there was you know, if Biden should be recommended for criminal
prosecution, and you'll remember that her report. Robert Hurr wrote these words in regards to his encounters with Biden. He wrote this, Biden presented himself as a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory, and he further added that it would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him, by then a former president well into his eighties, of a serious felony that requires a man mental state of wilfulness. So basically the conclusion was
this guy that I've been interviewing the president of the United States. This is again Robert Hurr's words I read. Those were quotes that I read you. His words basically say to us, a jury would not want to convict this guy because they would be sympathetic to him because he doesn't really know what's going on, and so he gets that. There's reaction from both sides. You know, you got Republicans here saying that's a pretty big problem. I mean,
can you give us more information about this. This guy is the leader of the free world, what you know, help us to understand this. Democrats are saying, why are you even saying this, your job isn't to do anything besides decide whether or not you would refer this for a a criminal you know, criminal charges. What are you doing? Why are you bringing this into the mix? You're adding things to this that don't need to need
to be added. But I think the reason he did that, I think is because he knew that if he didn't give some degree of rationale that it just looks it looks completely suspect here because we can all see, we can all see the connections, we can all see the problems that exist within within this administration, and we can see that there's a little bit of well, where there's smoke, there's fire. Right. So again again this is has caused lots of people to want to know more, and so Merrick Garland.
Congress has called Merrick Garland and there's been some fiery testimony and some back and forth. They called him in and said, look, you know, we need we need to see more of this, provide the video. Merrick Garland says, no. Now, this is interesting because we have three separate branches
of government. Right, We've got the executive branch that's the president. We've got the legislative branch, that's Congress, which is the House of Representatives in the Senate, and of course we've got the judiciary, which includes our federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And so we have this concept in American government that says that they're separate but equal, meaning that they have a way to have checks and balances for each other.
And so they're separate, they have clear responsibilities, but other branches can hold them in check. So, for example, Congress can pass a law, the President can then veto that law. Congress can then take that vetoed law, and if they have what's called a supermajority, they can override that veto. They can say, we have so much support for this in Congress, your veto no longer matters. So now it becomes law in spite of the
fact that you're not going to sign it or approve it. And so there's all these sorts of things that go back and forth in cong well in our government. So you've got the same thing you've got. Congress has oversight authority on the executive branch. They can bring them in for hearings and questioning. They can that they can ask for information right, they can do all these
things. But there's also a thing called executive privilege. Executive privileges. Hey, this is something it's kind of like, it's kind of like, I
guess loosely, this concept of attorney client privilege. You know, you can put someone on trial right if there's if there's evidence, and if you've gotten a grand jury to say that that's appropriate or whatever the particulars are in a case, and you can have that be the case, and the defense have to show up in court, but the defense doesn't have to take the stand. The defense can certainly keep conversations private between the client and the attorney.
That's all good for our system of justice. And so there's some things the court cannot ask, there's some things that the jury cannot hear. All these things that go into just this process, and so there are things that the president can say, I'm not telling you this. In fact, this is where we get into Steve Bannon, for example, being held in contempt of Congress, by the way, serving a four month sentence. Now Peter Navarro
as well, So this is there's some legitimacy. But again, context, as always is the case is king, So I want to talk about this a little bit more as the program comes together, my friends. But let me remind you that we have a partnership with Harvard Gold Group and you can find more out find out more about that at Harvard Gooldgroup dot com slash tied. You can go there to sign up for well to get your free investment guide. But let me tell you about a couple of things at Harvard Gold
Group. First, they have a low price guarantee. That means that they're committed to offering you the best value possible. They will meet or match any competit prices. They have a customer satisfaction guarantee. Harvard Gold Group is a five star rated company that strives to maintain one hundred percent customer service satisfaction. They understand that choosing a precious metals company is a personal and important decision for
your financial future. That's why they are committed to providing you with the best possible experience and value in purchasing precious metals for direct delivery, storage, and setting up or setting up a precious metals IRA. They have price transparency and that means that they communicate all the fees and costs associated with your account. Their goal is to build long lasting relationships based upon trust and mutual respect.
And they have the Harvard Buyback Program, which is where they charge you zero fees because they understand the importance of providing you with an easy, secure way to sell back some or all of the precious metals you bought from Harvard Gold Group. So Harvard Gold Com slash Todd is where you can go for more information or to sign up for that free information guide. You can also use my name Todd to get a two hundred and fifty dollars credit should you decide
to move forward with an investment at Harvard Gold. So time out here is in order. I want to get back. I want to continue talking about this situation with Merrick Garland. I want to talk about executive privilege. I want to talk about what he's doing. I want to kind of compare and contrast what's going on here. And again, this guy was very close to being a Supreme Court justice in the United States, and we were told things
about him that simply aren't true. This guy, this guy is a partisan hack, and I just I can't help but think back to twenty sixteen and realize that the things that now we have with Neil Gorsuch. How much different the court would be if we had Justice Merrick Garland in the mix. We dodged a proverbial bullet there, my friends, quick time out though, we be back here in just a minute. They come back to my friends just talking a little bit about America. Garland, the Attorney General of the United
States of America, being held in contempt of Congress by Republicans. You know, there was a procedural vote that was too eight to two O seven to eight to two O seven. One Republican actually joined the Democrats in not wanting this to move forward. The actual vote, though, was the procedural vote could have killed it. So there were people that didn't that didn't vote for that, that ended up voting for this thing once it was, you know,
going going forward, once it cleared that procedural hurdle. But there was one Republican who did not vote in favor of this, and I just David Joyce his name. The final vote was two sixteen to two. He's a Republican from Ohio. This is what he's this is what he said. As a former prosecutor, I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that would further politicize our judicial system to score political points. The American people expect Congress to
work for them, solve policy problems, and prioritize good governance. Enough is enough now, I would certainly hear that out because I don't want to see I don't want to see the what the weaponization of the Department of Justice. But but let's also be clear here, don't I don't see that as what's
going on. And you know, people, anytime there's a need to provide context and explanation, you run the risk of people checking out, not understanding, not being able to connect the dots, not caring because they'll say, look, you got all upset when because you said the Department of Justice was targeting Trump, Now you're targeting Biden. Fact, this was one of the
common refrains that people are now saying. Since Hunter got convicted, Hunter Hunter, Biden got convicted, So now we know that the judicial system is not biased, right, That's that's what we're supposed to believe. Of course, there's a bazillion factors that play into this. Certainly, there had to be a willingness to to file the charges to begin with, and that could have started that had to run through all sorts of people that that ended up getting
to Biden. I there's no doubt to me that this stuff is discussed strategically in everything else. I think they've I think they realized that as it pertains to Hunter, Biden's trial, and as it pertains to Trump's trial. I think that they did the calculation and they thought, look, the Hunter's not going to get jail time. I mean, I don't know that for a fact. There's a maximum of twenty five years, but I just it's it's his first crime. I just I don't think that that's going to be the
outcome. If it is, it's going to be very, very minimal. And by the way, as well, I think it should be. I think they got they got together and they strategized, and they said, look, Hunter, if your dad's in office again for four more years, I mean, there's gonna be some lucrative deals out there allegedly for you, right. I mean, I think that that there's a part of this that says, look, we want to beat this guy so badly. You know,
it's it's making the best of a bad situation. It also gives us ammunition to say, look, the government is fair. The Department of Justice is not being weaponized this. It's dealing with people on both sides of this political divide that we have, and so I think that that was something that they strategically decided it was it was worth it. Does that also mean, well, that mean that neither one of them, Trump nor Hunter will be given
jail time. I don't know. I'm not predicting any of that. Trump's sentencing here is about a month away, so we'll see how that all plays out, see how that all plays out. But specifically, back to Merrick Garland, who of course is at the head of the He's at the head of this, he's at the Department of Justice. Now can say that not all of these crimes that Trump has been charged with happen in the state level, but there's certainly it's naive to think that there's not some level of coordination
communication. And besides that, a lot of folks don't need to be told. If you're a radical leftist, you don't need to be told to take down your political enemies. You definitely don't need to be told to take down Trump. A lot of this stuff is just known, it's just common knowledge. It's like you don't have to tell people to breathe. This is what
they do. So, but back specifically to this contempt situation with Merrick Garland, the White House, the executive branch certainly has a prerogative to say that something falls under the executive privilege. The president does not work for Congress, so the Congress is not over the president, but they have oversight into the executive branch, which means there are times that they can absolutely as well they should be able to demand answers for certain things from the executive branch. This
is the way that it's been set up. It's for checks and balances. It's to prevent the abuse of power. It's to prevent the consolidation of power, which of course are deadly to a constitutional, freedom loving republic. So you've got this situation where the executive branch can from time to time say,
look, we're not providing that. So for example, for example, if there were recordings of conversations between Merrick Garland and Joseph Biden about whatever that's happening, that's part of the functioning of the executive branch, then I would say they absolutely do not have to turn that over. However, this is something different. This is something that special counsel where we were told, remember too, we were told this is an important factor. We were told that the
administration was going to have nothing to do with this. This in fact, this was an attempt for them to wash their hands of this, to say, look, we're stepping out of this. We're handing this over to Robert Hurr. The President's not even gonna know about it. Merrick Garland's not even really gonna know about it besides just you know, getting some reports now and again. But this is not it's under the Department of Justice, but it's
not really under the Department of Justice. You've heard me talk about this before. You've heard me talk about how that's really not even possible. But they've told us that that's what this was. So if it's not really under the Department of Justice, as they've claimed, this really had nothing to do with Merrick Garland, he passed it off to Robert hurt and said, go do
whatever you got to do. Then why now? Why now say that the public record of this should not be given, should not be just made available
to everybody. See to me, that's the question. It doesn't belong if it's part of the public record, my friends, it does not belong to the executive branch if it's not something that is part of their private dealings and inner workings and things that they have the right to keep private from congres and even from the American people, just because you have to be able to communicate about some things without having to feel like everything is going to be subject to
you know, public review. However, if it is part of public the public process, which would include public investigations, then I would argue that this absolutely is the property not just of It's not the property of Congress. It's the property of the American people, and we have every right to see this. Now, was there something that came up that is sensitive and the conversations maybe okay, redacted. How many times have we seen redacted files, redacted
this, redacted that? How many times have we seen that? Well a lot? Right, you see, you'll see copies of documents, and there'll be things that are completely blacked down, black boxes, covering names, covering other sensitive bits of information. Whatever. You can do the same thing, same thing with the audio files. You can delete those portions out right. You can do this. What legitimate reason does Congress have excuse me the executive
branch have does Merrick Garland have from hiding this information from you? That's what I want to know, because I can't think of anything as all. Representative Chip Roy came out and said that there's really no reason for this. They just don't want They don't want Congress to hear it. They don't want Congress
to hear what was on that tape because they'll understand. They'll understand that Robert Hurr was not being hyper critical when he said that Biden would have trouble being convicted because the jury would be sympathetic because he would come across as this old feeble man. The American people would hear it on that tape for themselves. I have no doubt about this. That's what's going on here. So if they can just delay past the election, it will no longer matter. But
and that appears to be what's gonna happen here. So anyway, I'm gonna take a break here in a minute. But friends, I want to tell you about something that I've recently recently done. I as I've shared on here before, as I mentioned on here before, I used to I was an athlete in college. I was in good shape, but I've I've let the
pounds pack on here in recent years. And so about a month or so ago, I started a journey with a group called my Phdweightloss dot com my phdweightloss dot Com and I'm a month or so in and I've lost about ten pounds. It's a program that's designed, of course, to help to help get to a healthier weight, and so there's it's a pretty comprehensive program. They've got coaches, a coach that you'll meet with on a weekly basis, which I think is is a helpful thing. Even though I missed a couple
here recently, but it's good to have those check ins. They have food as well. Now you don't have to eat all of their food. They have a dietary guide as well, explaining the process. They walk through this with you. But you can get some food and I'd be lying to you if I told you I liked all of it, but you can pick what you like. So at the beginning they give you everything that you know to kind of try a sampling of everything. But there's some good foods in there
as well. In fact, they've every day you have this afternoon protein bar. These protein bars are I mean delicious? I love the protein bars. In fact, I get the what do I get the crunchy it's the crunchy caramel. I think. Anyway, I've been doing this if you are interested in getting to a healthier weight, if your stories like mine, maybe you've gotten a little bit lazy or busy. That's a part of it too.
You just get busy, you start developing bad habits. My phdeweightloss dot com is where you can go, or you can call eight six four six four four nineteen hundred eight sixty four six four four nineteen hundred my phdweight loss dot com. I have to take a break, my friends. You're listening here to conservative not bitter talk. I'm your host, Tod Huff Back in just a minute, Welcome back to my friends. Brought up the Hunter Biden verdict
yesterday. Well not yesterday, Well we talked about it yesterday, but brought it up in the last segment. How about that? So I found this article in Where is this Politico dot com? As always, this is listed on the stack, listed in the stack of stuff, and Biden is out there. Apparently, according to this report, he told a confidant, if you want heck of a confidant. By the way, if the confidant goes
to Politico to tell you, to tell Politica what he said. But this is apparently what Biden told a confidante who then ran off and told Politico. He said, quote, if I weren't running for reelection, he referring to his son, Hunter would have gotten the plea deal. So that's what Biden's out there saying. Look, Biden is now saying that Hunter is being targeted.
Basically, there's being more scrutiny, there's being more you know, they're they're being harsher on him because he's the son of the President of the United States who's running for reelection. And now the narrative, the narrative is that if Biden wasn't running, at least according to according to Biden, if Biden wasn't running for reelection, they just would have given Hunter a plea deal.
You know, it's interesting to me because if someone who supports Trump, or even someone who is just trying to be objective in this whole entire process with everything going going on, this law fair as they call it, if we are if someone simply says, look, they are clearly they have an axe to grind in going after Trump. If someone says that today, if someone thinks that, if someone even wonders that they're they're criticized, they're they're being
told by the left, you know, the justice system is not targeting its political opponents. In fact, by virtue of going after Hunter Biden, that should now prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not doing that. Of course, context is king, can I defy you, I defy you to go to somebody and and the average person can tell you. They can explain to you why Hunter Biden got convicted. Hunter Biden lied on a form that said he was not taking drugs when he applied for when he when he
purchase the handgun. Now there might be questions as to whether or not these things are constitutional in accordance with the Second Amendment. And look, I don't if this would cause the Supreme Court to hear something and fix a situation in law in the statute, then I say that that's fantastic. I don't want Hunter Biden to suffer the consequence of a law that's unconstitutional. But this is the way, this is currently how the law is. This is what the
law is. It's a pretty straightforward thing. It's not highly complicated. He
was on drugs and he said he wasn't. The law is that you're not supposed to be applying for these things, purchasing these things while you're on drugs, because that's deemed a something that the state wants to regulate, because people who are on drugs are more dangerous, that there's more likely a chance of there being a crime committed there not likely as well, not as frequently in their right mind, and so forth, there's a risk with that as far
as that is concerned. You can be under the influence and then use that weapon in a dangerous manner, in a manner that's not just in self defense, but actually used as an offensive weapon to go out and be the provocateur an actual violent criminal. That's the thinking behind it, and so that's the law that he broke. This is not complicated. Ask the average person who hates Trump to explain what happened to him, What was actually guilty? Why?
What was he actually guilty of? And when you realize that the whole magic here, the whole magic, there's lots of things that had to happen. First of all, they had to do all sorts of First, they had to ignore the fact that these misdemeanors were past the statute of limitations.
Then they had to find a felon aye to tie these misdemeanors too, because if there's an underlying felony that these mens demeanors could be tied to, then the statute of limitations goes away and these misdemeanors become felonies because they're attached to another felony. Then on top of that, you had to then say, the judge says, you don't have to all agree as to what the underlying
felony is. You just have to agree that there was one. And so the jury could have thought four of them could have thought, you know, the felony was the underlying felony was felony A. Four of them could have thought it was felony. B. Four of them could have thought it was felony. C. These things are None of these things are common. Not to mention that this has never been done to a former president current nominee for the President of the United States, not that we're in uncharted waters in every
conceivable way. I'm thinking back to the mar A Lago raid as it pertains to the document's case. I compare and contrast that to what Biden did even before he was president. He had documents dashed away next to his classic Corvette though so we knew they were safe because Biden loves that car. You know.
You compare and contrast these things. It's truly remarkable. And the mental gymnastics required to get to the point to where Trump is convicted and Biden is convicted Hunter Biden is convicted is not the same thing, not the same thing
at all. One of them's pretty straightforward and easy to follow. The other one requires you to do all sorts of mental gymnastics and to look at all sorts of first and a factor in the political component, and a factor in the other trials, the other things that are going on, and impeachment one, impeachment two, January sixth, all of this stuff, they're not the same thing. I'm out of time, my friends, gotta go. SDG